Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina,

you wrote:

 


"3] A call for action is, in my view, based on a theory of 'How To Live as a community'."

 

That would be a fully fledged thirdness-communist-utopic theory. But a call for action may also be just a call for help, from being fed up or starving, without any concept or theory, or something half-reflected between. A degenerate sign??

(desperately trying to Peirce-relate)

Best,

Helmut

 

 


 27. Juni 2017 um 02:40 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky"  wrote:
 


Helmut - I'll try to be brief because I really don't think this is a topic for this list.

1] Democratic change, whether gradual or via leaps, has in my view, nothing to do with the LEAP Manifesto.

2] Yes - the best laid plans of mice and men could be compared with 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

3] A call for action is, in my view, based on a theory of 'How To Live as a community'.

They are recommending a particular socioeconomic system - and this has nothing to do with democracy. The term 'democracy', to my understanding, refers only to a method of choosing a particular action/person/govt/ etc.

4) Peirce was, if I recall correctly, against gradual evolution and did suggest 'leaps' in evolutionary change.

That's it.

Edwina



 

On Mon 26/06/17 8:17 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:




Edwina,

with "it" I meant a basic-democratic, maybe leap-like, change: In Cochabamba (was it in the 1980ies?) a citizens initiative had regained the water rights that were stolen from the people by a collaboration of the government and a US- water company. Before they were not even allowed to collect rain water. In Chiapas (1990ies) the people have achieved to govern themselves, see: Zapatista uprising. How it is there nowadays I dont know, I hope still democratic. You wrote:

 


'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry'

 

I dont understand (not a native speaker), does that mean: "The way to hell is paved with good intentions"?

With which I would agree. You wrote:

 

"4] You are suggesting that a theory 'explains things afterwards'. But fascism, communism - and the LEAP manifesto are not explaining things 'afterwards' but are recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization that IF ONLY it is followed - will bring 'the best life' and well-being and so on."

 

I do not see the Leap Manifesto as a theory (do they claim that?), but a call for action. That they promise best life and well-being- I too do not like that either. I agree that this is wrong. But are they, as you said, "recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization"? Or is it simply democracy, they recommend?

 

About the kind of freedom Luther meant I am overasked. Perhaps he just gave in to the princes one of whom had protected him before. The farmers fought against all princes, but Luther could not accompany them at this point, because without the help of one of these princes he would have had ended on the pyre long before. You ask:

 

"And what does any of this have to do with Peirce?"

 

Nothing I admit. But I had argued that you (from my humble opinion, which may anytime be altered) should not refute the Leap-Manifesto with Peirce, so be not Peirce-related either with this subject. Well, trying to suck something Peircean off my fingers... Peirce had an idea of continuity, and the leap manifesto wants a discontinuity, a leap. So it might hopefully be Peirce-related, to say, that modern theories talk about leaps, revolutions, bifurcations, emergences, sudden changes from quantity to quality, which Peirce at his time could not, or did not want to be, aware of. Or?

Best,

Helmut

 

 

 


 27. Juni 2017 um 01:13 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" wrote:
 


Helmut - you wrote:

1] " I spontaneously recall at least two places where it has worked: Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Chiapas, Mexico."

What does 'IT' refer to? What worked?

2] The Marxist-Leninist theory of linear socioeconomic phases is simply a Seminar Room Theory. It's not a FACT.

3] You wrote:

"Luther edited pamphlets against the peasants, who wanted the same freedom, he advertised before for christian people, and he argued with his theory of the two realms"

What freedom?

And what does any of this have to do with Peirce?

4] You are suggesting that a theory 'explains things afterwards'. But fascism, communism - and the LEAP manifesto are not explaining things 'afterwards' but are recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization that IF ONLY it is followed - will bring 'the best life' and well-being and so on.

As is said: 'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry'...

I think pragmatic realism is the sensible path..It doesn't dwell in the land of 'If Only'.

