On 17 Oct 2012, at 13:14, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
My problem with autopoesis is that it only deals with 3p
(the outer, objective world) but not with 1p (the inner,
subjective world).
I agree, but I have not followed the devlopment, which is too verbal
for my understanding.
No problem with the Dx = "xx" type of self-reference, for the beliefs,
as the logic force the machine to be incapable of confusing the first
person (which keeps intact its umbilical cord with truth) and the
third person view, which is what we agree on at some start of a
discussion.
If we are machine, then, amazingly perhaps, the simplest "outer world"
is arithmetic, and the physical worlds is no more objective, but first
person plural consistent (hopefully).
It fits L, with monad = intensional number (not intentional numbers).
(I agree with Hintikka that intensional and intentional are related,
though).
Bruno
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/17/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-16, 09:34:51
Subject: Re: Computational Autopoetics 1
On 14 Oct 2012, at 22:44, Roger Clough wrote:
"Computational Autopoetics" is a term I just coined to denote
applying basic concepts
of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to
do it more justice
than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been
exploited, but I have
seen no indication of that.
Autopoesis is natural in comp, by the second recursion theorem,
indeed. I explained this to Varella, years ago, and he did agree with
this. He was aware of the work by Judson Webb on this subject.
Now, some people oppose autopoesis and the computer science approach,
but they are to verbal and unconvincing for me. As I said the "auto",
or "self'" is what computer science masters the better, and if you
read the seocnd part of sane04, you light understand the basis for
this.
The idea is this: that we borrow a basic characteristic of
autopoetics, namely that life is
essentially not a thing but the act of creation. This means that we
define
life as the creative act of generating structure from some input
data. By this
pramatic definition, it is not necessarily the structure that is
produced that is alive, but
life consists of the act of creating structure from assumedly
structureless input data.
Life is not a creation, but instead is the act of creation.
Hmm.... What is an act? What is creation? I take nothing for granted,
except numbers and + and *.
If life is such a creative act rather than a creation, then it seems
to fit what
I have been postulating as the basic inseparable ingredients of
life: intelligence
and free will. Intelligence is what is required to create structure
(an algorithm)
this algorithm must be free within its own domain to create
structure. Consciousness is a necessity
for such intelligence and this would consist essentially of the
reading or perception of
input data to work on.
OK.
The engine of life might then be modelled as
a) reading input data (consciousness)
b) computationally (intelligently) creating structure from this data
(this being the act of life), and
c) outputting structures of some kind.
In a Maxwell Demon,
a) The demon reads random (hot or cold) input temperature data of
atoms Ti.
b) Selects data according to some criterion ( Ti < Tcold goes into
A, the "cold" bin
and Ti > Tcold data goes into goes into bin B).
c) The output structure consists of data i n A, the cold bin, and B,
the warm bin.
So we have (input data ID of some kind) --> (structure creation SC
of some kind) ---> (output structure OS of some kind)
So the overall engine consists of three to-be-specified parts:
1) ID (which could be random or OS or some modification of it)
2) Stucture creating SC algorithm of some kind
3) Output structure OS of some kind.
By this means, one could define different levels of structure as
products of different
creation algorithms, the lowest form of life perhaps being the
Maxwell Demon algorithm.
Higher levels of life would have perhaps cellular structeres, etc.
This engine could then be of multiple types of components.
There out to be some correleation perhaps between input and out put.
It might be a convolution integral.
There might be a parallel or serial of such engines
The actual creation of life might be the creation of an algorithm
or structure that reproduces
more creation algorithms.
Etc. etc.
I would insist more on the self-transformation notion to gat a comp
autopoesis.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
