Well leaving aside the Piercian triad and semiosis for the moment.

I want you to engage engage in speculation based on intuition which is colored by your education experience and knowledge.

I think most mental activity never rises to the level of attentional awareness. Most mental activity is below this threshold. The mental activities below the level of attention however are not primitive but instead a lot of decision making, analysis and even creative production resides there as well as most emotions and many intentions.. In fact if all important reactions or decisions had to pass through deliberative attention and analysis we would all be dead before the evening. Animals are not dumb automatons but instead smart adaptive intentional affective creatures who without language are focused intently on the hear and now, different from us only in degree not in kind and in fact most human mental activity and sensory processing closely parallels our mammalian cousins. This is more in the spirit of the OP.

Life has whatever purpose you decide to give it.
In general people are meaning seeking creatures, some find meaning in relationships, some in work, others in religion. I don't think we all have the same purpose and if we did it would be rather boring.
So stop looking for some universal cosmic sign, message or meaning and go about creating your own.

Quantum Mechanics does injury to the concept of determinism.
Quantum entanglement does injury to locality and/or causality, even space and time.
Either way the notion of determinism gives way to structured or ordered with some degrees of freedom or non computability, non predictability.
Complex systems have always been non predictable, determinism was always only a theory.
Even proponents of "determinism" and lack of "free will" do not live as though it were true, one can't. When philosophical theory contradicts the requirements of living, one should reconsider the theory.
All those long range space exploration satellites have course correction or they would never reach their targets.
Metaphysical Determinism is bad science and bad philosophy, it is a useless theory.

The "soul" is an imaginary concept much like a "unicorn".
It is born of human hubris and hope for immortality much like religion.
One cannot be absolutely certain about the existence of other realms or planes of existence but I think it is a big mistake to not treat this life as the only one you can be sure of.

But you seem to implying these companies want to limit choice, as opposed to supplying willing consumers with their product. A global economy and interconnected world in theory gives people more choice but often everyone chooses the same products.

How can we refute the following argument against the existence of animal minds? — jdh

Well the arguments for animal mind-brains is much stronger.

First there is the evolutionary argument, that the mind-brain system must have evolved just like every other biological structure. The science of comparative neuroanatomy will be helpful to your there complete with evolutionary trees and divergence and convergent branches.

Second there is the behavioral argument as any pet owner or anyone who works with animals can attest, animals give every indication of being capable of learning, of memory, of emotions and of simple problem solving. In the case of corvids multi step problem solving, try utube or the nature channel.

Third- There is strong evidence from neuroscience of retained structures and neural circuits in the deeper brain (also found in humans) which regulate emotions and serve as pleasure reward center for the animals. For anyone truly interested in the problem see research into affective neuroscience and comparative cognition. There is evidence for seven primary process emotional networks in the subcortical regions of the brain (preserved in higher animals and humans alike) rage, fear, grief, lust, care, seeking and play. See Pankseep and AN (affective neuroscience) or comparative cognition. A particularly good review here: Jaak Panksepp, Stephen Asma, Glennon Curran, Rami Gabriel & Thomas Greif
The Philosophical Implications of Affective Neuroscience Cognitive Science Society (CogSci10) Portland, Oregon, 12 August 2010
Introduction and Discussion: Jaak Panksepp (Washington State University, Pullman, WA)
Synopsis of Affective Neuroscience — Naturalizing the Mammalian MindBy Jaak Panksepp

“ I employ the terms BrainMind and MindBrain interchangeably, depending on desired emphasis, capitalized and without a space to highlight the monistic view of the brain as a unified experience-generating organ with no Cartesian dualities that have traditionally hindered scientific understanding.” Panksepp

“Central to the affective neuroscientific epistemic approach is the recognition that the vertebrate BrainMind is an evolved organ, the only one in the body where evolutionary progressions remain engraved at neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and functional levels. The more ancient mental functions (e.g. primary-process emotions — ancestral genetic/affective ‘memories’) are lower and more medial in the brain. The higher functions (e.g. cognitive functions) are situated more rostrally and laterally. The basic learning functions are nestled in-between in various basal ganglia such as amygdala and nucleus accumbens”-Panksepp

Under socially constructed norms, then slavery would have been moral in its time? Essentially morality or ethics becomes absolute moral relativism, a result that many would reject.