Edwina

 



 

On Mon 26/06/17 6:14 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:




Edwina, Gary, List,

I am against utopism too, but I do not see what should be wrong with the Leap Manifesto: They are not propagating an 

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina,

with "it" I meant a basic-democratic, maybe leap-like, change: In Cochabamba (was it in the 1980ies?) a citizens initiative had regained the water rights that were stolen from the people by a collaboration of the government and a US- water company. Before they were not even allowed to collect rain water. In Chiapas (1990ies) the people have achieved to govern themselves, see: Zapatista uprising. How it is there nowadays I dont know, I hope still democratic. You wrote:

 


'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry'

 

I dont understand (not a native speaker), does that mean: "The way to hell is paved with good intentions"?

With which I would agree. You wrote:

 

"4] You are suggesting that a theory 'explains things afterwards'. But fascism, communism - and the LEAP manifesto are not explaining things 'afterwards' but are recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization that IF ONLY it is followed - will bring 'the best life' and well-being and so on."

 

I do not see the Leap Manifesto as a theory (do they claim that?), but a call for action. That they promise best life and well-being- I too do not like that either. I agree that this is wrong. But are they, as you said, "recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization"? Or is it simply democracy, they recommend?

 

About the kind of freedom Luther meant I am overasked. Perhaps he just gave in to the princes one of whom had protected him before. The farmers fought against all princes, but Luther could not accompany them at this point, because without the help of one of these princes he would have had ended on the pyre long before. You ask:

 

"And what does any of this have to do with Peirce?"

 

Nothing I admit. But I had argued that you (from my humble opinion, which may anytime be altered) should not refute the Leap-Manifesto with Peirce, so be not Peirce-related either with this subject. Well, trying to suck something Peircean off my fingers... Peirce had an idea of continuity, and the leap manifesto wants a discontinuity, a leap. So it might hopefully be Peirce-related, to say, that modern theories talk about leaps, revolutions, bifurcations, emergences, sudden changes from quantity to quality, which Peirce at his time could not, or did not want to be, aware of. Or?

Best,

Helmut

 

 

 


 27. Juni 2017 um 01:13 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"  wrote:
 


Helmut - you wrote:

1] " I spontaneously recall at least two places where it has worked: Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Chiapas, Mexico."

What does 'IT' refer to? What worked?

2] The Marxist-Leninist theory of linear socioeconomic phases is simply a Seminar Room Theory. It's not a FACT.

3] You wrote:

"Luther edited pamphlets against the peasants, who wanted the same freedom, he advertised before for christian people, and he argued with his theory of the two realms"

What freedom?

And what does any of this have to do with Peirce?

4] You are suggesting that a theory 'explains things afterwards'. But fascism, communism - and the LEAP manifesto are not explaining things 'afterwards' but are recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization that IF ONLY it is followed - will bring 'the best life' and well-being and so on.

As is said: 'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry'...

I think pragmatic realism is the sensible path..It doesn't dwell in the land of 'If Only'.

Edwina

 



 

On Mon 26/06/17 6:14 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:




Edwina, Gary, List,

I am against utopism too, but I do not see what should be wrong with the Leap Manifesto: They are not propagating an utopian regime, but a basic-democratic change. And that is not utopian (no place), I spontaneously recall at least two places where it has worked: Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Chiapas, Mexico.

In the Spanish revolution 1936 the Soviet Union fought against the revolutionists, because they had success in changing the politics too fast for marxist theory, in a basic-democratic way, establishing a socialism after feudalism, skipping capitalism, which is not allowed by the marxist-leninist theory.

In the 16nth century, Martin Luther edited pamphlets against the peasants, who wanted the same freedom, he advertised before for christian people, and he argued with his theory of the two realms.

With these two examples I want to say, that I think, that a theory (neither the Peircean one) must be not normative, but only explanatory. It should not forbid social evolution (and evolution is not always continuous, but leaps sometimes), but merely explain it afterwards. And if something happens, that cannot be explained by an existing theory- Well, we are good at making up new, suiting theories, aren´t we?

