Hi Russell Standish A self-organizing system is not what I proposed because in such a system it is the output (Thirdness) that organizes itself. And "autopoetics" is also apparently a misleading term. I was seduced by its academic associations.
Instead, I see now that what I am proposing is "Computational Secondness." This would be a Peirce-type epistemological machine, where Firstness = the raw input = perception, consciousness Secondness= that which creates order out of the Firstness (the living, intelligent part) Thirdness = the structured or ordered output, which may be alive or not be alive. Intelligence in my machine is pure Secondness. Roger Clough, [email protected] 10/15/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 17:27:50 Subject: Re: Computational Autopoetics 1 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: > "Computational Autopoetics" is a term I just coined to denote applying basic > concepts > of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to do it > more justice > than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been exploited, > but I have > seen no indication of that. > > The idea is this: that we borrow a basic characteristic of autopoetics, > namely that life is > essentially not a thing but the act of creation. This means that we define > life as the creative act of generating structure from some input data. By > this > pramatic definition, it is not necessarily the structure that is produced > that is alive, but > life consists of the act of creating structure from assumedly structureless > input data. > Life is not a creation, but instead is the act of creation. So any self-organised system should be called alive then? Sand dunes, huricanes, stars, galaxies. Hey, we've just found ET! Actually, I was just reading an interview with my old mate Charley Lineweaver in New Scientist, and he was saying the same thing :). > > If life is such a creative act rather than a creation, then it seems to fit > what > I have been postulating as the basic inseparable ingredients of life: > intelligence > and free will. I don't believe intelligence is required for creativity. Biological evolution is undeniably creative. ... Rest deleted, because I cannot follow you there. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. Roger Clough, [email protected] 10/15/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 17:27:50 Subject: Re: Computational Autopoetics 1 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: > "Computational Autopoetics" is a term I just coined to denote applying basic > concepts > of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to do it > more justice > than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been exploited, > but I have > seen no indication of that. > > The idea is this: that we borrow a basic characteristic of autopoetics, > namely that life is > essentially not a thing but the act of creation. This means that we define > life as the creative act of generating structure from some input data. By > this > pramatic definition, it is not necessarily the structure that is produced > that is alive, but > life consists of the act of creating structure from assumedly structureless > input data. > Life is not a creation, but instead is the act of creation. So any self-organised system should be called alive then? Sand dunes, huricanes, stars, galaxies. Hey, we've just found ET! Actually, I was just reading an interview with my old mate Charley Lineweaver in New Scientist, and he was saying the same thing :). > > If life is such a creative act rather than a creation, then it seems to fit > what > I have been postulating as the basic inseparable ingredients of life: > intelligence > and free will. I don't believe intelligence is required for creativity. Biological evolution is undeniably creative. ... Rest deleted, because I cannot follow you there. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. 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 protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
