↪Mapping the Medium I found the study here — frank

I found it in Scientific American, too.

Much to my surprise, no duplication of the experiment has been reported.

This smells funny. Like acetophenone.

Bill Clinton was a huge fan of Ken Wilbur and Obama has taken up this communal theology. It just as bad as Trump's fundamentalism. I think the universe is about justice. Even Parmenides implied as much. Mercy is a sickly idea invented to Christians who knew they were "sinners". Obama says you can't be saved without everyone else. "I am he as you are me and we all all together." I'm not holding hands with Stalin

but during death there <a href="http://can.be.an" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">can.be.an</a> eternity. Paradoxes — Gregory

This is the chemical composition of acetophenone. Or maybe the protein sequence and its markers in the DNA.

I think the universe is about justice. — Gregory

I agree. More precisely, the universe is about corn crop futures in the nineteen-eighties, affecting oil prices in south Lebanon, which had its reverberations in Chilean grape exports to Canada. DAT's what the universe is really all about. Injustices of price cartel agreements.

The acetophenone thing is interesting.

If someone, with full knowledge and full consent, does something against their true conscience, the only way to get out of the situation is to do something good that is greater than the evil done. If you put your crime on someone else (Jesus) and sing Amazing grace, or put your crime on everyone else and watch the movie Home, you are screwed

If someone, with full knowledge and full consent, does something against their true conscience, the only way to get out of the situation is to do something good that is greater than the evil done. If you put your crime on someone else (Jesus) and sing Amazing grace, or put your crime on everyone else and watch the movie Home, you are screwed — Gregory

This is a highly humanocentric view of the universe. Aside from your being right at the same probability rate as your being wrong, the thing you described is of very little concern to the universe as a whole.

While you maintain that you are materialist, this what you wrote and I quoted can't be verified as true unless you pull in some supernatural element, such as "justice prevails", or "karma catches up with you".

The first thing debateable of course is how you define evil. If it is something that is bad, then you can show of any evil deed that to someone else it was not only not evil, but a beautiful thing to create, to do, or to happen.

I think that humans are the pinnacle of the material process. The law of karma is in our genes. The universe is only merciful in the sense that it allows us time to rectify our evils. If you don't do that, the law of karma will drag you to hell

Epigenetic features have presented in many repeated experiments. There is nothing more extraordinary about these mice than about any other experiment (note: it works with ‘unpleasant odors’ not ANY odor - nothing surprising).

Barbara McClintock was ignored for decades before the mainstream scientific community came to heel.

"Epigenetic Inheritance in Nematodes
The memory of a temperature spike can persist for as many as 14 generations in C. elegans.". .... https://www.the-scientist.com/the-literature/epigenetic-inheritance-in-nematodes-31228

This isn’t a science forum. We, at least myself, know about epigenetics. Great big yawn anything to actually say? Anything to discuss?

It’s tiresome when you simply post links and continue to waffle, avoid direct questions, and all whilst proclaiming how other people have complimented you for simplifying complex ideas. Step up. I want more (or rather SOMETHING). I see hints yet when probed - several times - you’ve not answered. It’s boring, my sympathy is running low (stop playing the victim too ffs!)

Note: I listened to one of your podcasts, it wasn’t particularly good or in any way insightful. I do admire your ambition though - the podcast is aimed at people who arrive with empty minds and little to no knowledge of the subject matter. Also, drop the annoying ‘music’.

Much to my surprise, no duplication of the experiment has been reported. — god must be atheist

Why would you find that surprising? Few experimental studies are duplicated.

Anyway, epigenetics in general is not controversial, and hasn't been for a long time (even if the OP is trying to evangelize it as if it was the latest miracle cure). But popular media and various cranks have sensationalized and distorted it to the point that honest biologists cringe when they are asked about it.

Epigenetics has not proved we can evolve into whatever we want. It's is not Sartre

Thank you.

Yes, it's been a learning curve, trying to develop audio properly, and find the sweet spot of the best way to reach the most general audience. There in lies where most of our cultural problems exist. There is a chasm between academia and the general public population of evangelicals and followers of scientism.

The intro music was only started as a recognition sound, and it will be condensed to only a few notes this Spring. The next two episodes will be 'A Bird's Eye View' (explaining how what we think of as 'universal' is limited to human perspective, and introducing the concept of 'semiosphere') and 'The Inside Out of Color'.

I've got much better sound equipment now. Thank goodness!

It’s a tough thing to do. It sounds too scripted and monotone in places - I’ve tried recording myself too, so I know how hard it can be (I’ve never attempted anything scripted though; may be a good idea to use a loose script format).

GL :)

Consciousness is not only inside an individual brain, and this relationship explains the transition of life when the body dies. — Mapping the Medium

so, do you think full, human level Consciousness is possible to be implemented in an AI machine? Or, only organic wet-wear can possess it? Your arguments/views seem to conclude the later.

so, do you think full, human level Consciousness is possible to be implemented in an AI machine? Or, only organic wet-wear can possess it? Your arguments/views seem to conclude the later. — Sir Philo Sophia

In light of synechism (continuity), and the necessity of 'otherness' in the process of semiosis, ... 'emergence' clearly is of an organic nature. No matter how sophisticated, AI machines will never 'emerge' and be a natural processing organism of semiosis.

In light of synechism (continuity) — Mapping the Medium

hogwash. there is nothing about continuity that precludes machine implemented emergent AI conscious agents. If anything, they could be more in touch with the quantum continuum via things like q-bits, quantum wells, single particle systems, etc.

Anyhow, that continuity concept seems unworthy of serious consideration b/c for it to matter the continuum chain would have to transmit a continuum of meaning, which I posit is impossible to preserve between dimensions and even between orders of magnitude in scale. For example, Peirce’s synechism concept fails in the simplest of examples like the party game where you get many people (say 10) side by side and have one at one end tell a message to their adjacent, and each repeats the same message to the next. The meaning of the message always is altered, even if subtlely, by the time it is repeated at the other end. Thus, it fails even in that ideal case, of nearly identical cognitive agents speaking the same language living in the same culture. So, we should have almost zero confidence in any kind of meaning existing in subparticles, in far remote locations, being able to communicate their meaning through quantum mechanical random fluctuations to neurons that communicate that as the same meaning to the conscious agent.

In light of … and the necessity of 'otherness' in the process of semiosis, ... — Mapping the Medium

More hogwash. My model creates a potential framework of otherness using very concreate, machine implementable means.

my hypothesis/theory/model under development, predicts otherwise. There is energy- Energy patterns as an entity in-and of itself. That is, in my model, consciousness, esp. the qualia kind, is pure energy create as a sort of new, and separate entity within the physical entity, yet part the system as a whole. In my model, the 'consciousness' entity is pure energy, being in a resonant whole with the cognitive and sensory/motor systems such that they are effectively a whole, unified entity with all parts in tune and sensing all other parts all at once. This is a physical 'thing' not a process b/c it is an instantaneous resonant wave system inseparable from the physical boundary and propagating media properties/constraints.

The closest analogy I can think of is a macro version of a Bose-Einstein condensate, so maybe a 6th state of matter. Can't say with confidence yet, but I currently see this, along with many other frameworks/mechanics, as a promising framework for me to achieve the qualia aspect of consciousness. For the access aspects of consciousness, I'm modeling that under a sophisticated non-verbal linguistic framework, which are mostly data-structures and processes and I do not expect those will be part of the 'qualia' experience.

'emergence' clearly is of an organic nature — Mapping the Medium

‘clearly’??? LOL. and the Earth is flat and the center of the universe, just because you say so... right?