Best,

Helmut

 

 26. Juni 2017 um 22:26 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky"
 




Gary R, list:

Yes, I think that any utopian regime, to maintain its 'purity of type', must act as an Authoritarian regime to maintain 

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Helmut - you wrote:

1] " I spontaneously recall at least two places where it has worked:
Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Chiapas, Mexico."

What does 'IT' refer to? What worked? 

2] The Marxist-Leninist theory of linear socioeconomic phases is
simply a Seminar Room Theory. It's not a FACT. 

3] You wrote:

"Luther edited pamphlets against the peasants, who wanted the same
freedom, he advertised before for christian people, and he argued
with his theory of the two realms"

What freedom? 

And what does any of this have to do with Peirce?

4] You are suggesting that a theory 'explains things afterwards'.
But fascism, communism - and the LEAP manifesto are not explaining
things 'afterwards' but are recommending a particular mode of
socioeconomic and political organization that IF ONLY it is followed
- will bring 'the best life' and well-being and so on.

As is said: 'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry'...

I think pragmatic realism is the sensible path..It doesn't dwell in
the land of 'If Only'. 

Edwina
 On Mon 26/06/17  6:14 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  Edwina, Gary, List, I am against utopism too, but I do not see what
should be wrong with the Leap Manifesto: They are not propagating an
utopian regime, but a basic-democratic change. And that is not
utopian (no place), I spontaneously recall at least two places where
it has worked: Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Chiapas, Mexico. In the
Spanish revolution 1936 the Soviet Union fought against the
revolutionists, because they had success in changing the politics too
fast for marxist theory, in a basic-democratic way, establishing a
socialism after feudalism, skipping capitalism, which is not allowed
by the marxist-leninist theory. In the 16nth century, Martin Luther
edited pamphlets against the peasants, who wanted the same freedom,
he advertised before for christian people, and he argued with his
theory of the two realms. With these two examples I want to say, that
I think, that a theory (neither the Peircean one) must be not
normative, but only explanatory. It should not forbid social
evolution (and evolution is not always continuous, but leaps
sometimes), but merely explain it afterwards. And if something
happens, that cannot be explained by an existing theory- Well, we are
good at making up new, suiting theories, aren´t we? Best, Helmut
26. Juni 2017 um 22:26 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" 
  Gary R, list: 

Yes, I think that any utopian regime, to maintain its 'purity of
type', must act as an Authoritarian regime to maintain the holistic
purity and prevent the natural dissipation of type that occurs within
the natural operations of both Secondness and Firstness. That is - it
must reject any incidents of Secondness and Firstness. [Entropy is a
natural law and utopias cannot function within entropy]. 

My own view of utopias is that there are two basic types. One
'yearns for' the assumed and quite mythic Purity-of-the-Past. The
image of this Past is pure romantic idyllic scenarios - purity of
behaviour, purity of genetic composition, purity of belief - This is
the utopia commonly known as Fascism where the idea is that If Only
we could go back to The Way We Were - then, all would be perfect.
That would be the Ernest Bloch one - and similar to that of Rousseau,
Mead etc -  which all focused around The Noble Savage or some notion
that early man was somehow 'in a state of physical and mental
purity'. Or course the most famous recent example is Nazism. 

The other utopia, equally mythic, sets up a Purity-of-the-Future.
The image of this Future is equally romantic and idyllic - where
no-one really has to work hard, where everyone collaborates and gets
along, where debate and discussion solves all issues; where such
psychological tendencies as jealousy, anger, lust, hatred etc - don't
exist. This utopia is commonly known as Communism. This is the LEAP
manifesto idea - where - If Only we all learn to behave in such and
such a way - then, we'll all have enough, won't have to work hard,
will all have loving families and etc. Equally naïve and mythic -
and ignorant of economics and human psychology. 

