Addendum: 2.111.. . . now we have to examine whether there be a doctrine of signs corresponding to Hegel's objective logic; that is to say, whether there be a life in Signs, so that--*the requisite vehicle being present*--they will go through a certain order of development, and if so, whether this development be merely of such a nature that the same round of changes of form is described over and over again whatever be the matter of the thought or whether, in addition to such a repetitive order, there be also *a greater life-history that every symbol furnished with a vehicle of life* goes through, and what is the nature of it (emphasis added to show that this "greater life-history" of a symbol *requires* "a vehicle of life."
I would most certainly *not* pooh-pooh Peirce's comment above. GR [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Helmut, Gary F, list, > > Helmut wrote: I hope that there still is a big step from intelligence to > life. > > Gary F wrote: > > If you have something better than a pooh-pooh argument that artificial > *intelligence* is inherently impossible, or that inorganic systems are > inherently incapable of *living* (and sign-using), I would like to hear > it. I haven’t heard a good one yet. > > > I don't know whether anyone is arguing that "artificial* intelligence* is > inherently impossible"--far from it. And inorganic systems and AI are > certainly capable of "sign-using," every laptop computer or smart phone > demonstrates that. > > But as Helmut "hopes" and I suppose that I would more or less insist upon, > there is "a big step from intelligence to life." > > So, in my critical pooh-poohing logic, I do not see, *contra* Gary F, how > inorganic systems are capable of really living. Granted, intelligence in > evident even in the growth of crystals. But I would not--and I do not think > that Peirce ever claimed--that crystals were living, let along "life forms." > > Best, > > Gary R > > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> List, >> I hope that there still is a big step from intelligence to life. I hope >> that there will never be living, breeding robots without "off"-switches, >> they would kill us as fast as they could. >> Best, >> Helmut >> 14. Juni 2017 um 20:18 Uhr >> g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: >> >> >> Gary R, Jon et al., >> >> >> >> Logic, according to Peirce, is “only another name for *semiotic* >> (σημειωτικη), the quasi-necessary, or formal, doctrine of signs … >> [ascertaining] what *must be* the characters of all signs used by a >> ‘scientific’ intelligence, that is to say, by an intelligence capable of >> learning by experience” (CP 2.227). >> >> >> >> Nobody, including humans, learns by experiences they don’t have. >> Scientific inquirers “discover the rules” (as Bateson put it) of nature and >> culture, by making inferences — abductive, deductive and inductive. But >> what they can learn is constrained by what observations they are physically >> equipped to make, as well as their semiotic ability to make inferences from >> them. >> >> >> >> You seem to be saying that a non-human system which has apparently not >> made inferences before will never be able to make them. But this is what >> Peirce called a *pooh-pooh argument*. Besides, my Go-playing example was >> only that, a single example of an AI system that clearly *has* learned >> from experience and *is* capable of making an original move that proves >> to be effective on the Go board. Of course the Go universe is very small >> compared to the universe of scientific inquiry, but until an AI is equipped >> to make observations in much larger fields, how can we be so sure that it >> will not be able to make inferences from them as well as humans do, just as >> it can match human experts in the field of Go? >> >> >> >> Yes, the rules of Go are *given* — given for human players as well as >> any other players. Likewise, the grammar of the language we are using is >> *given* for both of us. Does that mean that we can never use it to say >> something original, or to formulate new inferences? Why should it be >> different for non-human language users? It strikes me as a very dubious >> assumption that *learning to learn* in any field is necessarily >> non-transferable to other fields of learning. And the fields of learning >> opening up to AI systems are expanding very rapidly. >> >> >> >> You can say “that Gobot is hardly a life form,” but then you can just as >> easily say that the first organisms on Earth were “hardly life forms,” or — >> *contra* Peirce — that a *symbol* is “hardly a life form.” But somebody >> might ask, How do you define “life”? >> >> >> >> If you have something better than a pooh-pooh argument that artificial >> *intelligence* is inherently impossible, or that inorganic systems are >> inherently incapable of *living* (and sign-using), I would like to hear >> it. I haven’t heard a good one yet. >> >> >> >> Gary f. >> >> >> >> *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* 14-Jun-17 12:41 >> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Rheme and Reason >> >> >> >> Gary F, Jon A, list, >> >> >> >> Gary F wrote: >> >> >> >> The question is whether silicon-based life forms are evolving, i.e. >> whether AI systems are *potential* players in what Gregory Bateson >> called “life—a game whose purpose is to discover the rules, which rules are >> always changing and always undiscoverable.” >> >> >> >> And in an earlier post wrote: >> >> >> >> I see some of these developments as evidence that abduction (as Peirce >> called it) and “insight” are probably not beyond the capabilities of AI >> systems that can learn inductively. >> >> >> >> But the rules of Go (and chess, etc.) do *not *need to be >> discovered--they are *given*. (of course, the playing of the game--the >> strategy--is not). Then,* if* life is defined as "a game whose purpose >> is to discover the rules, which rules are always changing and always >> undiscoverable" (although I'm not sure that I find that definition >> satisfactory), to extrapolate from a robot being able to learn to play a >> game where the rules do *not* need to be discovered, to suggest that a >> robot's ability to get better at playing such games with given rules ("can >> learn inductively" in such situations) to this being "evidence that >> abduction. . . and 'insight' are probably not beyond the capabilities of AI >> systems" seems to me to go way too far. >> >> >> >> So I, like Jon A, haven't seen any real intelligence shown in Artificial >> Intelligence systems, even those that can beat a master Go player at such a >> game (hardly "the game of life"). >> >> >> >> Furthermore, Gary F's question as to "whether silicon-based life forms >> are evolving" begs the question (although there may be silicon-based >> life forms on some distant planet for all we know) since that Gobot is >> hardly a life form. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Gary R >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" >> or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should >> go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" >> in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce >> -l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce >> -l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