I’ve presented more concreate “otherness” physical model hypothesis above that does not rely on any supernatural hocus-pocus, and showed a strong counter-example to a synechism requirement (which there is no evidence occurs in the human brain/mind), so how do you logically argue that Consciousness clearly is of an organic nature?


https://epochemagazine.org/the-continuity-of-being-c-s-peirces-philosophy-of-synechism-9fa5c341247e

"The challenge that Peirce’s synechism issues us [and Mapping the Medium], however, is this: if the universe really is found to be continuous, such that between any two things there is no unbridged gap but a gradient of infinitesimal degrees of difference — in at least potency if not actuality — if this continuity exists in fact and not only in theory (and a careful examination, I think, can only lead one to the former conclusion): what then explains this continuity, if not agapasm?"


http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/esposito-joseph-synechism-keystone-peirce%E2%80%99s-metaphysics
Peirce did not explain continuity by reference to a continuous medium like space or time. He observed: “Now if my definition of continuity involves the notion of immediate connection, and my definition of immediate connection involves the notion of time; and the notion of time involves that of continuity, I am falling into a circulus in definiendo.” (CP 6.642) At times he argued that we have direct knowledge of continuity through immediate consciousness of our present feelings, (CP 1.167), and since those feelings must be past before we can interpret them, when we do so interpret them we must be in unmediated contact with the pasts continuously connected with the future. (CP 1.169; 4.641) Therefore, he argued, it is a sound hypothesis to believe that “time really is continuous.” But he also argued that “time logically supposes a continuous range of intensity in feeling.” (CP 6.132.) Unanswered in these considerations is whether time is continuous because our feelings are continuous or whether our feelings our continuous because they endure in continuous time.2

With regards to space, Peirce denied that three-dimensional Newtonian space was objectively real, adopting a Leibnizian conception over a Newtonian one. (CP 5.530) In his third letter to Samuel Clarke Leibniz argued that space as not absolute but “an order of coexistences, as time is an order of successions.” As Peirce described it, the order of space is not geometrical but dynamical and even dialectical: “Space is thus truly general; and yet it is, so to say, nothing but the way in which actual bodies conduct themselves. ”
…
Peirce recognized that continuity in whatever form manifested and was governed by generality: “continuity is not an affair of multiplicity simply (though nothing but an innumerable multitude can be continuous) but is an affair of arrangement also.” (CP 4.121) He realized that “[t]here is no continuity of points in the sense in which continuity implies generality.” (CP 5.205) and that “continuity and generality are the same thing.” (CP 4.172) And finally: “Now continuity is shown by the logic of relations to be nothing but a higher type of that which we know as generality. It is relational generality.” (CP 6.190)
…
However, his eventual objection was that the system broke down in the face of the doctrine of continuity, viz., that there may be states of the universe that are not strictly units or links, but vague in-between states that are given a false precision because we may refer to such states precisely using a discrete form of language. In fact Kempe’s entire system was a form of language that defined its terms as having the power to represent but could not be said to represent anything. Therefore, Kemp’s system did not have a way of characterizing our interpretation of it on its own terms. Kempe’s diagrams do not represent anything; therefore, “it is not surprising that the idea of thirdness, or mediation, should be scarcely discernible when the representative character is left out of account.” (CP 3.423) When Kempe refers to a process as a unit “the diagram fails to afford any formal representation of the manner in which this abstract idea is derived from the concrete ideas.” (CP 3.424) In other words, Peirce was not satisfied with a system of notation that could refer to all that may be denoted, for a spot could fully refer to the entire universe; he wanted a system that was “connected with nature” (CP 3.423) and that was also linked to a process of discovery: “The difference between setting down spots in a diagram to represent recognized objects, and making new spots for the creation of logical thought, is huge,” he concluded .(CP3.424) Kempe, to Peirce’s satisfaction, could not refute the claim that Thirdness was an undecomposable element of the universe, and that if continuity was relational generality representational capacity must be part of that generality.
…
Hormones and other signaling molecules circulate throughout the body to highly specific targets in order to activate through various transduction pathways other messengers that turn on or inhibit cascades of enzymes. However, such descriptions do not reach a level of relational generality that explains what is being described, and we are left to marvel at what we do not understand even while the picture may be clearly before us. What is the required level of generality—the subatomic, the cellular, the intercellular, that of functioning organs, the organism, the ecological? Peirce suggests that there may be a relatively few general algorithms that are capable of explaining the dizzying complexity of mushy biological systems. He would contend that the capacity to represent would be a part of this synechistic algorithm. Representation is a process of creating a virtual reality, a Hegelian ‘reflection’, the emergence of a Thou to an I. It is part of every physical process, according to Peirce:

