Edwina, I appreciate your description of the two basic triads. Here is my understanding from an IT perspective.
a] Since computers began to replace human processes with automated processes the model has been: Input -> Process -> Output. Input occurs as the result of an event. As you know, events is a huge subject. Input requires metadata and is often described as having a signature. The signature to me is a formal definition of signs. The actual data then defines the specific quantitative attributes of an object. The process then interprets the input and takes action. Output, like input, also has a signature that defines the output signs and the actual object. A process may be a program, a subroutine, a method of a class, a service of a component, etc. Consider this simple example: A bank receives a transaction. The bank recognizes it as a demand deposit debit transaction due to its format or sign. The specific object is then processed by verifying the existence of the checking account with a balance able to accept the debit amount. If accepted, the account is updated. Output is success or failure of the transaction with the data that documents the outcome. This process is consistent for all debit transactions. You said, “Thirdness is the realm of common, continuous habits of organization. ..and is operative in the MEDIATIVE part of the triadic process.” I agree and believe that is exactly how current digital systems operate. There is nothing about the current digital systems that make them Complex Adaptive Systems. The mediation is the logic provided by programs written by developers. The signs are defined by formal technical definitions prepared by domain experts. The objects involved are either transient messages or elements stored in persistent data under the control of database administration. The term used for changing systems is “maintenance”. It is done by humans with the assistance of computer-based tools. As for integration, there are some very good standards. In banking, ACH is a big success. In healthcare it is not so good. There are many standards, but each organization interprets them differently. As a result, the systems that use this information must hire programmers to figure out the translations. b] In this triad, you noted the term Mode of Being. As I understand your comments, this is when computing systems are able to write their own code. The current Semantic Web standards do not provide a means to reach this mode. They do however provide a means to uncover inconsistency. OWL-DL provides a means to define classes, data properties, and object properties within a domain. These definitions determine what is possible as well as what is not possible. They are organized as the TBox of an OWL ontology. OWL also provides the means to define objects in the ontology ABox. There are reasoners available that can uncover inconsistencies in both the Tbox and ABox. Currently, inconsistency identified by a reasoner must be resolved by a human. Imagine if all digital systems were constructed so complex inconsistencies could be identified before system failures occur. I believe this would be a big step towards identifying problems in a standard manner so there could be an AI mediator to resolve inconsistency issues. To fully address AI, a usual requirement for the being is it must have a goal. Is there anything in Peirce that addresses goals? I am working with a group that is planning to provide a digital twin of a person to reach the highest goals in the Maslow hierarchy of needs. Initially, the twin will only offer opportunities to satisfy physiological needs based upon the person’s circumstance. Their greater intent is for the twin to mentor the person through life on a path to the higher levels where each person has their own unique digital twin that learns and adapts to the person. Your insight has only given me greater enthusiasm for the Peirce framework and its applicability to digital system. As I follow up with the contacts you have provided, I will post the results. Respectfully, Tom T. - OtterServer.com From: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 1:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peircean Categories Tom I think the key thing[s] to focus on is that there are, in the Peircean framework, two basic triads. a] The 'process' triad, which is the movement of input raw data -via mediation- to information or interpretation. Peirce's terms are: Object ->Representamen or Sign --> Interpretant. But the everyday more common terms of input-mediation-output mean the same thing. The thing to note is that our systems, in interaction with the 'outside-of-us' environment, don't input raw data directly but via a mediating system. This can be understood as: the knowledge base. It acts to screen raw input, decide whether it's noise or value, whether its poison or food;, whether it's friend or foe - and if of value, then, use it. It's not simply the brain that does this. All living systems do it - even without the separate brain. Call it the knowledge base of the cell. Or the immune system... The mediating system functions, not so much with a data-base of 'specific data units' - but - it GENERALIZES input and transforms it into long term 'general typologies'. So- for an organic system, all input bacteria of Type ##, are accepted, while all input bacteria of Type ** get the immune system working to reject. it. This can result in both good and bad ...where doctors have to make the body accept what it doesn't naturally want! A social system will take raw data [how we behave] and transform it into a set of 'normative behaviour in our society'. So- we will purchase goods and services rather than steal them. The fact that the mediation system is one that generalizes means that it provides continuity. The system doesn't have to decide every time a new input comes along - if its OK or Reject. Its general Rules....enable it to make a rapid decision. The other thing about a General Mediating system - as you note - is the INTEGRATION of multiple input data from different sites. That capacity to analyze discrete bits of data from multiple sites and generalize within the common habits of the community - enables the expansive spread of the functions of this system. The other thing to note about this process triad - is that in the higher living systems - the knowledge base is OPEN. That is, it can learn. This enables adaptation and evolution. The mediative system is usually in a Mode-of-Thirdness. Essentially, this means that living systems are Complex Adaptive Systems. They Self-Organize this mediating knowledge system - which means that the mediating system doesn't need any External Ruler - to change its Rules and adapt. A population will itself decide to change its rules of behaviour. Now, machines and computers lack this internal Mediating system - and that's what people in AI and IT etc, are trying to solve - how to make what is a Dyadic System [input/output]….become a triadic system [input/mediation/output]. b] The other triad to note is one that refers not to the Process-of-information development, but to the Mode of Being. The terms here are: Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. These are NOT ordinal terms. They refer instead to the mode, the way that the data or information organizes itself and functions. Firstness data is pure open sensation: qualitative, subjectively measured, relativist, highly dissipative and individualistic. The pure unanalyzed feeling of heat..It is useful to bring something to our attention. Secondness data is discrete, separate units. This -as-differentiated-from-that. This cell, with its cell walls, is separate from that cell with