BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I would agree with Gary R - I think that the definitions have to be clear.
Intelligence does not also mean 'conscious'; nor does it mean 'living'. After all, 'matter is effete Mind'. A crystal is operating as an intelligent organization of matter; i.e., a semiosic form. But is it 'living'? I would consider that a vital aspect of 'life' is that the individual instantiation, the particular morphology or Token, enables the continuity of its Type [Thirdness] by self-replication. So, the Thirdness of a bacterium or rabbit is expressed within the particular morphological Form [Secondness] of a bacteria or rabbit - which reproduces itself [in Secondness] in another version of Thirdness..while the first Form dies off. AI doesn't seem to function this way; i.e., within the Categories defining its material existence. Do the Categories operate within its 'intelligent operations'? People are always questioning whether an AI can 'feel'; or can develop logical habits [Thirdness]...or is it doomed to operate forever in 'bits' [Secondness]. Science Fiction assumes that AI, can function within the Categories in both its material and intelligent actions. I don't know... Edwina On Wed 14/06/17 11:36 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: Helmut, Gary F, list, Helmut wrote: I hope that there still is a big step from intelligence to life. Gary F wrote: If you have something better than a pooh-pooh argument that artificial intelligence is inherently impossible, or that inorganic systems are inherently incapable of living (and sign-using), I would like to hear it. I haven’t heard a good one ye t. I don't know whether anyone is arguing that "artificial intelligence is inherently impossible"--far from it. And inorganic systems and AI are certainly capable of "sign-using," every laptop computer or smart phone demonstrates that. But as Helmut "hopes" and I suppose that I would more or less insist upon, there is "a big step from intelligence to life." So, in my critical pooh-poohing logic, I do not see, contra Gary F, how inorganic systems are capable of really living. Granted, intelligence in evident even in the growth of crystals. But I would not--and I do not think that Peirce ever claimed--that crystals were living, let along "life forms." Best, Gary R Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New YorkC 745718 482-5690 [1] On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: List, I hope that there still is a big step from intelligence to life. I hope that there will never be living, breeding robots without "off"-switches, they would kill us as fast as they could. Best, Helmut 14. Juni 2017 um 20:18 Uhr g...@gnusystems.ca [3] wrote: Gary R, Jon et al., Logic, according to Peirce, is “only another name for semiotic (σημειωτικη), the quasi-necessary, or formal, doctrine of signs … [ascertaining] what must be the characters of all signs used by a ‘scientific’ intelligence, that is to say, by an intelligence capable of learning by experience” (CP 2.227). Nobody, including humans, learns by experiences they don’t have. Scientific inquirers “discover the rules” (as Bateson put it) of nature and culture, by making inferences — abductive, deductive and inductive. But what they can learn is constrained by what observations they are physically equipped to make, as well as their semiotic ability to make inferences from them. You seem to be saying that a non-human system which has apparently not made inferences before will never be able to make them. But this is what Peirce called a pooh-pooh argument. Besides, my Go-playing example was only that, a single example of an AI system that clearly has learned from experience and is capable of making an original move that proves to be effective on the Go board. Of course the Go universe is very small compared to the universe of scientific inquiry, but until an AI is equipped to make observations in much larger fields, how can we be so sure that it will not be able to make inferences from them as well as humans do, just as it can match human experts in the field of Go? Yes, the rules of Go are given — given for human players as well as any other players. Likewise, the grammar of the language we are using is given for both of us. Does that mean that we can never use it to say something original, or to formulate new inferences? Why should it be different for non-human language users? It strikes me as a very dubious assumption that learning to learn in any field is necessarily non-transferable to other fields of learning. And the fields of learning opening up to AI systems are expanding very rapidly. You can say “that Gobot is hardly a life form,” but then you can just as easily say that the first organisms on Earth were “hardly life forms,” or — contra Peirce — that a symbol is “hardly a life form.” But somebody might ask, How do you define “life”? If you have something better than a pooh-pooh argument that artificial intelligence is inherently impossible, or that inorganic systems are inherently incapable of living (and sign-using), I would like to hear it. I haven’t heard a good one yet. Gary f. From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com [4]] Sent: 14-Jun-17 12:41 To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Rheme and Reason Gary F, Jon A, list, Gary F wrote: The question is whether silicon-based life forms are evolving, i.e. whether AI systems are potential players in what Gregory Bateson called “life—a game whose purpose is to discover the rules, which rules are always changing and always undiscoverable.” And in an earlier post wrote: I see some of these developments as evidence that abduction (as Peirce called it) and “insight” are probably not beyond the capabilities of AI systems that can learn inductively. But the rules of Go (and chess, etc.) do not need to be discovered--they are given. (of course, the playing of the game--the strategy--is not). Then, if life is defined as "a game whose purpose is to discover the rules, which rules are always changing and always undiscoverable" (although I'm not sure that I find that definition satisfactory), to extrapolate from a robot being able to learn to play a game where the rules do not need to be discovered, to suggest that a robot's ability to get better at playing such games with given rules ("can learn inductively" in such situations) to this being "evidence that abduction. . . and 'insight' are probably not beyond the capabilities of AI systems" seems to me to go way too far. So I, like Jon A, haven't seen any real intelligence shown in Artificial Intelligence systems, even those that can beat a master Go player at such a game (hardly "the game of life"). Furthermore, Gary F's question as to "whether silicon-based life forms are evolving" begs the question (although there may be silicon-based life forms on some distant planet for all we know) since that Gobot is hardly a life form. Best, Gary R ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu [6] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [7] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce [8]-l/peirce-l.htm . ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu [9] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [10] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce [11]-l/peirce-l.htm . Links: ------ [1] http://webmail.primus.ca/tel:(718)%20482-5690 [2] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [3] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'g...@gnusystems.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [4] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [5] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [6] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [7] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [8] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [9] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [10] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [11] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .