0570 Okay, semiotic agency works as the noumenal overlay for both the dogs in Pavlov’s experiment and Pavlov himself.  Or should I say, “Pavlov’s scientific self”? 

0571 Why do I say this?

Recall the empirio-schematic judgment?

Disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mechanical and mathematical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).

0572 Surely, Pavlov’s semiotic agency manifests within each element in the empirio-schematic judgment.

0573 What is (firstness) corresponds to the experimental setup and goes into the methods section of the scientific publication.  Ideally, Pavlov’s experiment can be performed independently by any scientist with dogs who will do anything to please their master.

In sum, the experimental apparatus and the resulting data go with the SV_s and correspond to the methods and results sections in a scientific publication.

0574 What ought to be (secondness) corresponds to analysis of the data.

Pavlov models the fact that his dogs drool measurable amounts at the sound of the bell.  The model is mechanical.  The bell initially is sounded when the food arrives, so the nervous system of the dog in the sling is conditioned to both bell and food arrival.  Later, when the bell sounds, the dog drools.

Never mind the reality that the dog is only interested in the food, not the bell.

If the food fails to come, the dog will figure out ways to get out of that drool-collecting headgear and pelvis-suspending sling.

In sum, the data is crunched and a model is proposed in the analysis section of a scientific paper.

0575 Relation (thirdness) corresponds to a discussion of the analysis and results of the experiment.

That said, a label may be attached to the type of model that the data suggests.  In this case, two labels apply.  “Anticipation” is a label designed to capture the attention of non-scientific folk.  “Operant and instrumental conditioning” is a label designed to hold the attention of scientific folk.

0576 Why two labels?

Science involves explicit abstraction.  The terminology of explicit abstraction may change depending on the audience.

For the general public, the explicit term, “anticipation”, labels a wide range of um… phenomena.   These observable and measurable behaviors are attributed to a noumenon, a thing itself, called “anticipation”.

0577 For scientists interested in psychology, the explicit term, “anticipation”, labels a suite of models for conditioned responses, produced through rigorous experiments on animals.

Here is a picture of Pavlov’s empirio-schematic judgment.

0578 In triumphalist psychology, the technical term, “anticipation”, should overshadow the common term, “anticipation”.

In the process, the application of the general term is narrowed and shifted towards the counter-intuitive.

I wonder whether Pavlov anticipates that?

Maybe he does, without even being conscious of that anticipation.

0579 Section 6.7 concerns consciousness and cognition in animals.

In this examination of Pavlov’s experiment, a question concerning consciousness and cognition arises within two agencies, that of Pavlov the scientist and that of Pavlov’s dogs.

0580 This suggests a parallel between Pavlov, the scientist, and his dogs, the subjects of scientific inquiry.

0581 Now, the above dyads represent matter where the form is a real initiating (semiotic) event. 

0582 For the dogs, the form is a serving of meat while hearing a bell.  Forget about all that apparatus business.  That is for master to decide.  The drool occurs when the bell rings₂, in the normal context of Pavlov’s apparatus₃, signifying the potential of dinner₁.  This fits the common person’s use of the world “anticipation”.

Indeed, the exemplar sign-relation depicts an innate expectation.  The master feeding me_2b (SV_e) stands for my love for master and my master’s expectations of me_2c (SO_e) in regards to the rituals of being fed by master_3c operating on the possibility that the master is pack leader_1c (SI_e).  Or, something like that.

0583 For Pavlov, the event is an experiment, designed to produce data through measuring volumes of canine slobber.  The measurements_2a (SV_s) stand for a conditioned response_2b (SO_s) in regards to the way that psychologists_3b conduct experiments that mean ‘something’_1b (SI_s).  Then, the conditioned response_2b (SV_e) stands for “anticipation”_2c (SO_e) in regards to making sense_3c of this scientifically relevant ‘something’ by offering a label_1c (SI_e).  This introduces a novel empirio-schematic term into the psychological lexicon.

0584 What does this have to do with consciousness and cognition?

0585 Obviously, I have two referents for the term, “anticipation”.

0586 So, a semiotic tool may be useful in sorting out this issue of labeling in a Lebenswelt of explicit abstraction.

0587 The Greimas square is a semiotic tool that turns out to be useful for ascertaining the location of a spoken word in a system of differences.

How does the Greimas square operate?

The Greimas square is a purely relational structure constructed of four locations.  Each location corresponds to the corner of a square.  The corners are labeled A, B C and D.  Each label represents a rule.  A is the focal spoken word.  B is a spoken word that contrasts with A.  C is a word that “speaks against” (contradicts) B and complements A.  D is a word that contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B.

0588 Here is a picture.

0589 I can apply the Greimas square to what Pavlov accomplishes.

The focal word (A) is the common use of the term, “anticipation”.  The spoken word is an explicit abstraction.  When the bell rings, the dog anticipates a bowl of meat.  The bell brings the meat to um… consciousness.

The contrasting word (B) is the technical use of the term, “anticipation”.  When the bell rings, the dog salivates.  Salivation is not regarded as a subagent doing what it is supposed to do.  Rather, salivation is evidence of an unconscious conditioned response.  Is this where the word, “cognition”, fits in?

The word (C) that contradicts (B) and complements (A) is “consciousness”.  For common use, anticipation entails conscious awareness or a process that leads to conscious awareness.  For Pavlov’s dogs, the bell brings meat to consciousness.

The term (D) that contrasts with (C), speaks against (A) and complements (B) is “operant conditioning”.  Operant conditioning is regarded as an unconscious process.

0590 Here is a picture.

0591 What does this have to do with consciousness and cognition?

Does Pavlov’s scientific breakthrough in psychology demonstrate that an explicit abstraction, that everyone applies to human consciousness, may be grounded in unconscious cognitive processing?