On Saturday, December 1, 2012 6:19:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
> The final solution -> How comp could work in the brain
> Peirce is known to have borrowed some ideas from Locke,
> the most likely one being Locke's philosophy of mind,
> namely that the mind is a blank slate and that all knowledge
> is obtained through the senses. 
> Comp could in fact provide such sensory signals if the
> numbers of comp are converted to analog form signals
> and interfaced to the brain. Presumably this is how 
> digital implants work.  

But nothing can convert 'numbers' into sensory signals, and if it could, we 
wouldn't need comp. In order to get sensory signals out of our computer, we 
need a specially constructed screen which stimulates our human eyes. The 
screen itself needs electronic signals from actual semiconductor chips 
which are plugged into an electrical power source. If numbers could be 
converted directly, then all of this would be unnecessary. We could use 
empty space as a computer, or a computer that is powered off. Transistors 
should be able to find memory addresses without electric power, just by 
converting them into signals.


> So in principle comp could work.

It could work, but not in the universe that we actually live in.

>  A possibly workable scheme would begin with
> comp forming signs or  representations in the brain
> with electrical signals. Then what ?

Then you already have consciousness. You are looking for a bridge from 
function to substance to consciousness when consciousness already is the 
capacity to experience functions and substance.



>  Then the life in the brain-- its intelligence-- takes over.  
> The resultant thinking would be semiotic: 
> the interpretation of such signs and manipulation of them
> by this intelligence according to Peirce's logic system. 
> eg 
> S1 + S2 = S3
> Problem solved. Case closed. Comp works. :-)
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] <javascript:>
> 12/1/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> *From:* Roger Clough <javascript:> 
> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
> *Time:* 2012-12-01, 04:46:19
> *Subject:* What is semiotics ? Of what use is it to comp ?
>   What is semiotics ? Of what use is it to comp ?
> To the semiotician, the world consists of extended things and 
> their inextended representations called signs. The physical and
> the nonphysical. So not dissimilar to the world of Leibniz.
> There are two related branches of the study of signs. One,
> called semiotics, is more properly the study of the logic of signs,
> is what I shall be addressing, and was developed by CS Peirce.  
> The other branch, called semiosis, was developed by Saussure.
> It is the study of the application of signs (frequently words 
> or language) socially, in the world outside. A basic branch 
> of this study involves linguistics and the study of structures 
> in language.
> So Peirce's semiotics is based on logical mental phenomena,
> while Saussure's semioses deals with the use and
> meanings of words and phrases socially in the world at large.  
> Semiotics, being logical, appears to me to be the proper branch to 
> study together with comp.
>  [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] <javascript:>
> 12/1/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to