User:Dpleibovitz/sandbox/Mindless

Mindless is a state of having little or no mind, or being unable to use it fully. It, is a common stereotype in news, entertainment and philosophy that can easily become pejorative when applied to actual people. It can function as a thought-terminating cliché when used as opinion or oversimplification. Ironically, there are meditative practices that seek mindlessness in order to become more mindful. The dark side of mindlessness are the forces currently at work in society that renders everyone a little bit mindless, including our use of the word mindless, or its synonyms heedless, meaningless, purposeless, senseless and trivial.

Defining mind and mindless
Mindless is typically applied to things that ought to have had a mind (and reason) behind them, but are somehow lacking. This begs the question of what exactly is meant by mind? Unfortunately, there is no single accepted definition for what constitutes a mind, nor what the mark of the cognitive is? While it is uncontroversial to suggest that plants are literally mindless, research into plant cognition have questioned that view and have shown that plants can have all the individual cognitive processes that are thought to be necessary for thinking, albeit in a diminished capacity, and that plants, therefore, could be understood and investigated as having minds. In a similar vein, a machine, whether a complex artificial intelligence or a simple thermostat, could be said to have beliefs and consciousness.

Philosophers who have tried to understand mind directly have met with no success. However, they implicitly agree about reductions to mind that make one mindless. The focus in this section, is on their mindless agreement. Continental and Eastern philosophers who have investigated mindlessness directly have had better results, and these are reviewed in later sections.

Philosophy of Mind
Philosophers of mind have tried to understand mind directly, but there has been no consensus nor progress for millennia. Indeed, it is not clear that philosophy itself can lead to progress, , possibly because there may be no genuine philosophical problems, nor agreement in what philosophers mean by "progress", nor agreement on anything at all!

Nevertheless, philosophers of mind have tried to understand mind using the tool of thought experiments. All of these experiments cover technical aspects such as functionalism, intentionality and consciousness which do not concern mindlessness directly. Despite the tool, the interpretations of these experiments, and the conclusions drawn from them have still remained contentious and the problem of mind remains unsolved. What is surprising, is that all these experiments have highlighted an indirect area of significant agreement - what reduces a mind, what makes one mindless, what makes one a cog in the machine.

Chinese Room
In 1980, John Searle introduced the Chinese room thought experiment that would become one of the most famous, and also the most problematic. In it, Searle argues that machines will always be mindless, i.e., they could never understand nor have "intentionality". "Because the formal symbol manipulations by themselves don't have any intentionality; they are quite meaningless; they aren't even symbol manipulations, since the symbols don't symbolize anything. In the linguistic jargon, they have only a syntax but no semantics."

Searle does not define understanding, but trivializes it into a binary opposition of two (oversimplified ) intuitions - a clear case of Searle understanding English, and a clear case of zero understanding for Chinese.

against machine understanding (or intentionality), but hides complexity by trivializing the concept of understanding. Binary opposition. The debate... When understanding is understood as local connections to distal patterns and systems, this informs mindlessness as obscuring such connections.

John Searle imagines either himself or a machine alone in a Chinese room with the only form of outside communication being via Chinese characters. In this thought experiment, he or the machine are given a set of instructions (in their native language) on how to manipulate Chinese intelligently. A native Chinese speaker communicating with 'the room' could assume that there is someone intelligent in the room that understand Chinese - the room effectively passes the Turing test. One could state that the room is intelligent, understands and can reason. In other words, the words themselves have intentionality (meaning or understanding ) to the entity inside. However, Searle claims that as he mindlessly follows the instructions, he does not understand what any of the Chinese characters are nor what they mean (he simply manipulates them as instructed). If the words have no intentionality for Searle, then there is no reason to suppose they would have meaning for the machine. Ergo, machines can't understand (nor have intentionality).

Systems
One counterargument suggests that it is the system (the room with either the computer or Searle following instructions) that understands, not Searle or the machine alone, but Searle had already prepared his defense. So while "system" may not inform understanding according to Searle, it features prominently in understanding mindlessness. This section merely gives a taste...

