Dear Steven,
Good questions, right to the point! See my answers bellow.
On 27/03/15 05:19, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
A lot has been said by list members, I am not sure that I can add. I
do have a few questions though.
In terms of work of the Peirce family, what aspects of Peirce's logic,
exactly, appear to be consistent with your theory?
When pratopoietic agents have three traverses they become by their very
nature abductive. Abductive reasoning is a kind of an emergent property
of tri-traversal organizations. Thus, practopoiesis explains where
abduction comes from, what it takes to implement it, etc. The theory
tells us why adaptive systems cannot operate in any other way but
abductively. In fact, an implication is that biological systems in
general by their very nature can be considered abductive, even bacteria
and plants can do that (of course, in a "non-cognitive" way).
For example, where is there a relation to "universal will" or "matter
as effete mind?"
These concepts are completely new to me and hence, I cannot answer your
question. This is, I guess, the work that still needs to be done by
someone: Learn about those concepts + learn about practopoiesis, and see
how they are related (or not related).
I would love to to do it, as far as my time allows.
Where is there an explanation of sense or experience and the role it
plays in biophysical dynamics?
If you refer to qualia and the "hard" problem of consciousness, this is
something I can answer. Practopoiesis was designed to provide useful
answers to those questions -- one may say even "breakthrough" answers to
those questions.
However, I have cut it out of the initial draft (it was there in the
very first version) because all my friends who read the draft, agreed
that it was way too much of information and the paper was too long. So,
I left that part for another manuscript.
If you decide to study the present paper on practopoiesis, you will
likely agree that the manuscript is already quite a lot to go through.
And it also already explains a lot about the mind without tackling the
sweet problem of qualia.
So, one has to do it in stages. Anyway, one has to get a hold on
practopoiesis and tri-traversal theory before one can use those insights
to handle the "hard" problem of consciousness.
But, not to keep you in dark, and assuming that you do get a certain
grip on practopoiesis, I can give you a preview where it is going to go
after that: Experience will have to do with understanding to greater
detail the dynamics of anapoietic processes. Also, it will be tightly
related to the emergence of semantics in tri-traversal systems which is
in turn, related to the structure of ideatheca. These new theoretical
tools derived from practopoiesis (anapoiesis, and ideatheca) will be
central and will be applied for understanding how an individual develops
the concept of self, which will be necessary to understand how a
tri-traversal system can end up saying something like "I think (and I
have qualia), therefore I am".
And this will be also tied with empirical evidence, including my own
experimental work on qualia of color in synesthesia and ideasthesia.
So, in short, qualia issues are in works and (in my judgment) the
progress is great.
You can learn about ideasthesia and the new empirical insights about the
relation between semantics and qualia here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideasthesia
and here:
http://ed.ted.com/lessons/ideasthesia-how-do-ideas-feel-danko-nikolic
How does your model fit into Charles' semeiotic triad? If it does, how
may it be applied?
This is again something new to me. I have to learn first what semiotic
triad is, and then probably think intensively for several months, before
I can answer with any confidence.
You paper appear to suggest that the model you present is computable,
i.e., that the plasticity properties of the brain may in fact be
combined with synaptic weights.
Actually, if you read further, you will see that the key emphasis is on
neural adaption mechanisms. But this does not change your question on
computability, as neural adaptation is as "computable" as is synaptic
weight.
In any case, that you model may be implemented upon a Turing model of
computation. Is this a correct reading?
Yes and no. Yes, in a sense that there is no need for dualism and for
postulating additional fundamental non-physical entities in order to
explain qualia. One can rely in principle on a Turing computer instead
of a biological brain to create a conscious sentient artificially
intelligent system.
But there is also a "no" in a sense that the role of this computer
should not be conceptualized in a way the traditional (currently
dominant) brain theory conceptualizes the role of computation for
cognition and consciousness. The tri-traversal theory tells us that
mental operations are not "boxed" within a computer, but rely heavily on
the interactions with the environment.
This issue is discussed explicitly in the very last chapter of the paper
entitled: "What is thought?", and is summarized in Table 2. The table I
copy here for your convenience:
In conclusion, practopoiesis gives answers to some of the important
questions that you posed, and also promises to prepare the grounds to
answer some other even more important questions. So, perhaps, it is not
a bad start.
With best regards,
Danko
Let's say you do, in fact, have a theory of mind. How does your theory
move from apprehension to action?
Regards,
Steven
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Danko Nikolic
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Dear members of Peirce list,
I would like to bring to your attention the upcoming theoretical
paper in Journal of Theoretical Biology entitled "Practopoiesis:
Or how
life fosters a mind". The paper proposes
neurophysiological/cybernetic account of
abductive reasoning, as introduced by Peirce.
As I am not an expert of Perice's work (I am foremost a
neuroscientist) but my theory seems to apply to his contribution
to logic, I would appreciate very much any critical feedback. Have
I understood abduction right? Or did I misted out on something?
Also, if there is anything else relevant from Peirce's work that
I should pay attention to, I would appreciate knowing. For
example, the theory of practopoiesis makes very specific
suggestions of how the meaning (semantics) is dealt with within
neural systems. I don't know how much this particular proposal is
in agreement or in discord with Peirce's work on meaning.
One can download a pre-print of the paper here:
http://www.danko-nikolic.com/practopoiesis/
Thank you very much, and please do not hesitate to address to me
any well-deserved criticism.
With best regards,
Danko Nikolic
--
Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolić
Web:
http://www.danko-nikolic.com
Mail address 1:
Department of Neurophysiology
Max Planck Institut for Brain Research
Deutschordenstr. 46
60528 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
Mail address 2:
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
Wolfgang Goethe University
Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1
60433 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
----------------------------
Office: (..49-69) 96769-736
Lab: (..49-69) 96769-209
Fax: (..49-69) 96769-327
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
----------------------------
-----------------------------
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] <mailto:[email protected]> . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
--
Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolić
Web:
http://www.danko-nikolic.com
Mail address 1:
Department of Neurophysiology
Max Planck Institut for Brain Research
Deutschordenstr. 46
60528 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
Mail address 2:
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
Wolfgang Goethe University
Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1
60433 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
----------------------------
Office: (..49-69) 96769-736
Lab: (..49-69) 96769-209
Fax: (..49-69) 96769-327
[email protected]
----------------------------
-----------------------------
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] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
