I've not made any such cliam.
Misquote? or xmas drunkenness? — charleton

Your comments indicate a physicalist position. Given that, how does your notion of mind-body interaction differ from epiphenomenalism?

As an aside, this seems to be a common style of argument on these forums: if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, and failing that: engage in ad hominem. Sweet.

Can you cite scientific research which establishes epiphenomenalism as fact? If not, all you have is belief.

Even if there was a 'spirit' whatever that is, it would not have a personality, since you demonstrably need a brain for that; it would have no memory; no learning; no identity. — charleton

If brain anatomy has been injured, or brain physiology is not functioning normally, mind condition and/or function will be abnormal, or lost. That is a causal relationship. However, the fact of neuroplasticity provides sufficient reason to reject epiphenomenalism. In other words, body and mind have mutual effects.

Also, it is not known whether neurophysiological activity causes mental conditions and functions, or mental conditions and functions cause neurophysiological activity.

So, personality, memory, learning, and identity are psychological attributes which can only be logically ascribed to a psychophysical organism. Ascribing them to a brain is mereological confusion.

Whether or not some of these attributes are related to spirit; I don't know, do you?

How can you even talk about a 'next stage' of consciousness if you do not have the equipment to have any consciousness at all?
Even hypotheticals have to have a basis. — charleton

Good point.

Consciousness is a mind-body function. For this hypothetical to have a basis:
1) Consciousness also has to be a function of something other than mind and body.
2) Mind must persist independently of body (as others have noted).
3) Something other than consciousness persists after death (e.g., spirit).

Don't ask me what spirit is; I have no idea.

According to the linked article:
Challenging Chomsky and his Challengers: Brian Boyd Interviews Daniel Dor

Our language-ready brains and physiologies (which are still as variable as our ancestors’) were forced into existence by language, not the other way around. — Daniel Dor

The capacity that made language possible is the social capacity of collective innovation, which is exactly what the apes lack...They do not invent together. — Daniel Dor

So, the (doubly circular) argument goes: verbal modelling (a brain-dependent process of collective innovation, or imagination) creates language, which creates "language-ready" brains.

Please don't explain to me how this makes more sense than Chomsky's position (i.e., language is an innate faculty).

But, if language affects brain physiology, which language process will enable us to eradicate brain cancer?

Confusion and the need to dispel it; disorientation and the need to get bearings; incomprehension and the drive to resolve it. — StreetlightX

Exactly.

At the beginning of Wesleyan University's MOOC on Social Psychology, I asked for a conceptual framework of the field, and was met with silence (there is none).

So, I decided to construct an informal domain ontology of Cognitive Psychology (because it is foundational to Social Psychology). Ultimately, it requires extending to Moral Psychology.

This project is both scientific and philosophical in nature, requiring that I collect and review facts, and proceed with conceptual analysis. The intent is to produce a coherent model which is easily formalised.

So, where you start with philosophy very much depends on your agenda.

I have a hard time contributing to a discussion if I haven't read the material on the subject. — Purple Pond

This is called good judgement, not mental illness.

Reading your OP, I have criterial evidence that your mind exists, but I do not have empirical evidence that it exists. So, does your mind exist?

It's important to recognise a distinction between nonverbal communication using vocalisations (i.e., signals) and verbal communication using language. A vocalisation is not necessarily a phoneme (i.e., a speech sound, or symbol).

Semioticians Lotman and Sebeok think that language developed as a mental modelling system (an adaptation) in Homo habilis, and that speech is an exaptation derived from language (which emerged in Homo sapiens).

If true, nonverbal thought and communication preceeded verbal thought and communication in evolutionary terms. And if animals were to develop language, verbal communication would co-exist with advanced problem-solving powers.

[Think] Better according to what standard? Better according to what criteria? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

To state in my own words what has already been stated by others:

Cogitation (thinking) is controlled problem-solving, decision-making, and planning using active learning, explicit memory and declarative knowledge. As such, it depends on intelligence ( a measure of awareness, learning, and problem-solving proficiency; and knowledge, memory, and processing capacity).

Intuition is its automatic/passive/implicit/tacit counterpart.

The relationship between cogitation and intelligence is analogous to that of a skill developed from natural ability.

The Dor & Jablonka paper concludes:
"We started out by characterizing language as a transparent mapping-system, dedicated to the expression of a constrained subset of meanings by means of sound concatenation."

This agrees with my own conception of human language as a code which provides correspondence between a set of mental conditions and/or functions and a set of words (i.e., vocabulary) having paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations (i.e., grammar), hence; semantic content.

And I think it's accurate to say that the communication of signs between environment, social group, and individual entails the development of meaning and culture.

But I think it is incorrect to describe language as a communication system, because communication is the process of transmitting, conveying, receiving, decoding, authoring, and encoding information (language being encoded information).

There are literally libraries worth of evidence, research, clinical findings. Go to one! — tom

You made the claim; the burden of proof is on you.