Whatever is real is the law of something less real. Stuart Mill defined matter as a permanent possibility of sensation. What is a permanent possibility but a law? Atom acts on atom, causing stress in the intervening matter. Thus force is the general fact of the states of atoms on the line. This is true of force in its widest sense, dyadism. That which corresponds to a general class of dyads is a representation of it, and the dyad is nothing but a conflux of representations. A general class of representations collected into one object is an organized thing, and the representation is that which many such things have in common. And so forth. (CP 1.487)
Atomism collapses because it does not include a way of integrating itself into a theory, for example, of how biological sub-systems may ‘signal’ other sub-systems and generally of how representations could co-exist with atoms
…
Thirdness
Synechism may be regarded as Peirce’s philosophy of Thirdness, the category of mediation, regularity, and coordination, as well as of “generality, infinity, continuity, diffusion, growth, and intelligence.” (CP 1.340). To say that continuity is an illustration of Thirdness is to say that no continuous process could continue accidentally and without guidance. There are many instances in his writings where Peirce describes Thirdness. For example:

By the third, I mean the medium or connecting bond between the absolute first and last. The beginning is first, the end second, the middle third. The end is second, the means third. The thread of life is a third; the fate that snips it, its second. A fork in a road is a third, it supposes three ways; a straight road, considered merely as a connection between two places is second, but so far as it implies passing through intermediate places it is third. Position is first, velocity or the relation of two successive positions second, acceleration or the relation of three successive positions third. But velocity in so far as it is continuous also involves a third. Continuity represents Thirdness almost to perfection.(CP 1.337)
Every feature of synechism requires for its explanation reference to the category of Thirdness.

AI machines will never 'emerge' and be a natural processing organism of semiosis. — Mapping the Medium

I pray you are not suffering from the same mental issues as your philosophical mentor Peirce.

https://epochemagazine.org/the-continuity-of-being-c-s-peirces-philosophy-of-synechism-9fa5c341247e
Peirce’s life, as artfully depicted in Joseph Brent’s biography, fits the profile of tortured genius more than most. Born the son of a Harvard professor of mathematics, he was precocious, brilliant, unsure of himself, erratic, temperamental, by turns abstemious and lascivious. He suffered all his life from the pains of trigeminal neuralgia — which he treated by various chemical concoctions, including morphine and cocaine — and likely had bipolar disorder. He was, moreover, convinced that his left-handedness was a physiological deformity that rendered him at odds with the rest of society, and would experience agonizing paralytic spells to which no diagnosis fit. He believed in God seemingly more from philosophical conviction, and perhaps mystical (or drug-induced) experience, than from any religious habit or practice...Where his personal life was marred by interruptions — mania and depression, pain and addiction, rejection and isolation — his thought was marked by continuity. Not to say that Peirce never changed his mind or even that he was steadfast and consistent in his writings; but what more than anything else what he sought was the coherence of thought.

Ok. I'm glad you have this forum to express your ideas and interpretations of the Weltanschauung and its emergence via semiosis. Isn't it wonderful?! So many words, with so much meaning! Much appreciated. .. Kindly, Catherine

Epigenetic phenomena are extremely well documented. However I am not quite sure what this has to do with consciousness outside the individual mind.