I don't agree that Peirce's philosophy involves any utopian ideas,
for the reasons I've outlined. Utopia is by definition 'no place';
and Peirce's phenomenology is deeply, thoroughly, pragmatic. That is,
it is enmeshed, rooted, in Secondness and the brute individual
realities of that category. Equally, it is rooted in Firstness and
the chance deviations, aberrations of that mode. Thirdness doesn't
exist 'per se' [which would make it utopian if it did] and exists
only within the hard-working dirt and dust and chances of Firstness
and Secondness. 

I feel that Peirce's agapasm is an outline of constant networking,
informational networking and collaboration - where for example,
plants will interact with 

Aw: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina, Gary, List,

I am against utopism too, but I do not see what should be wrong with the Leap Manifesto: They are not propagating an utopian regime, but a basic-democratic change. And that is not utopian (no place), I spontaneously recall at least two places where it has worked: Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Chiapas, Mexico.

In the Spanish revolution 1936 the Soviet Union fought against the revolutionists, because they had success in changing the politics too fast for marxist theory, in a basic-democratic way, establishing a socialism after feudalism, skipping capitalism, which is not allowed by the marxist-leninist theory.

In the 16nth century, Martin Luther edited pamphlets against the peasants, who wanted the same freedom, he advertised before for christian people, and he argued with his theory of the two realms.

With these two examples I want to say, that I think, that a theory (neither the Peircean one) must be not normative, but only explanatory. It should not forbid social evolution (and evolution is not always continuous, but leaps sometimes), but merely explain it afterwards. And if something happens, that cannot be explained by an existing theory- Well, we are good at making up new, suiting theories, aren´t we?

Best,

Helmut

 

 26. Juni 2017 um 22:26 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
 




Gary R, list:

Yes, I think that any utopian regime, to maintain its 'purity of type', must act as an Authoritarian regime to maintain the holistic purity and prevent the natural dissipation of type that occurs within the natural operations of both Secondness and Firstness. That is - it must reject any incidents of Secondness and Firstness. [Entropy is a natural law and utopias cannot function within entropy].

My own view of utopias is that there are two basic types. One 'yearns for' the assumed and quite mythic Purity-of-the-Past. The image of this Past is pure romantic idyllic scenarios - purity of behaviour, purity of genetic composition, purity of belief - This is the utopia commonly known as Fascism where the idea is that If Only we could go back to The Way We Were - then, all would be perfect. That would be the Ernest Bloch one - and similar to that of Rousseau, Mead etc -  which all focused around The Noble Savage or some notion that early man was somehow 'in a state of physical and mental purity'. Or course the most famous recent example is Nazism.

The other utopia, equally mythic, sets up a Purity-of-the-Future. The image of this Future is equally romantic and idyllic - where no-one really has to work hard, where everyone collaborates and gets along, where debate and discussion solves all issues; where such psychological tendencies as jealousy, anger, lust, hatred etc - don't exist. This utopia is commonly known as Communism. This is the LEAP manifesto idea - where - If Only we all learn to behave in such and such a way - then, we'll all have enough, won't have to work hard, will all have loving families and etc. Equally naïve and mythic - and ignorant of economics and human psychology.

I don't agree that Peirce's philosophy involves any utopian ideas, for the reasons I've outlined. Utopia is by definition 'no place'; and Peirce's phenomenology is deeply, thoroughly, pragmatic. That is, it is enmeshed, rooted, in Secondness and the brute individual realities of that category. Equally, it is rooted in Firstness and the chance deviations, aberrations of that mode. Thirdness doesn't exist 'per se' [which would make it utopian if it did] and exists only within the hard-working dirt and dust and chances of Firstness and Secondness.

I feel that Peirce's agapasm is an outline of constant networking, informational networking and collaboration - where for example, plants will interact with insects and animals and vice versa - but- this complex adaptive system is not a utopia, but...a complex adaptive system, busily interacting and coming up with novel solutions to chance aberrations...etc.

Edwina

 

 



 

On Mon 26/06/17 4:00 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:


Edwina, list,
 

The LEAP manifesto sounds like North Korea? Well, while I agree with you that the manifesto is at least quasi-utopian, I think equating it with the brutal NK is way off the mark.