I guess you would have to explain was this is not just a discussion about the definition or use of the word "exist". Just a language problem?

I don't know. As they say when you give people a choice you might not like what they do with it. We have lost diversity in the U.S. as well. Almost every city has the same chain franchise restaurants, Walmart, Sams, Costco, etc. Local retailers are being driven to bankruptcy by Ebay, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. No one forces anyone to eat at these establishments or buy their products online. LIkewise no one forces citizens of other countries to prefer U.S. media and entertainment. Is it the role of government to limit the choice of their citizens in order to preserve cultural diversity?

Don't we want (like the Gates Foundation) everyone to lead a happy, healthy and productive life. So shouldn't we defer to the individuals gender identity and preferred gender role? Biology (psychical gender) is one thing and social roles are quite another.

You know I would say American society is failing our students.
I think schools and teachers are doing the best they can under current constraints and paradigms.
We have to get rid of the notion everyone can do integrals and differentials if the schools were just good enough.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857829/

Theor Biol Med Model. 2010; 7: 10.
Published online 2010 Mar 30. doi: 10.1186/1742-4682-7-10
PMCID: PMC2857829

A thalamic reticular networking model of consciousness
Byoung-Kyong Min 1

Conclusions: I propose that the thalamocortical integrative communication across first- and higher-order information circuits and repeated feedback looping may account for our conscious awareness. This TRN-modulation hypothesis for conscious awareness provides a comprehensive rationale regarding previously reported psychological phenomena and neurological symptoms such as blindsight, neglect, the priming effect, the threshold/duration problem, and TRN-impairment resembling coma. This hypothesis can be tested by neurosurgical investigations of thalamocortical loops via the TRN, while simultaneously evaluating the degree to which conscious perception depends on the severity of impairment in a TRN-modulated network

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7bb0/e25195329956ac3dd49eb38c4c7e880d78b0.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm0XvAWlhAHLlYYYCeXTbwz_163fwA&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

Towards a true neural stance on consciousness
Victor A.F. Lamme

Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roeterstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, the Netherlands

A second advantage is that we would be able to dissociate consciousness from other cognitive functions such as attention, working memory and reportability, which is a prerequisite for using the term at all. Elsewhere [10,33], I have shown how, from the neural perspective, attention and consciousness can be orthogonally defined as entirely separate neural processes. When other cognitive functions are neurally defined as well, we do not lose explanatory power at all by adopting the neural stance. It can be easily understood why there is no reportability of conscious experience in the case of IB, split brain, neglect and other conditions; in all these cases there are other cognitive functions than consciousness (neurally defined) that are manipulated, which is causing the failure of reportability.
END

My objection is that trying to simplify mental operations into two categories “attention” and “habit” although useful in some experimental paradigms does not solve the problems posed by “conscious” and “unconscious or subconscious” mental activity.

I find the “neural correlates of consciousness” approach both more interesting and informative. Using this approach we know there are separate neural circuits and locations for the processing of verbal, auditory and other sensory input. We know that disruption of the thalamic cortical connections interferes with the subjects ability to recall or report (language). We know that recurrent processing loops and cortical thalamic connections seem to be associated with “conscious awareness”. We know that even in the absence of these connections, some aspect of the “brain” the ventral medial structures still “perceives” and “recognizes” the object and that this “stored information affects later choice and behavior on the part of the subject.

Various experiments (split brain, blindsight, visual agnosia, backward masking, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, binocular rivalry, neglect/extinction, change blindness, inattentional blindness, attentional blink, etc.) all indicate the difficulties with the notions of “attention”, “awareness” or consciousness.
Lesions of the CNS (brain) (strokes, tumors, injuries) give us information about the function of various anatomic structures and pathways.

Oliver Stacks wonderful series of books and human cases demonstrate the types of very selective deficits of memory or perceptual processing that can occur without impairing global consciousness.