There is a vast body of scientific research that establishes the fact that consciousness is a feature of the functioning brain. — tom

I'm still waiting for a citation.

It's relevant to the OP to determine whether this particular claim is based on empirical evidence or not (i.e., whether or not it is based on pseudoscience). So, I would be keen to review the research you think establishes this claim as fact.

Apparently so.

...consciousness is a feature of the brain... — TimeLine

Do you always write pure rubbish, or can you cite scientific research which establishes this fact? How were you made aware that the hard problem had been solved?

Upon limited reflection, I am inclined to think of the human mind as more closely resembling an analog (i.e., continuously recording), as opposed to binary (i.e., discreetly sampling), data processor.

At a very reduced level of cognition, the human mind may process semantic data in binary fashion (i.e., true/false, or yes/no).

Isn't the binary limitation of current computer processing why quantum processing is desired?

Can't and will not happen, nothing can stop killer robots from happening, and the smarter they get the worst the danger to humanity. — Cavacava

Killer (i.e., military) robots could actually be safer than human military personnel if programmed to protect the life (viability) of non-combatant humans and AIs.

Consider the psychological damage to human military personnel incurred as a result of active duty, and its consequences upon return to civilian life.

How can we get AI to be safe? — Perdidi Corpus

Include a Right Social Action-Behaviour program.
This would only be possible given:
1) The ability to identify rational alternatives and assign each a moral value, and
2) Sufficient processing capacity.

Right Social Action-Behaviour: the faultless execution of rational social action-behaviour.

Rational Social Action-Behaviour: social action-behaviour based on the greater/greatest moral value of rational alternatives.

Faultless execution of Rational Social Action-Behaviour may be achieved through the implementation of one or more approach.

Approach Types:
1) General Approaches
a) Master Rule Approach: the derivation of particular rules from a master rule (e.g., the Golden Rule).
b) Method Approach: the derivation of particular rules from a methodological principle (e.g., whether or not an option satisfies fundamental human needs).

2) Particular Approach
a) Virtue Approach: reference to particular rules contained in a standard (e.g., moral code, value system, etc.).

Properties:
1) Moral value and Right Social Action-Behaviour Approach must be based on the same principle(s) (e.g., the satisfaction of fundamental human needs).
2) The exigencies of a social situation determine the type of processing required (i.e., automatic and/or controlled), and therefore which Right Social Action-Behaviour approach is most suitable.
a) The application of a Master Rule Approach is suitable for automatic processing.
b) The application of a Method Approach is suitable for a combination of automatic and controlled processing.
c) The application of a Virtue Approach is suitable for controlled processing.

Daniel Kahneman has defined the properties of automatic and controlled processing in terms of human cognition. Since I am familiar with cognitive psychology, but not with AI technologies, I cannot say how both types of human processing could be computationally implemented, and whether or not both are even required. The quantification of morality has been an on-going interest, and has other applications.

What is the rawest form of an idea? How should one go about translating it into language? — Perdidi Corpus

The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. — Albert Einstein

This quote is why Imagery in Scientific Thought by Arthur I. Miller is on my reading list, and why I think that ideas may be nonverbal or verbal, even: nonverbal first, then verbally encoded (as in Einstein's case).

Are the sources of ideation limited to perception, sensation, thought (including imagination), and emotion? In other words, besides adventitious and factitious ideas, are there innate ideas?

Perhaps an investigation of Ideasthesia can help resolve the OP?

From previous research (sorry, I can't remember the reference) modes of ideation include:
(1) Perceptive
(2) Cognitive
(3) Intuitive
(4) Iconic:
(a) Mimetic
(b) Osmotic
(5) Verbal

That article deals with the notions of correlation and dependence as they are understood in statistics. They are not relevant to this discussion as far as I can tell. — Janus

Why am I not surprised?

If I depend on someone for food does this not imply that they bring about (cause) the conditions in which I am fed? I can't see what correlation has to do with it. — Janus

Then you should probably read this article.

Mutual effects, which aren't causal? What is that? — tom

Correlation.
If it makes you feel better, substitute "dependence" for "effects".

With respect to mentality, isn't it more reasonable to claim that, when we have an explanatory theory, whatever it is, mentality will be subject to physical laws just like everything else? — tom

Neuronal and mental activities have mutual effects, but are incommensurable because physiological activity is a correlate, not a cause, of mental activity.

Physical: Of, or pertaining to, particles.
Mental: Of, or pertaining to, mind.

Artificial sentience and responsiveness are easy to achieve, but artificial self awareness is not.

Rochat, Philippe (2003). "Five Levels of Self-Awareness as They Unfold in Early Life". Consciousness and Cognition 12 (2003): 717–731.

So, is describing human political economy in ecological terms a category error?

Basically any self-relating system composed of networks can be treated in ecological terms. Elsewhere, it's perfectly possible to treat something as abstract as an economy in ecological terms. — StreetlightX

The largest and most complex type of human community is the stratified society, which is composed of nested complex systems (e.g., political, economic, legal, etc.).

