Gary F, You wrote:
Biosemiotics has made us well aware of the intimate connection between life and semiosis. I’m just trying to take the next step of generalization by arguing against what I call DNA chauvinism, and taking it to be an open question whether electronic systems capable of learning can eventually develop intentions and arguments (and lives) of their own. To my knowledge, the evidence is not yet there to decide the question one way or the other. I am certainly convinced "of the intimate connection between life and semiosis." But as to the rest, especially whether electronic systems can develop "lives of their own," well I have my sincere and serious doubts. So, let's at least agree that "the evidence is not yet there to decide the question one way or the other." But "DNA chauvinism"?--hm, I'm not even exactly sure what that means, but apparently I've been accused of it. I guess I'm OK with that. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Gary, > > > > For me at least, the connection to Peirce is his anti-psychologism, which > amounts to his generalization of semiotics beyond the human use of signs. > As he says in EP2:309, > > “Logic, for me, is the study of the essential conditions to which signs > must conform in order to function as such. How the constitution of the > human mind may compel men to think is not the question.” > > > > Biosemiotics has made us well aware of the intimate connection between > life and semiosis. I’m just trying to take the next step of generalization > by arguing against what I call DNA chauvinism, and taking it to be an open > question whether electronic systems capable of learning can eventually > develop intentions and arguments (and lives) of their own. To my knowledge, > the evidence is not yet there to decide the question one way or the other. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 16-Jun-17 14:08 > > Gary F, list, > > > > Very interesting and impressive list and discussion of what AI is doing in > combatting terrorism. Interestingly, after that discussion the article > continues: > > *Human Expertise* > > AI can’t catch everything. Figuring out what supports terrorism and what > does not isn’t always straightforward, and algorithms are not yet as good > as people when it comes to understanding this kind of context. A photo of > an armed man waving an ISIS flag might be propaganda or recruiting > material, but could be an image in a news story. Some of the most effective > criticisms of brutal groups like ISIS utilize the group’s own propaganda > against it. To understand more nuanced cases, we need human expertise. > > The paragraph above suggests that "algorithms are not yet as good as > people" when ti comes to nuance and understanding context. Will they ever > be? No doubt they'll improve considerably in time. > > > > In my opinion, AI is best seen as a human tool which like many tools can > be used for good or evil. But we're getting pretty far from anything > Peirce-related, so I'll leave it at that. > > > > 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 . 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
