Dear Danko,
In my view, your statement "how an agent should be organized" implies
contradictory requirements. First, you would like to split the universe
into an agent and its environment. Second, you introduce rules that
govern the agent. An open question along this way would be what is the
difference between the rules that govern the agent and the rules that
govern the environment. How it could be possible that these two sets of
rules differ from each other?
Let me quote Raymond Tallis in this respect:
‘Yes, there is a sense in which it is correct to invoke the opposition
between “the organism” and “the environment” in the case of an
insentient creature such a a bacterium. The organism does not, however,
itself lie at the centre of its environment, creating an
organism-centered space. The centre-surround distinction belongs only to
the observer, just as that which counts as the surroundings of a pebble
to the observer rather than to the pebble. It is the observer who posits
the organism as being related to an environment centred on it.
“Surroundedness” does not come free along with, say, a membrane marking
the boundary between the organism and the rest of the material world any
more that it comes free with an entity such as a pebble that has a
continuous surface marking its limits. The boundary visible to us do not
transform the organism’s objective location into a point of view that
stipulates that which is physically around it as its surrounding.’
Evgenii
P.S. A quote is from Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the
Misrepresentation of Humanity.
Am 03.04.2015 um 07:26 schrieb Danko Nikolic:
On 03/04/15 00:59, Clark Goble wrote:
Because abduction is tied so much to a virtue ethics which the
obtaining of habits through inquiry, attempting to explain it by a
formalism like Bayesianism or probably even neural nets or any
other computational scheme is doomed to failure.
This is exactly that problem I think practopoiesis should be solving.
It allows us to go beyond Bayes and explain by an adaptive approach
(as opposed to a computational approach) how an agent should be
organized in order to be capable of obtaining habits through
inquiry.
That is probably the key contribution that I wanted to offer and
discuss -- organization of biological "machinery" for abduction.
In short, practopoiesis first proposes a set of rule by which all
adaptive systems organize. Next, the theory proposes that a
biological individual adapts at three levels (tri-traverses), and
this adds into the theoretization of the mind one more adaptive level
than what has been considered until now by brain and mind theorists.
Finally, this tri-traversal theory is argued to provide abduction
capabilities (including obtaining habits through inquiry).
Danko
-----------------------------
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 .
