The hard parts are here...
The plant, insect, or animal with the need to communicate (e.g., to recognise 
an object of food) will know what needs to be said and assess the best means of 
saying it (e.g., starting a searching behaviour);
Step 1. (Speaker Mode) The agent will know what needs to be said and figure out 
a plan for saying it. 
This information will then be encoded and relevant muscle groups will effect 
transmission — although to some extent intentional in the human, the actual 
movements of the body are autonomic, i.e. the individual is not aware of moving 
individual muscles, but achieves the desired result by an act of will (see H. 
L. A. Hart on the nature of an action);
Step 2. (Speaker Mode) Encode the intent into signs that can be sent to 
actuators

The audience filters ambient data and perceives the uttered code as a grouping 
of signs;
Step 3. (Hearer Mode) Receive percepts and group into signs.
The audience then interprets the signs (sometimes termed decoding) to attribute 
meaning. This involves matching the signs received against existing patterns 
and their meanings held in memory (i.e. it is learned and understood within the 
community). In plants, insects and animals, the results of a successful 
interpretation will be an observable response to the stimuli perceived.
Step 4. (Hearer Mode) Decode the signs into meaning by "matching  signs to"  
(or activating) existing concepts. 

Your thoughts? 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [agi] Semiosis
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:03:59 -0700




So my interpretation of Semiosis is the entire process sign decoding to 
meaning,  and then encoding meaning into signs.   This process involves the 
sign parsing problem (where we start with percepts, then detect features, then 
detect signs, then activate concepts) and sign generation problem (where we 
start with activated concepts, then serialize them into signs, then send motor 
commands to actuators to render the signs). 
Jim, how can we both be so far apart on our interpretations of Semiosis? 
~PM

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 23:22:39 -0400
Subject: Re: [agi] Semiosis
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

It's well written nonsense.  There is nothing in that paragraph on semiosis 
which actually says something that is relevant to AGI.  Now someone might 
criticize much of what you or I might say the same way.  But that is 
irrelevant.  Read the paragraph a little more carefully.  Can you find anything 
in it, other than Peirce's basic idea of the sign, that we might actually use?  
Here, look at these sentences:

"For humans, semiosis is an aspect of the wider systems of social interaction 
in which information is exchanged. It can result in particular types of social 
encounter, but the process itself can be constrained by social conventions such 
as propriety, privacy, and disclosure."
 It starts by mentioning semoisis but it really is about the wider systems of 
social interactions. If you were to ask how the wider systems of social 
conventions such as propriety, privacy, and disclosure affects language I would 
doubt if it would lead to anything but it would be a whole lot more substantial 
then talking about semoisis.  It's nonsense writing.
 Look, I thought I had a great insight about conceptual structural integration 
the other day and one day I might be able to do something with it.  But right 
now it is too plain because it is just about trying to figure out how we talk 
about things.  So I have a good start on an idea but I don't have anything 
about how an effective structural complex might be chosen out of all the 
possibilities that could be considered.  So I don't have a compelling 
conjecture about how we might cut through the complications and use structural 
integration to create AGI. But although my idea about conceptual structural 
integration is only at the most primitive level of thought right now, the 
paragraph on semiosis that you mentioned doesn't even get that far.  Perhaps I 
am only able to see it from my narrow vantage of my interest in AGI, but 
everything I have ever read about semiosis looks a lot like fluff to me.
Jim



  
    
      
      AGI | Archives

 | Modify
 Your Subscription


      
    
  

                                          


  
    
      
      AGI | Archives

 | Modify
 Your Subscription


      
    
  

                                          


-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to