Hi Craig Weinberg
I think that Peirce came closest to giving a useful account of 1p is in his triadic diagrams and in his categories. The three categories expand into a 3x3 matrix (below) which breaks down 1p experience into 9 categories of interactions of self with symbols. This science of symbols is called semiotics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_elements_and_classes_of_signs which has the following 3x3 diagram: Phenomenological category: Sign is distinguished by phenomenological category of...1. Quality of feeling. Possibility. Reference to a ground. OR 2. Reaction, resistance. Brute fact. Reference to a correlate. OR 3. Representation, mediation. Habit, law. Reference to an interpretant. I. ...the SIGN ITSELF:QUALISIGN (Tone, Potisign) OR SINSIGN (Token, Actisign) OR LEGISIGN (Type, Famisign) AND II. ...the sign's way of denoting its OBJECT:ICON (Likeness, etc.) OR INDEX (Sign*) OR SYMBOL (General sign*) AND III. ...the sign's way — as represented in the INTERPRETANT — of denoting the sign's object:RHEME (Sumisign, Seme; e.g., a term) OR DICISIGN (Dicent sign, Pheme; e.g., a proposition) OR ARGUMENT (Suadisign, Delome) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 00:30:03 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Monday, September 3, 2012 12:22:48 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. Your proof is missing a step: showing why computers cannot have an aware subject Another problem is that your assumption that the ability to choose requires consciousness means that deep blue (which chooses optimum chess moves), and Watson (who chose categories and wagers in Jeopardy) are conscious. I don't dispute that they may be conscious, but if they are that contradicts the objective of your proof. If you still maintain that they are not conscious, despite their ability to choose, then there must be some error in your argument. Its circular reasoning to look for proof of consciousness since consciousness is a first person experience only, and by definition cannot be demonstrated as an exterior phenomenon. You can't prove to me that you exist, so why would you be able to prove that anything has or does not have an experience, or what that experience might be like. Instead, we have to go by what we have seen so far, and what we know of the differences between computers and living organisms. While the future of computation is unknowable, we should agree that thus far: 1) Machines and computers have not demonstrated any initiative to survive or evolve independently of our efforts to configure them to imitate that behavior. 2) Our innate prejudices of robotic and mechanical qualities defines not merely an unfamiliar quality of life but the embodiment of the antithesis of life. I am not saying this means it is a fact, but we should not ignore this enduring and universal response which all cultures have had toward the introduction of mechanism. The embodiment of these qualities in myth and fiction present a picture of materialism and functionalism as evacuated of life, soul, authenticity, emotion, caring, etc. Again, it is not in the negativity of the stereotype, but the specific nature of the negativity (Frankenstein, HAL) or positivity (Silent Running robots, Star Wars Droids) which reveals at best a pet-like, diminutive objectified pseudo-subjectivity rather than a fully formed bio-equivalence. 3) Computers have not evolved along a path of increasing signs toward showing initiative. Deep Blue never shows signs that it wants to go beyond Chess. All improvements in computer performance can easily be categorized as quantitative rather than qualitative. They have not gotten smarter, we have just sped up the stupid until it seems more impressive. 4) Computers are fundamentally different than any living organism. They are assembled by external agents rather than produce themselves organically through division of a single cell. None of these points prove that the future of AI won't invalidate them, but at the same time, they constitute reasonable grounds for skepticism. To me, the preponderance of evidence we have thus far indicates that any assumption of computing devices as they have been executed up to this point developing characteristics associated with biological feeling and spontaneous sensible initiative is purely religious faith. Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/T3doVNWdqdQJ. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.