 

In any case, there was an op-ed piece today in The Stone, that section of the New York Times editorial page where philosophers comment on cultural, social, political, etc. issues. Today's piece, by Espen Hammer, a professor of philosophy at Temple University, is titled "A Utopia for a Dystopian Age."  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/a-utopia-for-a-dystopian-age.html?ref=opinion 

 


Hammer's piece concludes: 

 

Are our industrial, capitalist societies able to make the requisite changes? If not, where should we be headed? This is a utopian question as good as any. It is deep and universalistic. Yet it calls for neither a break with the past nor a headfirst dive into the future. The German thinker Ernst 

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
don't see that it is Peirce-related for it is utopian; operating
purely in the realm of Homogeneic Purity; it is Hegelian, i.e.,
rejecting the reality of individual Secondness and finiteness;
rejecting the adaptive reality that is chance;  rejecting even the
openness of genuine Thirdness [which is never finite].

It instead is filled with unverified assumptions, lacking
evidentiary support for these axioms, [massively ignorant about
economics and human psychology]and assuming, like all utopian
theories, that If Only We All Behaved in Such-and-Such a Way - then,
all will be well.

 This is the mindset of all fundamentalist and totalitarian
ideologies - which all operate within the Seminar Room mode of
Thirdness - i.e., alienated from the pragmatic daily realities of
Secondness and Firstness. I'd call this Thirdness-as-Firstness,
alienated from physical reality, operating within an insistence on
iconic homogeneity of its population. Sounds a bit like Animal Farm
or 1984. 

And - its mindset includes not only a profound ignorance of
economics but -  a complete ignorance of the psychological reality of
the human species - which is not and has never been, able to operate
within only the abstract generalities of Thirdness. Certainly, you
can get small populations operating within the abstract generalities
- these are isolate communities sustained by the external world [a
convent, a monastery]; or cults. Since they are not operating within
all three categories but only within degenerate Thirdness, they are
all unable to provide continuity of Type. Their membership must be
replenished from external sources; or - most of them implode after a
few years. And all of them require enormous external authoritarian
Force to prevent any intrusion of Secondness and Firstness - i.e.,
individual realities, individual emotions and sensations. And to keep
the population submissive and entrapped within a homogeneic
perspective. Sounds a bit like N. Korea.
Edwina
 On Mon 26/06/17  3:03 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Gary F, Edwina, Gene, list,
 Well, before we accept or reject the LEAP proposal (which has
implications far beyong Canada), let's consider what it says. See:
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/ [1]. 
 If we do consider it here, please try to keep the discussion
Peirce-related. I've copied and pasted the text of the manifesto from
the pdf below my signature. 
 Best,
 Gary R (writing as list moderator)
 the leap manifesto 
 A Call for Canada Based on Caring for the Earth and One AnotherWe
start from the premise that Canada is facing the deepest crisis in
recent memory.
 The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has acknowledged shocking
details about the violence of Canada’s near past. Deepening poverty
and inequality are a scar on the country’s present. And our record
on climate change is a crime against humanity’s future. These facts
are all the more jarring because they depart so dramatically from our
stated values: respect for Indigenous rights, internationalism, human
rights, diversity, and environmental stewardship.
 Canada is not this place today -- but it could be.
 We could live in a country powered entirely by truly just renewable
energy, woven together by accessible public transit, in which the
jobs and opportunities of this transition are designed to
systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality. Caring for one
another and caring for the planet could be the economy’s fastest
growing sectors. Many more people could have higher wage jobs with
fewer work hours, leaving us ample time to enjoy our loved ones and
flourish in our communities.  We know that the time for this great
transition is short. Climate scientists have told us that this is the
decade to take decisive action to prevent catastrophic global warming.
That means small steps will no longer get us where we need to go.
 So we need to leap.
 This leap must begin by respecting the inherent rights and title of
the original caretakers of this land. Indigenous communities have
been at the forefront of protecting rivers, coasts, forests and lands
from out-of-control industrial activity. We can bolster this role, and
reset our relationship, by fully implementing the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Moved by the
treaties that form the legal basis of this country and bind us to
share the land “for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and
the rivers flow,” we want energy sources that will last for time
immemorial and never run out or poison the land. Technological
breakthroughs have brought this dream within reach. The latest
research shows it is feasible for Canada to get 100% of its
electricity from renewable resources within two decades1; by 2050 we
could have a 100% clean economy2 .   We demand that this shift begin
now.
 There is no longer an excuse for building new 