Cultures develop over time. Changes in mindset/convention have cascading effects on nested systems, transforming society. Sudden and/or dramatic changes in mindset/convention can cause societal breakdown and collapse.

In terms of Sociocultural Anthropology, the life cycle of a human community (i.e., political economy) consists of: Rise (i.e., success), Dominance (i.e., expansion), Stagnation, Decline, and Fall (i.e., failure).

The life cycle of an organism can be described in similar terms. Can the life cycle of an ecosystem be described in similar terms?

Thanks for that.

Oh, and to shoehorn in a point of politics, it might be argued, on the basis of the above, that philosophies of rugged individualism are thus philosophies of ecological infantalism, or else ecological sickness. — StreetlightX

This requires extending the metaphor from ecology to biology to sociology with life and complexity being points in common. Individualism and collectivism are types of cultural bias, not stages in cultural development or symptoms of cultural health.

I looked up the word culture in the Webster dictionary and I was surprise to find race as a part of the definition. That does not make sense. A culture should be defined as a societies way of life not their genetics. — guidance

I agree with these points previously made by others:
1) "Race" is a social, rather than genetic, construct.

Most scientists have long recognized that it is a futile exercise to try to define discrete human races. Such entities do not in fact exist. — Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature (2004)

In any case, it is too narrow a term to be used in a general definition of "culture".
2) All social groups develop their own culture.

Social Group: two or more people having cohesive social relations based on identified similarities, and affiliated under the terms and conditions of a social contract for a specific purpose (i.e., common goal).

Social Contract: an agreement between the members of a social group (either implicit or explicit) to achieve a specific purpose (i.e., common goal).

Culture: the collective mindset and consequent products of a social group.

So:
1) Culture is not limited to societies. For example, a sole proprietorship and multinational corporation will each have its own unique culture.
2) A culture could be defined in terms of genetics, as in the case of kin groups (e.g., bands, tribes, and clans).

It seems that this dichotomy [natural/artificial] is the result of the outdated belief that humans are specially made, or separate from, nature, which stems from ancient religious beliefs. — Harry Hindu

Does it stem from religious beliefs, or is it a fact?

Human beings are natural organisms which are categorically different from all other natural organisms by virtue of possessing the faculty of language acquisition, production, and use.

Unique to the Animal Kingdom, the faculty of language in the genus Homo evolved from a strictly communication function to include a verbal modelling function. With this new functionality came new potential. Homo sapiens accurately models its environment, adding to its knowledge base to an extent not possible in Homo erectus or Homo habilis (due to less brain capacity), and enabling the development of technology which radically changes its environment. Changes in environment cause new adaptations, and the cycle repeats itself.

It is the development and implementation of technology which provides criterial evidence that humanity is categorically different from the rest of nature. So, the natural/artificial distinction is a reasonable one. It is also a useful one in that it enables humanity to measure, mitigate, and otherwise manage, the impact of that technology on its environment.

Why is most human behavior/interaction choreographed ? — Aurora

It is the result of schema activation. In this case, context schemata.

Nishida, H. (1999). Cultural Schema Theory: In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing About Intercultural Communication, (pp. 401–418). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Thus Platonic Forms (1) became 'eternal / necessary truths', Aristotle forms (2) became 'concepts' (or 'pure data' as you call it, and although I never heard that terminology before, I find it fitting too), and particular forms (3) became empirical data. — Samuel Lacrampe

That is essentially my current view, crystallised after reading Luciano Floridi's, Information: A Very Short Introduction (2010) and this discussion on Forms.

In addition, I equate (1) with Transcendentals, (2) with Universals, and classify both as Pure Data (Dedomena) as noted earlier.

I find MU's explanation of particular forms consistent with Aristotle's hylomorphism, and both are consistent with Floridi's definition of (empirical) data.

The notion of particular forms coincides with that of empirical data. For me, the discussion on the Platonic/Aristotelian forms has been essential in understanding the difference between pure and empirical data (pure data consisting of universals and transcendentals), but once understood, I would prefer to drop the archaic term "form" and replace it with "data", largely because "data" is an equivalent term used in modern information theory and philosophy of information.

(Empirical) data being a set of distinct (unique) physical or mental variables (objects capable of change), accessed and elaborated at a given level of abstraction.

Which ethical system(s) apply to finance, business, and politics?

Nice joint effort.

Snap!

Modifying Floridi, I have: Dedomena (Pure Data) is that which is inferred from (contingent upon) physical experience (i.e., Universals), or required by (necessary to) mental experience (i.e., Transcendentals).

I'll take that as a "no".

I am not contrasting the technician (who can apply math and theory) but the engineer who frames the issue that the technician can then solve...

The difference between an engineer and a "plug and chug" type technician is just that one is willing to think, and the other one isn't. — Agustino

During the course of a 35 year long career in consulting engineering in four different countries, I've never met an engineer, technologist, or technician who didn't apply scientific theory, perform calculations, and think.

In other words, do you know what you're talking about?