Here is something I'm working on relevant to the discussion of

     situations. It is not yet at point where it can be demonstrated,

     but here's an abstract description that may present a unique and

     unexplored perspective on situations. What is proposed is a

     bicameral architecture of situated and embodied semiotic

     control. Embodied domain state control is constrained by

     situational control. At the embodied control level, effects are

     adjustments of state, led by sentiments (positive and negative

     preference) considered as Peirce's thirdness. The same is true at

     the situational level (which constrains the embodied sentic

     level) effects in the space of situations are led by purposes.


     Embodiment

     1. Control domain

     2. Effect

     3. Feel w/rt Effect

     Situation

     4. Situational domain

     5. Effect upon situational domain (decision)

     6. Purpose w/rt Effect


     Peirce's modes are greatly illuminated when cast in terms of

     Perceptual Control Theory, which I think can be generalized as a

     Semiotic Control Theory. This may be a novel finding, but it

     seems more likely that I just didn't realize what Peirce meant

     until I thought of his work in terms of PCT.  The main insight

     that I think PCT brings to the Peircean modes is that qualitative

     categories can be derived from purely enactive hierarchical

     control. In other words, for example "feeling" is a thirdness

     phenomenon strictly because it is an instance of directing the

     selection of effect (2ndness-level) toward a reference condition,

     established by the organism as a control system. Similarity an

     "agreement" belongs to the situational domain of 4thness because

     it it establishes parameters constraining 3rdness-level activity.

     Again, this seems so obvious now that I am working with the

     ideas, that it is likely an understanding shared by others as

     well.


     An interesting fact about this is that it produces an

     intriguingly natural definition of purpose in the context of

     control systems.  First off, purpose is about controlling effects

     in a situational domain. This leads to the more interesting

     observation that purpose is about those signs that designate

     collectively or individually the direction of changes in some

     situation domain that in terms of the control system are

     favorable. I suppose "goal" and "purpose" are fairly

     interchangeable here, but "purpose" seems to more cleanly

     accentuate the easily intersubjective nature of signs acting as

     purposive operations.



-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to