I disagree, again. As I tried to point out with both saccade and the inverted pendulum, the person who interacts with the ground thousands of times a day does so in a very tight feedback loop, sensing, acting, sensing, acting, etc. You are free to abstract all the detail and idealistically think something like "walking" demonstrates "full belief". But I claim that's so idealistic as to be useless.
Our robotics experts are approaching bipedal locomotion quite nicely. And it might provide a nice vehicle for arguing about this. We could ask whether successful bipedal robots have mostly general purpose computers (UTMs) or mostly low-level embedded systems logic generating their walking behavior. I'd argue that the extent to which it's the former, indicates more coherence and the extent to which it's the latter indicates coupling. But regardless of how those answers fall out, the robots interaction with the ground is not "full belief". It's a mixed bag of sense, act, sense, act, ... On 03/29/2018 04:34 PM, Eric Charles wrote: > The man who doubts the ground exists might look and poke, then decide never > to get out of bed. In contrast, the man who fully believes in the ground will > interact with it thousands of times a day. That those thousands of > interactions occur "without a thought" is testament to the coherence of the > system. > > (Though nothing is completely "coherent" in Peirce's world, because he > understands probability and statistics perfectly well. Sometimes people with > the strongest ground-coherence still slip and fall, or stick their feet in a > whole.) -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