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Gary Richmond]

Gary F, Edwina, Gene, list,

Well, before we accept or reject the LEAP proposal (which has implications
far beyong Canada), let's consider what it says. See:
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/.

If we do consider it here, please try to keep the discussion
Peirce-related. I've copied and pasted the text of the manifesto from the
pdf below my signature.

Best,

Gary R (writing as list moderator)


the leap manifesto

A Call for Canada Based on Caring for the Earth and One Another
We start from the premise that Canada is facing the deepest crisis in
recent memory.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has acknowledged shocking details
about the violence of Canada’s near past. Deepening poverty and inequality
are a scar on the country’s present. And our record on climate change is a
crime against humanity’s future.
These facts are all the more jarring because they depart so dramatically
from our stated values: respect for Indigenous rights, internationalism,
human rights, diversity, and environmental stewardship.

Canada is not this place today -- but it could be.

We could live in a country powered entirely by truly just renewable energy,
woven together by accessible public transit, in which the jobs and
opportunities of this transition are designed to systematically eliminate
racial and gender inequality. Caring for one another and caring for the
planet could be the economy’s fastest growing sectors. Many more people
could have higher wage jobs with fewer work hours, leaving us ample time to
enjoy our loved ones and flourish in our communities.

We know that the time for this great transition is short. Climate
scientists have told us that this is the decade to take decisive action to
prevent catastrophic global warming. That means small steps will no longer
get us where we need to go.

So we need to leap.

This leap must begin by respecting the inherent rights and title of the
original caretakers of this land. Indigenous communities have been at the
forefront of protecting rivers, coasts, forests and lands from
out-of-control industrial activity. We can bolster this role, and reset our
relationship, by fully implementing the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Moved by the treaties that form the legal basis of this country and bind us
to share the land “for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the
rivers flow,” we want energy sources that will last for time immemorial and
never run out or poison the land. Technological breakthroughs have brought
this dream within reach. The latest research shows it is feasible for
Canada to get 100% of its electricity from renewable resources within two
decades1; by 2050 we could have a 100% clean economy2 .

We demand that this shift begin now.

There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that
lock us into increased extraction decades into the future. The new iron law
of energy development must be: if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard,
then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard. That applies equally to oil
and gas pipelines; fracking in New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia;
increased tanker traffic off our coasts; and to Canadianowned mining
projects the world over.

The time for energy democracy has come: we believe not just in changes to
our energy sources, but that wherever possible communities should
collectively control these new energy systems.

As an alternative to the profit-gouging of private companies and the remote
bureaucracy of some centralized state ones, we can create innovative
ownership structures: democratically run, paying living wages and keeping
much-needed revenue in communities. And Indigenous Peoples should be first
to receive public support for their own clean energy projects. So should
communities currently dealing with heavy health impacts of polluting
industrial activity.

Power generated this way will not merely light our homes but redistribute
wealth, deepen our democracy, strengthen our economy and start to heal the
wounds that date back to this country’s founding.

A leap to a non-polluting economy creates countless openings for similar
multiple “wins.” We want a universal program to build energy efficient
homes, and retrofit existing housing, ensuring that the lowest income
communities and neighbourhoods will benefit first and receive job training
and opportunities that reduce poverty over the long term. We want training
and other resources for workers in carbon-intensive jobs, ensuring they are
fully able to take part in the clean energy economy. This transition should
involve the democratic participation of workers themselves. High-speed rail
powered by just renewables and affordable public transit can unite every
community in this country – in place of more cars, pipelines and exploding
trains that endanger and divide us.

