On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote
> I don't really understand what your definition of semiosis is. > He doesn't have his own definition lol. You probably need to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics to deduce that semiosis is semiotics without the trimmings, or that perhaps semiosis is the trunk and semiotics are the plentiful branches and leaves. At the end of the day, semiosis is meaning at its first step towards output, or input one step before meaning, ie languages and syntax and style and whatever do not apply as such, only distilled. Finally, it is an issue preferably discussed when you when you have worked out how your whole cognitive architecture works. For example, I can't figure out if Matt's statistical world has any room for semiosis or anything else for that matter, perhaps statistics disempowers the "meaning" part of the equation, and if you don't have meaning you don't have semiosis, even though you may have incredibly complex and therefore "intelligent" behaviors. Finally finally, a chess program that plays good chess by looking at large game trees is pretty much devoid of semiosis, all you could say if you were a committed pedant would be that semiosis is when you take the byte 01110010 from your algorithm and output "Knight e4" for human consumption - which is not to say that you cannot play machine chess with richer semiosis. AT ------------------------------------------- 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