Philosophers have unanimously agreed with Searle that it is possible to mindlessly follow instructions, and this aspect of his thought experiment remains uncontroversial. However, as to why Searle understands English but not Chinese (despite manipulating Chinese with ease, and despite having a brain that causally "secretes" intentionality ) remains poorly investigated. Partly, this is due to how Searle reduces understanding to a black and white dichotomy: "My critics point out that there are many different degrees of understanding; that "understanding" is not a simple two-place predicate; that there are even different kinds and levels of understanding, and often the law of excluded middle doesn't even apply in a straightforward way to statements of the form .. x understands y"; that in many cases it is a matter for decision and not a simple matter of fact whether x understands y; and so on. To all of these points I want to say: of course, of course. But they have nothing to do with the points at issue. There are clear cases in which "understanding" literally applies and clear cases in which it does not apply; and these two sorts of cases are all I need for this argument."

Robert Abelson criticized this aspect. He claimed [bolding ours] that Searle did indeed understand Chinese, at least "the kind of understanding that people display in exposure to new content via language or other symbol systems. When a child learns to add, what does he do except apply rules? Where does "understanding" enter? Is it understanding that the results of addition apply independent of content, so that m + n = p means that if you have m things and you assemble them with n things, then you'll have p things? But that's a rule, too. Is it understanding that the units place can be translated into pennies, the tens place into dimes, and the hundreds place into dollars, so that additions of numbers are isomorphic with additions of money? But that's a rule connecting rule systems. In general, it seems that as more and more rules about a given content are incorporated, especially if they connect with other content domains, we have a sense that understanding is increasing. At what point does a person graduate from "merely" manipulating rules to "really" understanding?"

Allen Newell argued that symbols provide "distal access to other structures", possibly from a knowledge level to a lower program-level within a hierarchy of levels. Putting these two ideas together, as distal connections to larger systems are added, understanding grows, and if these connections are obscured, mindlessness grows. And in regards to the Chinese room, as long as Searle connects symbols at the programming level and does not make distal connections himself, he will remain mindless to Chinese as Searle and all philosophers have agreed he is. Where symbols do not exist or distal facts are not memorized, understanding is an emergent illusion.

Extended mind thesis
The extended mind thesis effectively takes the system's counterargument to the Chinese room as a premise. It assumes that cognition extends beyond the mind of one individual into the interaction with the environment (and other people) a form of externalism. In a thought experiment, both Inga (who has excellent memory) and Otto (who has Alzheimer's disease) are told about an exhibit at a museum. Both believe they have been at the museum before and know how to retrieve the address. Inga recalls the address from her memory, while Otto consults his notebook. If their mental states include details of memory recall, than by the parity principle, it should also include details of notebook access, i.e., of things beyond the individual.

The entire thesis remains controversial, as is the natural extension of whether the extended (or group) mind could (or must) be conscious and have understandings of its own.

Aspects of the extended mind are studied as extended, distributed and social. Creatures can manipulate the environment in ways that can reduce there cognitive load. They add epistemic structures to their environment, e.g., humans do so by taking notes or using a calculator. While this can make the extended system smarter, it can make an individual less so. For example, Plato commented on the invention of writing,

In Distributed cognition, Social neuroscience, Collective intelligence, ... group decision-making, the mind of the group is extended beyond the individual. This can lead to problems such as groupthink. How much of an individual identity is given up to be a member of the group? How much did the German populace give up to (the democratically elected) Hitler? Same issues as with cog in a machine - how do low-level decisions influence those on high?

A form of externalism. Enactivism

China Brain
In the China brain experiment by Davis (1974) & Block (1978) each member of the Chinese nation simulates a single neuron of an actual brain while interacting with other "neurons" via telephone. Could the system have conscious experience of pain, despite each individual being mindless of it? While the jury is out, this is another example of each member of the China brain being a cog in the wheel and mindless of events at the larger scale.

The Chinese room though experiment argues that machines cannot have minds (nor consciousness) - or at least that their having a mind cannot be attributed to their behavior. They don't truly understand what they are doing, and neither would a human given a set of instructions (in English) on how to interact in Chinese. Such detailed local instructions hide detail and meaning at the larger level. In a similar vein, the China brain thought experiment wonders what if every human simulated a single local neuron of a brain. Would these humans understand what their collective brain was doing? For both Philosophers have argued both positions,

See: Global brain

Meaning of life
Meaning of life Being a mindless cog in the machine, an existential crisis can occur - is there a higher purpose or meaning for one's life?

What is my purpose or meaning in life? Related to cog in the wheel. See the Estonian play/movie Mindless about finding meaning by moving to the countryside.