And since we know this leap is beginning late, we need to invest in our
decaying public infrastructure so that it can 

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Edwina Taborsky]

 
 Gary F - as you say, these issues really have no place in a Peircean
analytic framework - unless we want to explore the development of
societal norms as a form of Thirdness - which is a legitimate area of
research.

I, myself, reject the Naomi Klein perspective [all of her work] and
certainly, reject the LEAP perspective- and would argue against it as
a naïve utopian agenda. You cannot do away with any of the modal
categories, even in Big Systems, eg, as in societal analysis - and
coming up with purely rhetorical versions of Thirdness [rather than
the real Thirdness that is in that society] and trying to do away
with the existential conflicts of Secondness and the private feelings
of Firstness is, in my view, a useless agenda. 

Edwina
 On Mon 26/06/17  1:50 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
Gene,
 Thanks for the links; I’m quite familiar with the mirror neuron
research and the inferences various people have drawn from it, and it
reinforces the point I was trying to make, that empathy is deeper than
deliberate reasoning — as well as Peirce’s point that science is
grounded in empathy (or at least in “the social principle”).
I didn’t miss the point that it is possible to disable the feeling
of empathy — I just didn’t see that point as being news in any
sense (it’s been pretty obvious for millennia!). I see the
particular study as an attempt to quantify some  expressions of
empathy (or responses that imply the lack of it). What it doesn’t
do is give us much of a clue as to what cultural factors are involved
in the suppression of empathic behavior. (And I thought that blaming
it on increasing use of AI was really a stretch!)  As I wrote before,
what significance that study has depends on the nature of the devices
used to generate those statistics.
There are lots of theories about what causes empathic behavior to be
suppressed (not all of them use that terminology, of course.) I think
they are valuable to the extent that they give us some clues as to
what we can do about the situation. To take the example that happens
to be in front of me: 

 The election of Donald Trump can certainly be taken as a symptom of
a decline in empathy. In her new book, Naomi Klein spends several
chapters explaining in factual detail how certain trends in American
culture (going back several decades) have prepared the way for
somebody like Trump to exploit the situation. But the title of her
book, No is Not Enough, emphasizes that what’s needed is not
another round of recriminations but a coherent vision of a better way
to live, and a viable alternative to the pathologically partisan
politics of the day. I can see its outlines in a document called the
LEAP manifesto, and I’d like to see us google that and spend more
time considering it than we do blaming Google or other arms of “The
Machine” for the mess we’re in. 
But enough about politics and such “vitally important” matters.
What interests me about AI (which is supposed to be the subject of
this thread) is what we can learn from it about how the mind works,
whether it’s a human or animal bodymind or not. That’s also what
my book is about and why I’m interested in Peircean semiotics. And
I daresay that’s what motivates many, if not most, AI researchers,
including the students that John Sowa is addressing in that
presentation he’s still working on. 
Gary f.
} What is seen with one eye has no depth. [Ursula LeGuin] {

http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [1] }{  Turning Signs gateway
From: Eugene Halton [mailto:eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu] 
 Sent: 26-Jun-17 11:09
 To: Peirce List 
 Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI
Dear Gary F,

 Here is a link to the Sarah Konrath et al. study on the decline
of empathy among American college students:  

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/eob/edobrien_empathyPSPR.pdf [2]

   And a brief Scientific American article on it: 

 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/ [3]
 You state: "I think Peirce would say that these attributions of
empathy (or consciousness) to others are  perceptual judgments — not
percepts, but quite beyond (or beneath) any conscious control, and .
We feel it rather than reading it from external indications."

 This seems to me to miss the point that it is possible to
disable the feeling of empathy. Clinical narcissistic disturbance,
for example, substitutes idealization for perceptual feeling, so that
what is perceived can be idealized rather than felt.  