In the absence of voluntary recall (memory) or ability to report (language) can the subject be said to have been “conscious” of the “experience” or “perception”? Can the subject be said to have been “attentive” or displaying “attention”. IMHO opinion we now have voluntary and involuntary attention states which seems little improvement over conscious and un or sub conscious mental operations.

So while I bow to your expertise in neuroscience, I object to your insistence on a single approach limited to attention and habit and on briefly reviewing some literature find many other approaches in the field.

Is it a difference in kind or difference in scale? Is mind something only humans have or does the degree correlate with neural organisational complexity? — apokrisis

Well at least now we are talking about "mind" and "neural organisational complexity" instead of just attention and habit.. I think it is a difference in scale but then I am a panpsychist (panexperientialist) of sorts. Still a combination problem although neuroscience helps with how things get informationally integrated.

Both are reasonable hypotheses. And what we do know is that the degree of organisational complexity actually does correlate with how most people would rank sentience. — apokrisis

I am no more sure how to define, interpret or measure "sentience" than any of the other terms. If the organism responds appropriately to information in the environment (and what surviving organism does not) then I would say it is paying "attention" is "aware" or has "sentience". Self-awareness is something different as is consciousness in my mind. The laws of nature may be "habits".

As to the rest, I don't think you could have read my earlier posts. — apokrisis

Read them all actually; now you can say I did not properly understand them.
You have to admit even among the neuroscience community these issues are not as simple, uncontrroversial or straighforward as you present.

Well here I have to side with Apokrisis, we need some experimental (empirical) paradigm to approach the problem. Neuroscience (anatomy, biochemisty, etc.) allow us to study the relationship between mental operations and brain physiology. There is more understanding and progress to be had there than in speculation free of science.

We also have natural experiments in the form of brain tumors, injuries, strokes, etc which are quite informative about the relationship between structure and function. We can also induce experimental lesions in animals. We can study brain activity with PET and other functional scans.

Another area is the evolution of minds and brains in nature. More progress in the last few decades than in the previous few millennium.

There are "deterministic" interpretations of quantum mechanics.
The majority of physicists favor the "statistical in-determinism" interpretations.
Quantum indeterminism can be shown to creep into the macro world.
If the universe is not "deterministic" then there is metaphysical space for "efficacy" of the will.
Quantum mechanics does not provide any kind of explanation for "free" will.

Dogs can neatly "calculate" the trajectory of a tennis ball or a frisbee, as can lions the flight path of a gazelle. Most mental operations never rise to the level of "conscious awarenss" in animals or in humans. Most so called "higher" mental functions depend on underlying non conscious mental operations as do most skilled actions.

Perception,memory and response are integrated in the intact organism. It is possible however to show separate neural circuits responsible for the various components and to disrupts the smooth integration through damage to specific areas of the mind or brain. It is precisely the integration and unification of these "informational circuits or modules" that leads to "consciousness" and disruption of the neural circuits responsible for this "integration" leads to loss of "consciousness" or various degrees of "functional" impairment. I am just objecting to the seeming overly simplistic nature of a its all "attention" and "habit" approach.

I fully acknowledge the difficulties in defining the terms "consciousness" or "awareness". I find definitions for "habit" and "attention" equally problematic.

Most such studies of "attention" involve vision and the presentation of various forms of stimulus to the visual field, which does make for simple experimental paradigms.

There are also studies involving various forms of perception and regional brain activity as seen on PET or other functional scans.

Then we have information from various lesions of the brain and the accompanying functional or perceptual defects that result (leading to a somewhat modular approach to neurologic correlates) facial recognition say.

The assertion here is that "attention" is a primitive neurological function, seen in say frogs and fruitflies. Do we wish to say they are "aware" and "conscious" in the same manner as humans?

In "blindsight" is the subject "aware" of the object in the visual field?. Not by verbal report only by behavioral response. So once again the topic of awareness links with the topic of attention and by implication consciousness.

A simple search of awareness, consciousness and attention will readily yield discussions of these topics and indicate it is not nearly as clear cut as some are asserting.