Alienation:

Assembly Lines
Productivity increased when workers were made less mindless.

Entertainment & Philosophy
When dining with a philosophical zombie and enjoying good conversation, their total lack of consciousness, their sole deficit, may go unnoticed. However, a regular zombie would try to eat you for dinner as they lack intelligence - how much depends on the story. Both types of zombies have been referred to as mindless.

For example, it is now considered as degrading when the media portrays women as "mindless dolls".

Mindless violence
People are naturally curious, and at the social level, this manifest as a teleological desire to understand the reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose or goal. When a sensible explanation cannot be found, that something is often called mindless.

mindless brutality

Police brutality mindless, indiscriminate and excessive: Petitioners http://www.sundaytimes.lk/120311/News/nws_08.html Automatic?

The violence of nonviolent protest https://newint.org/columns/essays/2016/01/01/violence-of-nonviolent-protest Very good article.

Mindless traditions
Similar to cog in the machine

Automated Behavior
Communication between couples https://books.google.ca/books?id=6ywKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT131&lpg=PT131&dq=mindless+flooding&source=bl&ots=ZRVP20su7b&sig=gbmUE_RlKBkgP3v6fDLvI8kPFgU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4ucfZ29_YAhVP5rwKHa8fCvoQ6AEIWDAM#v=onepage&q=mindless%20flooding&f=false

Vandalism
Often characterized as mindless. Patterened behavior. Is it really mindless? https://books.google.ca/books?id=zHyJDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=mindless+vandalism&source=bl&ots=b3qJkIeGlx&sig=qHcyo7cCT6O6PlT9im-wG1QpViE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGuPrK4N_YAhVGwbwKHROIB8oQ6AEI_QEwKw#v=onepage&q=mindless%20vandalism&f=false

In Science
Mindless statistics (null ritual).

"The Mindless Dash For Degrees Has Been A Disaster!" http://www.pimlicoplumbers.com/blog/the-mindless-dash-for-degrees-has-been-a-disaster
 * 1) Alsoabout bad statistics in making assumptions


 * implicit assumptions

Not thinking about consequences
Stupid and other names. http://www.echo-news.co.uk/NEWS/11441797.___Mindless____flooding_driver_is_cautioned/ Also, no empathy

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23753-indian-flood-deaths-blamed-on-mindless-construction/ Note it is money first, consequences later "“The current devastation and human misery is largely man-made,” says Maharaj Pandit, head of the department of environmental studies at the University of Delhi. “Rampant unauthorised and mindless building activities on the river flood plains in the Himalaya”, deforestation and other activities that destabilise slopes are responsible for the loss of life, he says." See also: mindless urbanization

In Religion
Mindless faith

In Governement
"Our Mindless Government Is Heading for a Spending Disaster" https://www.thedailybeast.com/our-mindless-government-is-heading-for-a-spending-disaster "explain why government at all levels not only is on autopilot but on a flight path that can only end in disaster" (autopilot) Note that mindless acts like a superlative? or sensationalism eye-catcher; see also
 * https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cowens-cult-of-positive-thinking-is-a-mindless-recipe-for-disaster-26666191.html
 * Cowen's cult of positive thinking is a mindless recipe for disaster
 * where 'disaster' is also a sensational; Subjective opinion

Little intellectual value
A summer blockbuster movie like Geostorm Geostorm movie review: Mindless disaster movie, too serious to be fun: https://www.newsfolo.com/entertainment/geostorm-movie-review-mindless-disaster-movie-too-serious-to-be-fun/127374/ "is too stupid and dumb to be quite entertaining" [name calling]

Medical/cognitive conditions
Mindless is often a pejorative along with moron, stupid, retard, fool, etc. While these terms may have had specific clinical definitions, in common use they had aquired negative connotations and have become obsolete. See mental retardation. There are several condition that may make people appear stupid in one area. One could be simply lack of experience, being phobic (possibly due to experience, allergies),

Groups
Groupthink leads to irrational or dysfunctional outcomes. The individuals have given up part of their rationality in their desire for harmony or conformity.

