[FRIAM] what is a poor behaviorist (Nick) supposed to do?

[glen]

Although the Atlantic article has little to do with the C-word, I was happy to find my point already in it:

"We struggle enough to see the perspectives of other people;"

The extent to which we "other" things is a difference of degree, not kind. This is, again, why analogical thinking is more useful than metaphorical thinking. I am analogous to both my sibling and my cat. The important point is not *that* there is an analogy to be made. The important points are the strength and type (structural and/or behavioral) of that analogy.

 From the PopMech article: "By studying their motivations and decision-making, we’ll find more ways to manipulate cells, such as interrupting their processes."

What they're talking about, in what I think are more useful words, are high order languages or perhaps "emergent behavior", where things like "decision-making" are high order processes comprised of low order or primitive processes. It's often useful to include those macros as convenient shortcuts for the code that's closer to the metal (or chemistry, here). But to what extent are those high order operators extant/real such that they can *cause* effects? ... a causation that's not reducible to merely complicated causation of the lower orders?

That's the crux of the argument between those who claim scales of psychism and those who argue the higher order constructs are different in an actionable/effective way.


On 6/11/24 13:06, Prof David West wrote:
> animals are conscious? The author studies birds as did/does Nick (when not obsessed with dry lines).
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/06/new-anthropomorphism/678611/
> 
> are humans conscious; as well as every cell of their body?
> 
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61059424/every-cell-in-your-body-could-be-conscious/


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