Personally most I think most of the mental operations (broadly defined) involved in walking, driving, etc.) never rise to the level of voluntary attentional awareness. Instead so called sub conscious (mental activities not amenable to verbal report) constitute the bulk of mental processing and voluntary intentional awareness is only the tip of the iceberg of mental operations. Furthermore the special skills of the human mind (brain) are layered on top of more primitive neural functions and circuits which have evolved over time and many of which are found in simpler less complex organisms.
Language is a special feature of human mental operations and allows for uniquely abstracted conceptual forms of thought. I do not equate language with thought. I do not think all awareness (or attention) or all experience is "conscious" in the usual sense we understand that term.

On examination there seem to be many forms of "attention". Some of which rise to the level of "conscious awareness" and are voluntary and others of which are "habits" and involuntary. Discussions of various forms of attention and the relationship between consciousness and awareness can be found in the relevant literature. Some forms of attention involve primitive neural circuits which have been preserved in the evolution of the mind.

That would seem to beg the issue. For "attention" is a feature of the behavior of even fairly primitive creatures, whereas "awareness or consciousness" would seem a much latter evolution acquired feature of "mind". That would be to leave out the linkage between attention and memory as well. Even the most cursory overview of the evolution of mind (or of neurological correlates) should show there is a separation between attention, memory, habit and the kind of perceptual awareness that we ordinarily associate with "consciousness".

Attention- the selective filtering of perceptual information, must have appeared early in evolution of the mind. Most would say "consciousness" made a much later appearance, bringing the relationship between the two into question?

I think the Golden Rule and its variations "do unto others, etc" covers a lot of moral ground for both theists and non theists alike. Or maybe the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights will do.
I am not sure notions of eternal punishment or reward are that admirable.

Is "awareness" always "attentional awareness"? What about "blindsight"?
Is not our "mind" our "brain" in fact "aware" of (responsive to) many things that do not rise to the level of phenomenal awareness? Although I agree the terms "consciousness" and "subconsciousness" beg definition, I am not sure the terms "awareness" or "attention" and "habit" fare much better.

I am also interested in the application of those concepts to other creatures and life forms. At the less complex end of life forms, one could make an argument that response to the environment is all fixed stimulus response (habit). As the mind (nervous system) becomes more complex, attention to selected environmental stimulus appears, but much habit based behavior remains?

The education system has not changed much in the last 200-300 years. We still stick "students" in the classroom and have someone lecture at them for 45-60 minutes. The lecturers have varying degrees of enthusiasm and or skill at holding the interest of the captive audience. School may have been the most interesting part of one's day one hundred years ago, but school now competes with social media, media in general, technology and the internet.

In this environment school is incredibly boring by comparison. We have not yet learned how to integrate technology, form working groups of students and allow learning at one's own pace or interest. In addition, schools can no longer remove those students who are disruptive to the "learning environment". Schools have to expend considerable resources "babysitting" students who either have no desire to learn or are incapable of learning due to physical or mental disability.

For all that, at least at the collegiate and university level, American schools remain among the best in the world, and attract talented students from around the world. The notion that the purpose of secondary schools is to prepare all students for "college" is a misguided "progressive liberal" myth. Not all students are capable of or interested in doing college work and bringing back vocational training to prepare students for actual jobs in the actual economy would be a favor to all.

A physician or psychologist does not actually get paid for a diagnosis (DSM5 or ICD10 code).

ICD is the International Classification of Diseases, the current version is 10.

Instead one gets paid for the CPT code (current procedural terminology), what one does.

A bill to an insurance company pairs a ICD10 code with a CPT code. Does not matter if you are counseling a schizophrenic, a depressive or a gender dysphoria, the payment for a given amount of time spent in psychotherapy is the same. So there is little advantage to the provider of having tons of diagnosis codes to choose from. The proliferation of diagnosis codes has more to do with research, treatment evaluation and tracking the incidence of a given diagnosis in the population. True some CPT and ICD10 pairings will be rejected as the treatment does not fit the disease.