those cell walls. This word is distinct from that word. Quantitative measurements. Thirdness is abstract generals of Type. A Type focuses on commonalities rather than differences [which is the realm of Secondness]. A Type can be defined because all follow the same RULES; ;they all breathe oxygen, they all have four legs; they all ...etc. Here - we can only MODEL the generalities; ie, that this Type always follows a particular pattern of development. Thirdness is the realm of common, continuous habits of organization. ..and is operative in the MEDIATIVE part of the triadic process. ------------------------------------------ I think the key values of Peirce to IT would be the triadic process - with that insertion of a mediating process of Thirdness. ----------------- Just a spelling note. It's Chris Laundauer. Not Christ. And it's Mark Burke. I think key contacts could be Ricardo Gudwin and Daniel Dubois. Regards Edwina Taborsky On Sun 16/05/21 11:35 AM , "Tom Tinsley" [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> sent: Edwina, I am overwhelmed with your list of contacts. I will reach out to each of them. The term you used, triadic infrastructure, hits home for me. Having managed hundreds of systems in banking, government, retail, and media the biggest issue is integration of systems both internal to an organization and external to other organizations. I believe a common implementation of the triadic infrastructure would solve this issue. Also, I have seen multiple presentations of OWL-based systems and none have been constructed with a common infrastructure. Each utilizes diverse technical standards and implementations. Although each system meets a unique need, each is a silo of knowledge. As a result it is complex for these systems to share knowledge. Bright spots like linked data provide sharing. Not because they are all created and accessed using products from the same vendor, but because they all apply the same sematic standards. How much more could be accomplished if all digital systems followed an integrated set of common standards in implementing the triadic infrastructure? I know it can be done. I have a prototype of one approach. What I expect to learn from the sources you provided is that others have better solutions for implementing the triadic infrastructure. Thank you for taking the time and providing so many contacts. Sincerely, Tom From: Edwina Taborsky Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 5:36 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peircean Categories Tom, list Yes, you are right; many others in the field of information technology have recognized the analogies with Peircean semiosis. they don't use the same terms [such as Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness] for the cognitive process -but - they certainly recognize both the triadic infrastructure and the realities of possible, actual, continuity/necessary. The field is huge as I'm sure you know - and I couldn't give you just one name, but would suggest that you contact: Daniel Dubois Institute of Mathematics, University of Liege, Belgium [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> He has set up the remarkable conference system, "CASYS: or Computing Anticipatory Systems, with scholars working in AI, IT, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics - to examine essentially cognitive processes in these areas. The people who have participated in these conferences are 'the top'. He can provide you with names and contacts. Again, it is important to be able to see the common conceptual infrastructure that these different disciplines are using and accept that they are not using Peircean terms - and frankly - there is no need to do so. It's the conceptual infrastructure that is the same... I'd also suggest some others who have participated in the Dubois conferences; Marke Burke: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [Dept of Mathematics, U of Limerick, deals with anticipatory systems Christ Laundauer and Kirstie Bellman [Aerospace Integration Science Center; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> And Leonid Perlovsky, editor of Physics of Life [Elsevier] - which also deals in artificial life, robotics, AI. [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> He also knows plenty of people in the AI field - And there are more in the field of AI and robotics - who do understand the analogy with the Peircean framework. For instance, the book: 'Semiotics and Intelligent Systems Development,, 2007, edited by Ricardo Gudwin and Joao Queiroz. Idea Group Publ. Both Ricardo and Joao would know of more contacts - and that includes with IEEE symposiums and are interested in computational semiotics. [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Hope these contacts help. Edwina Taborsky On Sat 15/05/21 2:35 PM , "Tom Tinsley" [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> sent: I have just recently joined this group. My background is in Information Technology. My interest is in others’ understanding of the Peircean categories of Possibility, Actuality, and Necessity as the foundation of engineering, specifically software engineering. Here is a little more about my interest. The engineering of something new adheres to a standard methodology. First there must be a requirement or concept, followed by specifications, and then construction. In software engineering the same steps are followed: requirements, design, and programming. Traditionally, these steps are done in the order listed (The Waterfall methodology). Currently, Agile methodologies are being applied that recognize the benefit of small iterations of these steps. Once, I even reorganized the IT software development group into three separate organizations (Requirements, Design, Programming) and followed a then well accepted project methodology. I wrote a book on enterprise architecture back in 2009. During my research for the book, I was disappointed that I did not find standards in the development of conceptual models to describe an enterprise. The best available products for conceptual design were provided by database providers. My research took me into the Semantic Web standards, where I became convinced that description logic as specified in the OWL-DL language could be used as a standard for conceptual models in enterprise architecture. And I was surprised to learn that consistency could be proven by reasoners across all three software development steps. To learn more, I joined the ontology-forum, and also began developing a prototype to prove that consistency could be maintained across all development steps. I presented a paper on the prototype at KEOD 2011 where I met Professor Jan Dietz, a leader in this area. Then, after observing discussions on the ontology-forum, I realized that the Peirce categories matched the IT categories. Possibility is equivalent to design. Actuality is equivalent to database, file, and message specifications. And Necessity is equivalent to programming. Today’s efforts in AI are to teach computers to be equivalent to human cognition. Since Peirce addresses human cognition, it seems reasonable that the Peircean categories should be the foundation for AI. I am confident that many others have recognized these same equivalences, but I am not finding publications. So, I am interested in others’ evaluation of this conjecture, and wondering if there are ideas, papers, books, videos, etc. that could provide a greater understanding of how Peirce’s publications could be applicable to the categories of software development. I look forward to dialog! Respectfully, Tom Tinsley OtterServer.com
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
