Gary F., List,. Your examples of the surgical robot and the climate-monitoring AI are especially helpful in that they help make concrete what we've been discussing somewhat abstractly. From a Peircean point of view, a crucial consideration is *that inquiry remains answerable to reality*. Whether the relevant observations come through human perception, scientific instruments, robotic and other sensors, or some future combination of these (and who knows what else?)* reality continues to constrain inquiry* by resisting inadequate interpretants and interpretations and supporting better ones. Human collateral experience no doubt remains paradigmatic, but it is conceivable that future AI systems might participate more directly in the larger web of observations through which communities of inquiry remain connected to the world. So, perhaps we differ a bit here (that is, *should* humanity, let alone life-valuing inquiry survive the onslaught of planet degrading activity by the 'masters of destruction' -- you know whom I mean).
Which brings us to your related question of *alignment*. For even if future AI systems were to become increasingly integrated into inquiry through richer forms of interaction with reality, the normative question would still remain: *To what ends is inquiry directed?* That returns us to Peirce's architectonic where logic ultimately depends upon ethics and ethics upon esthetics. (There's much more to be said here, but I happen to be on vacation in the Finger Lakes district of New York State.) Suffice it to say that I too radically distrust "the small group of owners and developers of AI [who] have purposes which are clearly *out* of alignment with the purposes and the well-being of life on earth *including the rest of humanity*." And I too am frankly horrified by AI's "energy- and water-sucking data centers." As for the first, the "filthy rich" owners of AI: they already own so much and control so much of what has become destructive of humanity and the planet that AI would appear to be just another 'add on' to their greedy lust for wealth and power *if *it were not for the second, the already horrific waste of energy and water of their data centers. While I personally think AI is 'here to stay', I personally fear for humanity's and the planet's future. Best, Gary R On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 9:21 AM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, list, > > Gary, in answer to the question I posed, you suggested "that future > systems might interact with observations from sensors, scientific > instruments, experiments, robots, and human investigators." That indeed > was the sort of thing I had in mind, and indeed seems to be happening > already. > Take for instance an AI-minded robot trained for surgery, who has all the > sensors monitoring the state of the patient's body plugged directly into > it, and all the necessary instruments as built-in extensions. It's getting > immediate feedback from every move it makes and its effect on the body > being operated on, which is guiding its actions along with the memory > stored from its training; in this respect it is just like a human surgeon > or possibly better. (We've already heard that some AIs are better at > *diagnosis* than human doctors). > One reason that we might *not* say that such an AI is "experiencing" that > operation from its point of view is that since it's not a self-organizing > system like a human animal, we don't think it's *alive*, and we think > that only living things *experience* things. But that's an assumption on > our part: if you're conversing with another human face to face, you > *assume* that person is experiencing the conversation from their point of > view in a way analogous to *your* experience of it. But we don't really > *know* that, since nobody directly experiences somebody else's > experience. We assume it because we've learned no other way to make sense > of a conversation we're engaged in. > A friend of mine likes to say that "AI" actually stands for *alien > intelligence*. Theoretically, such an alien intelligence could be placed > in charge of monitoring the Earth's climate, with all the sensors plugged > directly into it that are now used as sensory extensions by human > scientists. And that might be a good idea, if it had the power to directly > shut down enough sources of carbon and methane emissions to steadily reduce > the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It could do that whether > we say that it's *experiencing* the state of the atmosphere as a dynamic > object or not. The same goes for AI's contribution to inquiry within the > scientific or scholarly community, I think. > But humans are unlikely to put an AI in charge of controlling the Earth's > climate, even if a global consensus on that could be reached, because it's > an *alien* intelligence. Could we trust it to manage the climate as much > as we can trust it to, for instance, venture a new hypothesis? This is what > some call the *alignment problem*: What if a powerful AI, one that > couldn't be "unplugged" because it has full control of its own power > supply, developed purposes of its own that are misaligned with human > purposes? > Personally I'm less worried about that than I am about the situation we're > in now, where the small group of owners and developers of AI have purposes > which are clearly *out* of alignment with the purposes and the well-being > of life on earth * including the rest of humanity*. That's the main > reason that personally I don't really trust it to be or become a valued > contributor to scientific inquiry, except maybe in a highly specialized > field such as surgery. (The fact that it seems to demand energy- and > water-sucking data centers all over the place, and is already increasing > the carbon emissions of all the tech giants, is another reason.) > Love, gary f > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > Gary Fuhrman on Substack <https://gnox.substack.com/> | *Turning Signs* > <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2026 12:43 AM > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Peircean Argument for the Reality of AI > Intelligence > > Gary F., List, > > Gary, I'm especially glad you entered this discussion because your > bringing the Dynamic Object into it points toward a question that hasn't > received sufficient attention: Under what circumstances, if any, can an AI > system be said to be related to a Dynamic Object? I would imagine that most > here would agree with you that present LLMs do not possess collateral > experience since they obviously do not see, hear, touch, or otherwise > encounter the world as we do. > > What I might question is whether collateral experience must always belong > to the individual sign-user. Scientific inquiry, especially, has long > depended upon signs produced by investigators whose observations become > available to others through books, journals, diagrams, etc. In truth, most > of us know the majority of scientific objects only through signs produced > by others. Still, as I see it, our inquiries remain connected to the DO > because the community of inquiry continually accumulates, tests, and can -- > and often does -- extend the collateral experience on which those signs > depend. > > So, I guess I'm suggesting that *collateral experience may itself be > distributed throughout the community of inquiry* rather than residing > exclusively within each participant. If that is correct, then the relevant > question isn't whether the machine itself experiences the DO but, rather, > *whether > the inquiries in which AI participates remain correctable by living > communities whose signs continue to be constrained by experience*. > > I am far from certain that this is the only way, let alone the best way to > think about AI and collateral experience. Be that as it may, thank you for > bringing the Dynamic Object into this discussion as it seems to me to be an > *essential* line of inquiry. After all, it is possible that future > systems might interact with observations from sensors, scientific > instruments, experiments, robots, and human investigators. > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 10:37 AM [email protected] <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List, > > I've hesitated to enter this thread because, while it's had much to say > about signs, interpretants, inquiry, intelligence and (perhaps) > communication, it hasn't said much about dynamic objects. But as Ahti > Pietarinen said in his open access article (p. 10), “Without the facts of > the matter, which from the semiotic point of view comprise signs’ dynamical > objects, there would be no shared meaning in communication.” > > According to Peirce, engagement with the dynamic object involves > experience of it as something other than, but dynamically connected with, > the sign itself. As he wrote in a 1909 letter to William James: > [[We must distinguish between the Immediate Object,— i.e. the Object as > represented in the sign,— and the Real (no, because perhaps the Object is > altogether fictive, I must choose a different term, therefore), say rather > the Dynamical Object, which, from the nature of things, the Sign cannot > express, which it can only *indicate* and leave the interpreter to find > out by collateral experience. For instance, I point my finger to what I > mean, but I can't make my companion know what I mean, if he can't see it, > or if seeing it, it does not, to his mind, separate itself from the > surrounding objects in the field of vision.] EP2:498] > > Peirce also defines the Dynamic Object of a Sign as “that with which it > presupposes an acquaintance in order to convey some further information > concerning it” (CP 2.231, 1910). Clearly this prior acquaintance can only > be supplied by *experience* of that object. > > My question is: under what circumstances can a chatbot or any AI be said > to be * experiencing* a dynamic object? Obviously it cannot get > collateral experience of an object from the database on its server, because > that consists entirely of signs which are no longer (if they ever were) > dynamically connected with a real object. > > While Jon was saying that what goes on within an AI is entirely “dyadic,” > it seems to me that it's not nearly dyadic enough to function indexicallly, > which it must do in order to convey information in the Peircean sense, or > to “share meaning in communication.” > > Love, gary f. > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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] > . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM > PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default > email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
