BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Intentionality is a basic, indeed, I'd say THE basic component of
semiosis. ..
Intentionality is expressed in the three modes of Firstness,
Secondness and Thirdness - in all their forms, both genuine and
degenerate. That is, intentionality, as a power of interaction, has
different methods for expressing and attaining those interactions.
So- you will get what some will call hard and soft anticipation, and
strong and weak anticipation/intentionality.
Intentionality - can be understood as 'Anticipation' as well -
The concepts of memory, of learning, of exploring, of networking, of
generalizing, of differentiation....it's all there - within the notion
of intentionality and anticipation -...and that's semiosis.
One of the most important conferences and groups of researchers from
different disciplines, all focused on intentionality and anticipation
- can be found in the conference organized by Daniel Dubois, of
Liege, Belgium. The volumes of papers from these conferences, which
have been held for many years, are published by the AIP [American
Institute of Physics]. Conference Name: Computing Anticipatory
Systems.
Research is in mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, economics,
philosophy, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, computing..and the
social sciences.
Edwina
On Tue 23/01/18 5:41 PM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent:
Jon AS,
Thanks for the references from 1891 and 1896. That is evidence
for Peirce's thoughts about minds or quasi-minds prior to 1903.
But it would be useful to see more explicit mention of animals.
On related issues, following is an excerpt from a note that I sent
to Ontolog Forum about the need for recognizing intentionality as
fundamental to every aspect of human and animal activity.
There are many nominalists who refuse to admit intentionality
as fundamental to all life.
John
___________________________________________________________________
From RC:
> In summary, intentionality would seem to be an unmeasureable
value.
> Nice theoretical touch, but what good would it be for processing
> realistic models of behavior?
>
> Is there a way to obtain more realistic measurements?
No. The first step to solving a problem is to recognize that there
is a problem. The second step is to remove the barriers that are
created when you deny that you can't do anything about it.
Congratulations on taking the first step.
But now you have to take the next step: Recognize that intentions
are fundamental to everything that people and other animals do.
Furthermore, every business, social event, and government action
depends critically on intentions. Signs, such as signing a contract
or just shaking hands, are critical methods for showing intentions.
And they are admissible as evidence in a court of law.
Intentionality *must* be recognized at the very top of any ontology
that is adequate for business, engineering, finance, law,
government...
The overwhelming majority of the time, people correctly interpret
the intentions of other people and animals. Do you have a pet?
If so, you probably have a good idea about your pet's intentions.
People don't always tell the truth, but most people have a fairly
good sense that somebody is lying or at least not saying everything
that is on their mind.
In fact, anthropologists who study chimps and bonobos say that they
are often better at detecting human intentions than other humans --
primarily because they look at what people do, not at what they say.
Even your pet dog or cat has good insights into your intentions.
Have you ever tried to conceal your intentions about taking them
to the vet?
For more about these issues, see http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signs.pdf
[1]
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fjfsowa.com%2Fpubs%2Fsigns.pdf
-----------------------------
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 .