Mental health providers do not create diagnoses to lure new patients into their offices.
Generally speaking they are plenty busy without resorting to such tactics. In general most mental health patients are voluntarily seeking counseling or treatment (except for court ordered or other emergency interventions). It is society's approach to sexual behavior that generates plenty of stress, anxiety and depression that keeps mental health providers busy. Granted historically the mental health community regarded homosexuality as a condition in need of treatment or correction but I would say the mental health community is way ahead of society in general at this point and is leading rather than retarding progress.

In all classifications systems there are splitters and lumpers but the ICD10 and the DSM5 represent a group effort, a hierarchical structure and an effort to aid research and epidemiology.

The most common ICD10 codes submitted to insurance for payment
ICD 10 Codes For Depression
DSM 5 Code ICD-10 Description
309.0 F43.21 Adjustment Disorder, With depressed mood
ICD 10 Codes For Anxiety
DSM 5 Code ICD-10 Description
300.02 F41.1 Generalized Anxiety Disorder
ICD 10 Codes For Adjustment Disorder
DSM 5 Code ICD-10 Description
309.28 F43.23 Adjustment Disorder, With mixed anxiety and depressed mood
ICD 10 Codes For Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
DSM 5 Code ICD-10 Description
309.81 F43.10 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

CPT Code Footnote(s) Description
90791 1 Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation
90792 1,3 Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation with medical services
90832 2 Psychotherapy, 30 minutes with patient and/or family member
90833 2,3 Psychotherapy, 30 minutes with patient and/or family member when performed with an evaluation and management service
90834 4 Psychotherapy, 45 minutes with patient and/or family member
90836 3,4 Psychotherapy, 45 minutes with patient and/or family member when performed with an evaluation and management service
90837 6 Psychotherapy, 60 minutes with patient and/or family member
90838 3,6 Psychotherapy, 60 minutes with patient and/or family member when performed with an evaluation and management service
90839 6 Psychotherapy for crisis; first 60 minutes
90840 2 each additional 30 minutes
90846 4 Family psychotherapy (without the patient present)
90847 4 Family psychotherapy (conjoint psychotherapy) (with patient present)
90849 4 Multiple-family group psychotherapy
90853 4 Group psychotherapy (other than of a multiple-family group)

ICD10 codes having to do with sexual behaviors

F64 Gender identity disorders
F64.0 Transsexualism
F64.1 Dual role transvestism
F64.2 Gender identity disorder of childhood
F64.8 Other gender identity disorders
F64.9 Gender identity disorder, unspecified

• Deviation (in)
sexual F65.9
fetishism, fetishistic F65.0
• Fetishism F65.0
sexual F65.9
bestiality F65.89
erotomania F52.8
exhibitionism F65.2
fetishism, fetishistic F65.0
transvestism F65.1
frotteurism F65.81
masochism F65.51
multiple F65.89
necrophilia F65.89
nymphomania F52.8
pederosis F65.4
pedophilia F65.4
sadism, sadomasochism F65.52
satyriasis F52.8
specified type NEC F65.89
transvestism F64.1
voyeurism F65.3

Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation
Note: Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder.
F66.0 Sexual maturation disorder
The patient suffers from uncertainty about his or her gender identity or sexual orientation, which causes anxiety or depression. Most commonly this occurs in adolescents who are not certain whether they are homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual in orientation, or in individuals who, after a period of apparently stable sexual orientation (often within a longstanding relationship), find that their sexual orientation is changing.
F66.1 Egodystonic sexual orientation
The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it.
F66.2 Sexual relationship disorder
The gender identity or sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual) is responsible for difficulties in forming or maintaining a relationship with a sexual partner.
F66.8 Other psychosexual development disorders
F66.9 Psychosexual development disorder, unspecified

The DSM-5 (the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) used by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychologist Association uses the term "gender dysphoria". The former term was "gender identity disorder".

Some choose to take hormones.. Some choose to have surgery. Some just choose to change their gender role and others just do nothing. In turns out those that transition are typically happier and healthier.