Epigenetic phenomena are extremely well documented. However I am not quite sure what this has to do with consciousness outside the individual mind. — Coben

Perhaps it would serve us to review the definition or definitions of 'consciousness'.

perhaps...

'

perhaps — Coben

Perception' and 'Responsiveness' are two words used to define 'Consciousness'. There is nothing I can find that says this is confined to an individual person. If the whole of existence and creation is 'mind' processing information (in reference to my favorite thinkers listed on my profile), ... You should be able to understand my perspective regarding epigenetics.

Perception' and 'Responsiveness' are two words used to define 'Consciousness'. — Mapping the Medium

so, according to your definition, you would say that an AI robot machine that has Perception and is Responsiveness to that perception is presumed to be 'Consciousness'?

so, according to your definition, you would say that an AI robot machine that has Perception and is Responsiveness to that perception is presumed to be 'Consciousness'? — Sir Philo Sophia

Two words used to describe living consciousness.

Two words used to describe living consciousness — Mapping the Medium

For such a bold, sweeping conclusion, you need to define what you mean by Perception and what is Responsiveness. Otherwise, sounds like self-serving, dogmatic nonsense.

For such a bold, sweeping conclusion, you need to define what you mean by Perception and what is Responsiveness. Otherwise, sounds like self-serving, dogmatic nonsense. — Sir Philo Sophia

You know, I'm really perfectly fine with you having the last word. I am not a competitive, confrontational person. So go for it. I promise I won't respond.

fine with you having the last word. I am not a competitive, confrontational person. — Mapping the Medium

that is obviously a cop out... if I call your prior answer hogwash that is discounting what you reply as being nonsense, not being confrontational. you should expect that your extraordinary claims require your extraordinary evidence (plausible logic or at least holding your claims/definitions up to scrutiny). I'm sure you know very well you cannot define consciousness well enough to avoid it applying to AI machines yet still capture 'living' consciousness as your dogma needs to. Thus, seems like you have a cult...

Perhaps my post in the Lounge might help clarify some of these discussion points.

I hope you and others here have stayed safe and well with all of the recent turmoil in the world.

I disagree with the last comment you made. I think some people are put off by threads which leave a lot of scope for discussion but if anything I believe they can be used very creatively if used well.

I am extremely interested in the whole tradition of thinking stemming from Jung's ideas. This has given rise to the archetypal psychology of James Hillman. It also links in with ideas of Joseph Campbell, which have been useful for understanding the symbolic dimensions.

In relation to science, one writer who I would recommend, who I have not seen mentioned on this site so far is Rupert Sheldrake. He wrote from a biological point of view, coming up with a idea called morphic resonance, which was an inherent memory in nature, which links the processes of evolution with Jung's idea of the collective unconscious.

Anyway, I wish you all the best in developing threads. I think I have been the mistake of being too vague at times and it is useful to ask specific questions. I have been using the site for a couple of months and still learning not to get despondent. I feel that there are many writers on the site who prefer to shut down thinking rather than open up the most creative possibilities.

I have a few ideas for threads, including one on Freud and one on Jung's contribution to the understanding of the problem of evil. But I am trying to put a bit of thought into them so that they do not get dismissed and rejected in short responses of text babble.

I feel that there are many writers on the site who prefer to shut down thinking rather than open up the most creative possibilities. — Jack Cummins

Hello Jack :)

Thank you for your very well written response. You mentioned being too vague. I think what the challenge is here is in trying to converse more generally in a forum very saturated with nominalists who only want to converse in particulars. It's one of the reasons I have been so enamored with Peirce's categories of inductive, abductive, and deductive reasoning. People can easily talk past one another if it's not clear that they are examining a subject with the same tools of logic, and in a logical sequence. Hence, Peirce's scientific method.

It's a pleasure to meet you. I hope we can have many great discussions. :)