Edwina: At the risk of belaboring the point, as far as I know, Peirce *never* equated indeterminacy or chance with randomness, nor did he equate intentionality with law. In fact, it seems to me that anything that is intentional--i.e., deliberate or self-controlled--is, by definition, neither random nor strictly determined by law. With that in mind, I still tend to associate chance as 1ns with spontaneity and freedom--mere non-necessity, rather than genuine randomness.
As I have pointed out before, CP 1.412 says nothing about habits *emerging from* randomness. Instead, it indicates that "the principle of habit" (3ns) was *already *operative, since Peirce gave it as the specific reason why there was "a second flash ... in some sense after the first." Again, I see no warrant for insisting that "pure chance, irregularity, and indeterminacy" in CP 1.407 is equivalent to randomness. Finally, since Peirce was also a theist, I imagine that he would likewise reject your interpretation of his statement--especially given his later writings about cosmology and the Reality of God. Regards, Jon On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon - my use of the term 'random' [ which means without a law or > intentionality] equates it with indeterminacy; i.e., the absence of regular > behaviour- and regular behaviour obviously operates according to a law or > intentionality. . Peirce does himself say ' we look forward to a point in > the infinitely distant future when there will be no indeterminacy or chance > but a complete reign of law" 1.409. Here - he equates the terms. > > As to how habits could emerge from 'randomness' or "how law is developed > out of pure chance, irregularity, and indeterminacy" [1.407] - he explains > that in 1.412. > > Since you are, to my understanding, a theist, then, I imagine you would > reject this statement. > > Edwina > > On Thu 15/06/17 12:19 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List: > > Indeterminacy is not equivalent to randomness. Where did Peirce ever > suggest that habits could/did emerge from randomness? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'd suggest that an AI system without a goal is not an AI system; it's >> pure randomness. The question emerges - can a goal, or even the Will to >> Intentionality, or 'Final Causation', emerge from randomness? After all, >> Peirce's account of the emergence of such habits from randomness and thus, >> intentionality, is clear: >> >> "Out of the womb of indeterminacy we must say that there would have come >> something, by the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then >> by the principle of habit there would have been a second flash.....then >> there would have come other successions ever more and more closely >> connected, the habits and the tendency to take them ever strengthening >> themselves'... 1.412 >> >> Organic systems are not the same as inorganic. Can a non-organic system >> actually, as a system, develop its own habits? According to Peirce, 'Mind' >> exists within non-organic matter - and if Mind is understood as the >> capacity to act within the Three Categories - then, can a machine made by >> man with only basic programming, move into self-development? I don't see >> this - as a machine is like a physical molecule and its 'programming' lies >> outside of itself. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Thu 15/06/17 11:42 AM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent: >> >> On 6/15/2017 9:58 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> > To me, an intelligent system must have an internal guidance system >> > semiotically coupled with its external world, and must have some >> > degree of autonomy in its interactions with other systems. >> >> That definition is compatible with Peirce's comment that the search >> for "the first nondegenerate Thirdness" is a more precise goal than >> the search for the origin of life. >> >> Note the comment by the biologist Lynn Margulis: a bacterium swimming >> upstream in a glucose gradient exhibits intentionality. In the article >> "Gaia is a tough bitch", she said “The growth, reproduction, and >> communication of these moving, alliance-forming bacteria” lie on >> a continuum “with our thought, with our happiness, our sensitivities >> and stimulations.” >> >> > I think it’s quite plausible that AI systems could reach that level >> > of autonomy and leave us behind in terms of intelligence, but what >> > would motivate them to kill us? >> >> Yes. The only intentionality in today's AI systems is explicitly >> programmed in them -- for example, Google's goal of finding documents >> or the goal of a chess program to win a game. If no such goal is >> programmed in an AI system, it just wanders aimlessly. >> >> The most likely reason why any AI system would have the goal to kill >> anything is that some human(s) programmed that goal into it. >> >> John >> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