Frankly I think grades and salaries are both essential to the stability of society.
It is high differentials in salary leading to large income inequality which is a problem
It is taking grades to mean something other than ability or achievement in one area that is a problem

Since ones gender identification (psychology) is probably related to brain states (or the physiology and maybe the anatomy of the brain) using the all encompassing term "body" will fail to clarify "body" as a determinate of gender vs. gender identification.

Generally I think we grade to show knowledge of the subject matter.
Does one know the names on the continents or countries or states and can place them on a map, etc.
Grades are not an indicator of ability, intelligence, worth, etc.
It is when we assign some value to grades other than what they really show that we get in trouble.
We grade so that we know a particular skill has been mastered and to assess readiness for additional education, that is all.

Let's see if we can distinguish between : gender, gender identity and gender roles.
It would be nice to separate sexual physical characteristics: penis, vagina, etc form the physiology of the brain as well.

Mr Harris is going to run out of poster to read, pretty quickly too.

Well language and communication matters.
The major reason I am participating in the thread is to try to improve my use of language in this area.
The difference between Gender and Gender Identity seems to parallel Sex and Sexual Identity in terms of common usage. The loose use of the term gender or gender identity being "determined by the body" is also confusing.

Yes, evolution has seen to it that our "representation" of the world is close enough to ensure our survival and our science has seen to it that we can manipulate the world to our own ends in many ways.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/11/psychology-transgender.aspx
APA: What is the psychological meaning of the term "transgender"? How is it different from — and related to — the term "sexual orientation"?

Bockting: "Transgender" refers to having a gender identity that differs from one’s sex assigned at birth. "Gender identity" refers to the basic conviction of being a man, woman or other gender (e.g., bigender, genderqueer, gender questioning, gender nonconforming). "Sexual orientation" refers to one’s sexual attraction, sexual behavior and emotional attachments to men, women or both

Bockting: Some transgender people do transition and others do not. Transition is not for everyone. Transition refers to a change in gender role.

The DSM-5 [the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, published by the American Psychiatric Association] no longer lists “gender identity disorder” as a diagnosis but instead refers to “gender dysphoria.” Why and how did this come about, and what is the difference between the two terms?

Bockting: "Gender dysphoria" is a term that reflects more accurately than gender identity disorder when an individual is distressed about a conflict between their sex assigned at birth and their gender identity/role.
END

"sex assigned at birth" with no mention of sexual or reproductive organs? This is inclusive of chromosomal abnormalities and ambiguous or duplicate genitalia and other reproductive organs.

"the state of being male or female." according to Websters Dictionary, this is "Gender".

"either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." According to Websters Dictionary, this is "Sex" — Anonymys

I want to go back to the opening post for a moment.
"The state of being male or female". One might presume they are talking about sexual or reproductive organs not gender identity?
"divided on the basis of their reproductive functions" again seems a reference to sexual or reproductive organs not gender identity?

That is just fine with me because I was just asking for clarification and I dont see the rant or the "lying" or the "ignorance" all terms you are employing, and without answering the inquiry.

I don't think mental states (feelings, thoughts, emotions) (psychologic) are really separate from brain states (anatomy, physiology). It just depends on which aspect you are emphasizing and which description you employ.. When I talk about psychologic states I assume there is a brain involved, don't you?.

As I indicated in my very first post the language is a problem. Some people would use gender as a description of your visible sex characteristics (vagina, penis, etc). The term "gender identification" on the other hand is often used to indicate whether one identifies "psychologically" as a male of female. Transexuals for instance identify with a "gender" that does not match their body. So when you imply the body determines gender, what do you mean? It is a fair question I would think.

Many (most?) people accept the idea that sexual orientation is 'assigned' rather than 'chosen'. — Bitter Crank

I guess the question would be assigned by what? Not that anyone knows.

Again, you forget the rest of the body, which are factors in one's gender — John Harris

I am a little confused about how you are using the word "gender" here, which parts of the body determine gender in your view? Are you separating "gender identity" from "secondary sexual characteristics"?
I am also a little confused about why you feel the need to separate "physiologic" from "psychologic" as one seems to always accompany the other?