Popular culture
Disaster Movies: The Cinema of Catastrophe' p.52 https://books.google.ca/books?id=Bcw0AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=mindless+disaster&source=bl&ots=zlcnkX4MXF&sig=KMd7RFdgOmiLYxVCsOm8HNaI5AY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6tM7B1N_YAhXE64MKHXmgDsoQ6AEIejAU#v=onepage&q=mindless%20disaster&f=false "mindless spectacle"; "masculinity is expressed and tested even further through the resulting combination of action and disaster". It is not the disaster that needs explaining, it is the given, the larger the specticle the better, to show of male thinking (fairly mindless).

Thought-terminating cliché
Calling some individual or group mindless, serves to stop critical thinking about why they performed an act.

Mindless Terrorists
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/terrorists-isis Very good article. They are working from a playlist (example of ritual but not thought of as such).

Five Strategies of Terrorism http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/714005398

Mindless for Mindful
There are various meditative practices that suggest that becoming mindless is a way towards mindfulness. Some of these have an epistemic basis.

misc
https://www.amazon.com/Mindless-Smarter-Machines-Making-Dumber/dp/B00I9JK98M Mindless: Why Smarter Machines are Making Dumber Humans Epistemic Structures; Extended Mind

mindless crowds, mobs, reducing humans to marbles epistemic structures, calculators, notepads, deep learning with unfathomable decisions

science: levels of processing (e.g., taking notes in own words)); detachment.

Michel Foucault: power uses knowledge (and discipline) for social control turning individuals to mindless cogs in the "team"

Are oversimplification like mindless and terrorist a spectacle? The Society of the Spectacle

A Category:Propaganda techniques, Demonizing the enemy, Dehumanization, Appeal to fear - what can these irrational people do next? Argument from ignorance, Appeal to consequences, Appeal to ridicule, Category:Appeals to emotion, Wisdom of repugnance

How could god allow... Theodicy

Of secondary note, when an event lacks sense, reason, meaning (i.e., intentionality), it can also be called mindless.

Adversarial process - mindless entrenched polarizing positions (rather than learning). Group polarization, the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members, syn for Groupshift can lead to mindless destruction? Deindividuation, in social psychology that is generally thought of as the loss of self-awareness in groups
 * Social facilitation, the tendency for people to perform differently when in the presence of others than when alone
 * Ringelmann effect, the tendency for individual members of a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of their group increases "feeling more mindless"
 * Bystander effect, is a social psychological phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present. The greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help
 * Group cohesiveness, arises when bonds link members of a social group to one another and to the group as a whole
 * Diffusion of responsibility, a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present. Considered a form of attribution, the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have already done so.
 * Collective responsibility
 * Little Eichmanns Hannah Arendt, a political theorist who reported on Eichmann's trial for The New Yorker, described Eichmann in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem as the embodiment of the "banality of evil", as she thought he appeared to have an ordinary personality, displaying neither guilt nor hatred. Arendt also wrote that "this case was built on what the Jews had suffered, not on what Eichmann had done." In his 1988 book Justice, Not Vengeance, Wiesenthal said: "The world now understands the concept of 'desk murderer'. We know that one doesn't need to be fanatical, sadistic, or mentally ill to murder millions; that it is enough to be a loyal follower eager to do one's duty." The term "little Eichmanns" became a pejorative term for bureaucrats charged with indirectly and systematically harming others.
 * Social loafing
 * Design by committee, a disparaging term for a project that has many designers involved but no unifying plan or vision, ever individual is mindless of unifying plan or vision,
 * Milgram experiment, mindless of other's emotions...


 * Authority bias, mindless (or not confidant) of your own opinion
 * Argument from authority

Capture errors Implicit

the matrix as a vat undermines everything. meaning of life is a battery. Kant's demon?

senseless vs. mindless, although these are on the subject rather than object.

Popular media
To be classified
 * Bucketfulls of Sickness and Horror in an Otherwise Meaningless Life

Existential (meaning of life)

 * Decadence: The Meaninglessness of Modern Life)
 * "materialism and consumerism are making us unhappy and unfulfilled"
 * "the West consumes without consequence, loves without longevity and lives without meaning"; "about how once 'we’ in the West had lives and now we have life styles and that has brought about a pervasive sense of nihilism" # about the branding in marketing/consumerism; "an epidemic of meaninglessness"
 * life=bottom-up;life-style=top-down

Pejoratives
Many pejoratives refer to some aspect of mindlessness or diminishmant of mind, e.g., stupid. Here is a list of mindless pejoratives that are not found elsewhere


 * retarded - obsolete from psychology
 * idiot - obsolete psychology