John, List I view the two terms of awareness and consciousness as aspects of Secondness and Thirdness, where, as Peirce wrote, “two sets of objects, what we are immediately conscious of and what we are mediately conscious of” [5.395]/. Awareness would obviously function within a categorical mode of Secondness, that brute unmediated immediate interaction of A with B, while consciousness requires a mediated analysis, so to speak, against an internal model.
I don’t view this model as requiring a language; indeed, I’d say modelling goes on everywhere - in the chemical-physical and biological realms as well as the human societal [who do use symbolic/linguistic models]. This definition would thus lead one to ask the question: Is this model transformable to one that is ’separate’ from itself, so to speak, ie is the holder conscious of the model? I’d say that so far, only humans have this capacity to symbolically represent a model and thus be conscious of its form. But I consider that all material reality requires models, which enable anticipation of interactions - and thus, enable decision-making, even in the most elementary bits of matter. Randomness is not the major force in the universe. As for vagueness, I consider this a property of both Firstness [chance] and Thirdness [ habit, generality] See Peirce 5.450] - nothing to do with language or notation - but, a property of an interaction of A with B. I don’t consider vagueness as a synonym for ‘error’ but as the nature of a stimulus ‘outside of a determination ’, so to speak. That is, the interacting stimulus/data is open to interpretation. Some interactions, for example, in a mode of pure or genuine Secondness [2-2], are not open to interpretation, such as a military order, or a Stop sign, or a basic chemical interaction - but the more complex ones are open. Edwina Taborsky > On Aug 11, 2023, at 4:18 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear All, > > This thread has attracted too many responses for me to save all of them. But > Mihai Nadin cited intriguing experimental evidence that fruit flies "think" > before they act (copy below). I also found a web site that says more:about > the experimental methods: > https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-05-22-fruit-flies-think-they-act . See > excerpts at the end of this note. > > Ricardo Sanz> My initial question about the difference between > "consciousness" and "awareness" is still there. > > The distinction between consciousness and awareness is very clear: Awareness > can be detected by experimental methods, as in the experiments with fruit > flies. Thinking (or some kind of mental processing) can be detected by a > delay between stimulus and response. But nobody has found any experimental > evidence for consciousness, not even in humans. > > We assume consciousness in our fellow humans because we all belong to the > same species. But we have no way to detect consciousness in humans who have > suffered some kinds of neural impairment. We suspect that animals that > behave like us may be conscious, but we don't know. And there is zero > evidence that computer systems, whose circuitry is radically different from > human brains can be conscious. > > Ricardo> I agree that "vagueness" is an essential, necessary aspect to be > dealt with. But it is not the central one. The central one is "the agent > models its reality". > > Those are different topics. A model of some subject (real or imaginary) is > a structure of some kind (image, map, diagram, or physical system) that > represents important aspects of some subject. Vagueness is a property of > some language or notation that is derived from the model. What is central > depends on the interests of some agent that is using the model and the > language for some purpose. > > Furthermore, vagueness is not a problem "to be dealt with". It's a valuable > property of natural language. In my previous note, I mentioned three > logicians and scientists -- Peirce, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein -- who > recognized that an absolutely precise mathematical or logical statement is > almost certain to be false. But a statement that allows some degree of error > (vagueness) is much more likely to be true and useful for communication and > application. > > Mathematical precision increases the probability that errors will be > detected. When the errors are found, they can be corrected/ But if no > errors are found, it's quite likely that nobody is using the theory for any > practical purpose.. > > Jerry Chandler> You may wish to consider the distinctions between the > methodology of the chemical sciences from that of mathematics and whatever > the views of various “semantic” ontologies might project for quantification > of grammars by algorithms. > > Chemistry is an excellent example of the issues of precision and vagueness, > and it's the one in which Peirce learned many of his lessons about > experimental methodology. Organic chemistry is sometimes called "the > science of side effects" because nearly every method for producing desired > molecules will produce a large number of unwanted molecules.. And minor > variations in the initial conditions may have a huge effect on the yield of > the desired results. Textbooks that describe the reactions tend to be > vague about the percentages because they can vary widely as the technology is > developed.. > > Jerry> What are the formal logical relationships between the precision of the > atomic numbers as defined by Rutherford and logically deployed by Rutherford > and the syntax of a “formal ontology” in this questionable form of artificial > semantics? > > For any subject of any kind, a good ontology should be developed by a > collaboration of .experts in the subject matter with experts in developing > and using ontologies. The quality of an ontology would depend on the > expertise of both kinds of experts. > > Doug Foxvog> Is there some kind of model of the external world in an insect > mind? Sure -- the insect uses such model to find its way back "home". But > does the insect have a model of its own mind? Probably not. > > A Tarski style model may be represented by predicates, functions, and names > of things in the subject matter and two kinds of logical operators: > conjunction (AND) and the existential quantifier (There exists an x such > that...). > > For most applications, subject matter experts typically add images and > diagrams. For people, those images and diagrams make the model easier to > understand. For formal analysis and computing, those images and diagrams > would be mapped to predicates, functions, and names, which are related by > conjunctions and existentially quantified names. > > Doug> We can create an ontology of models such that "mental model" could > designate either #$ModelOfExternalityInAMind or #$ModelOfOnesOwnMind. These > would be different concepts. > > If you consider minds as things in the world, this reduces to the previous > definition. The psychologist Philip Johnson-Laird wrote a book and many > articles about mental models. I cite him frequently in my writings, and I > use the term 'mental model' in the same sense as his publications. > > Alex Shkotin> What relationship exists between consciousness and anticipatory > processes? > > As Michai Nadin wrote, "None;" I agree with his discussion and references. > > Alex> My concept of consciousness would be an awareness of part of one's > thoughts and ability to reason about it. > > But that would only enable the researcher to detect his or her own > consciousness. That method would be useless for a theory about non-human > animals or robots. > > Alex> def consciousness. The ability to generate, modify, and use mental > models as the basis for perception, thought, action, and communication. > > That definition would enable humans to develop theories about human > consciousness. And they do that. But it does not enable humans to observe > and develop theories about consciousness in any non-human things. > > You might make a conjecture about consciousness in apes, since they are very > closely related to humans. . You might extend that conjecture to other > animals, but you can't be certain. And there is no way that you could extend > that conjecture to computer systems, which have no resemblance whatever to > human thinking processes. > > John > > From: "Nadin, Mihai" <[email protected]> > Dear and respected colleagues, > > Always impressed by the level of dialog between the two of you. Sometimes > amused, when the limits of knowledge are reached. Will only quote from a > recent publication (of course, I remain focused on anticipatory processes, a > subject which, so far, did not make it into your conversations): > > Fruit flies 'think' before they act, a study by researchers from the > University of Oxford's Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour suggests. The > neuroscientists showed that fruit flies take longer to make more difficult > decisions. > > In experiments asking fruit flies <http://phys.org/tags/fruit+flies/> to > distinguish between ever closer concentrations of an odour, the researchers > found that the flies don't act instinctively or impulsively. Instead they > appear to accumulate information before committing to a choice. > > Gathering information before making a decision has been considered a sign of > higher intelligence, like that shown by primates and humans. > > 'Freedom of action from automatic impulses is considered a hallmark of > cognition or intelligence,' says Professor Gero Miesenböck, in whose > laboratory the new research was performed. 'What our findings show is that > fruit flies have a surprising mental capacity that has previously been > unrecognised. > > ___________________________________ > Excerpts from > https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-05-22-fruit-flies-think-they-act > > The researchers observed Drosophila fruit flies make a choice between two > concentrations of an odor presented to them from opposite ends of a narrow > chamber, having been trained to avoid one concentration. > > When the odor concentrations were very different and easy to tell apart, the > flies made quick decisions and almost always moved to the correct end of the > chamber. > > When the odour concentrations were very close and difficult to distinguish, > the flies took much longer to make a decision, and they made more mistakes. > > The researchers found that mathematical models developed to describe the > mechanisms of decision making in humans and primates also matched the > behaviour of the fruit flies. > > The scientists discovered that fruit flies with mutations in a gene called > FoxP took longer than normal flies to make decisions when odours were > difficult to distinguish – they became indecisive. > > The researchers tracked down the activity of the FoxP gene to a small cluster > of around 200 neurons out of the 200,000 neurons in the brain of a fruit fly. > This implicates these neurons in the evidence-accumulation process the flies > use before committing to a decision. > > Dr Shamik DasGupta, the lead author of the study, explains: 'Before a > decision is made, brain circuits collect information like a bucket collects > water. Once the accumulated information has risen to a certain level, the > decision is triggered. When FoxP is defective, either the flow of information > into the bucket is reduced to a trickle, or the bucket has sprung a leak.' > > Fruit flies have one FoxP gene, while humans have four related FoxP genes. > Human FoxP1 and FoxP2 have previously been associated with language and > cognitive development. The genes have also been linked to the ability to > learn fine movement sequences, such as playing the piano. > > 'We don't know why this gene pops up in such diverse mental processes as > language, decision-making and motor learning,' says Professor Miesenböck. > However, he speculates: 'One feature common to all of these processes is that > they unfold over time. FoxP may be important for wiring the capacity to > produce and process temporal sequences in the brain.' > > Professor Miesenböck adds: 'FoxP is not a "language gene", a "decision-making > gene", even a "temporal-processing" or "intelligence" gene. Any such > description would in all likelihood be wrong. What FoxP does give us is a > tool to understand the brain circuits involved in these processes. It has > already led us to a site in the brain that is important in decision-making. > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
