Jon, Mary, Gary F., List,
I think, to get closer to an answer, one would have to construct many examples of actions caused by initiative, intent, freedom, spontaneity etc., and then ask an AI-expert, if she/he, or the AI itself, is able to code algorithms, that do the same or virtually the same. About dangers besides the extinction or enslaving of humans if AI gets conscious: I guess, Buddhists or Hindus might fear, that souls incarnate into the AI, and never get out again to reach Nirvana. I don´t mean this as a joke. Another danger is, that, while suffering of animals and humans is well avoided by a long evolution, this might not be the case with AI, so it might suffer extremely, when it gets conscious. I, if not having a body, would, I guess.
Best, Helmut
14. Januar 2026 um 00:09
wrote:
GF: it’s difficult to attach any definite meaning to the phrase "life in the metaphysical sense."
Again, Peirce's statement in CP 6.322 (1907) is that "pure chance" is likely "no explanation" for "how life first came about," because "pure chance may itself be a vital phenomenon." Hence, what he means by "life in the metaphysical sense" seems to be 1ns as "pure chance," which he elsewhere defines as "a mathematical term to express with accuracy the characteristics of freedom or spontaneity" (CP 6.201, 1898).
Of course, LLMs and other alleged candidates for "artificial intelligence" lack these very characteristics; even so-called "random number generators" employ deterministic algorithms to produce results that seem arbitrary. As Peirce himself puts it, "Every reasoning machine, that is to say, every machine, has two inherent impotencies. In the first place, it is destitute of all originality, all initiative. It cannot find its own problems; it cannot feed itself. It cannot direct itself between different possible procedures. ... In the second place, the capacity of a machine has absolute limitations; it has been contrived to do a certain thing, and it can do nothing else" (W 6:70, 1887). In other words, a machine lacks "freedom or spontaneity," so it does not have any purposes/intentions of its own, it simply carries out those of its designer; and being confined to its original built-in functions, it is incapable of growth, which Peirce considers to be another "vital phenomenon."
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
Gary F., List,
Daniel Dennet wrote, if I have understood it correctly, that social systems, though possibly not having a real intention, may be ascribed an intention to them. With this "intentional stance", an observer can predict well, how the system will behave. Now I am wondering: For how long does it matter, whether intention is "real", or only "as-if"? The same question may be asked about "intelligence" or "consciousness", I think. So, maybe there will not be a sudden "singularity" (silicon-valley-speak), no sudden awakening of AI´s consciousness, but a sneaking transition already taking place, and at some blurred point it is not anymore possible to distinguish "as-if" from "real"?
Best, Helmut
12. Januar 2026 um 20:08
wrote:
While working this morning on my Substack post, which is about some basics of linguistic semeiosis, it occurred to me that I might sum up or boil down this whole thread (with all its name changes) to the subject of intentionality. Every life form has some kind of intent which is essential to the continuity of its action-perception process, including both its attention to objects and its retention of habits. Self-organization and life may not be exactly the same thing, but if a silicon-based electronic entity were to become truly autonomous it would have to have developed its own intentionality independently of any human intentions (and thus possibly contrary to human welfare).
Whether this can ever happen or not seems an open question to me. But if it does happen, I think the question of whether its real intentions are conscious or not may be undecidable. Such an entity may well be “superhuman” in some sense without being conscious, for the same reason that Peirce says “God probably has no consciousness” (EP2:447).
Jon, regarding the 1907 Peirce quote that you included, I think that much better formulations “of the problem of how life first came about” have come along since Peirce’s time — and that (for me at least) it’s difficult to attach any definite meaning to the phrase “life in the metaphysical sense.”
Love, gary f.
Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
[email protected] . ►
UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to
https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> .
But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then
go to
https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