 Extrapolate that to a society that substitutes on mass scales
idealization for felt experience, and you can have societally reduced
empathy. Unempathic parenting is an excellent way to produce the
social media-addicted janissary offspring. 

 The human face is a subtle neuromuscular organ of attunement,
which has the capacity to read another's mind through mirror
micro-mimicry of the other's 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[gnox]

Gene,

 

Thanks for the links; I’m quite familiar with the mirror neuron research and 
the inferences various people have drawn from it, and it reinforces the point I 
was trying to make, that empathy is deeper than deliberate reasoning — as well 
as Peirce’s point that science is grounded in empathy (or at least in “the 
social principle”).

 

I didn’t miss the point that it is possible to disable the feeling of empathy — 
I just didn’t see that point as being news in any sense (it’s been pretty 
obvious for millennia!). I see the particular study as an attempt to quantify 
some expressions of empathy (or responses that imply the lack of it). What it 
doesn’t do is give us much of a clue as to what cultural factors are involved 
in the suppression of empathic behavior. (And I thought that blaming it on 
increasing use of AI was really a stretch!)  As I wrote before, what 
significance that study has depends on the nature of the devices used to 
generate those statistics.

 

There are lots of theories about what causes empathic behavior to be suppressed 
(not all of them use that terminology, of course.) I think they are valuable to 
the extent that they give us some clues as to what we can do about the 
situation. To take the example that happens to be in front of me: 

The election of Donald Trump can certainly be taken as a symptom of a decline 
in empathy. In her new book, Naomi Klein spends several chapters explaining in 
factual detail how certain trends in American culture (going back several 
decades) have prepared the way for somebody like Trump to exploit the 
situation. But the title of her book, No is Not Enough, emphasizes that what’s 
needed is not another round of recriminations but a coherent vision of a better 
way to live, and a viable alternative to the pathologically partisan politics 
of the day. I can see its outlines in a document called the LEAP manifesto, and 
I’d like to see us google that and spend more time considering it than we do 
blaming Google or other arms of “The Machine” for the mess we’re in.

 

But enough about politics and such “vitally important” matters. What interests 
me about AI (which is supposed to be the subject of this thread) is what we can 
learn from it about how the mind works, whether it’s a human or animal bodymind 
or not. That’s also what my book is about and why I’m interested in Peircean 
semiotics. And I daresay that’s what motivates many, if not most, AI 
researchers, including the students that John Sowa is addressing in that 
presentation he’s still working on.

 

Gary f.

 

} What is seen with one eye has no depth. [Ursula LeGuin] {

  http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway

 

From: Eugene Halton [mailto:eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu] 
Sent: 26-Jun-17 11:09
To: Peirce List 
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

 

Dear Gary F,

 Here is a link to the Sarah Konrath et al. study on the decline of empathy 
among American college students: 

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/eob/edobrien_empathyPSPR.pdf

   And a brief Scientific American article on it: 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/

 

 You state: "I think Peirce would say that these attributions of empathy 
(or consciousness) to others are perceptual judgments — not percepts, but quite 
beyond (or beneath) any conscious control, and . We feel it rather than reading 
it from external indications."

 This seems to me to miss the point that it is possible to disable the 
feeling of empathy. Clinical narcissistic disturbance, for example, substitutes 
idealization for perceptual feeling, so that what is perceived can be idealized 
rather than felt. 

 Extrapolate that to a society that substitutes on mass scales idealization 
for felt experience, and you can have societally reduced empathy. Unempathic 
parenting is an excellent way to produce the social media-addicted janissary 
offspring. 

 The human face is a subtle neuromuscular organ of attunement, which has 
the capacity to read another's mind through mirror micro-mimicry of the other's 
facial gestures, completely subconsciously. These are "external indications" 
mirrored by one. 
  One study showed that botox treatments, in paralyzing facial muscles, 
reduce the micro-mimicry of empathic attunement to the other face in an 
interaction. The botox recipient is not only impaired in exhibiting her or his 
own emotional facial micro-muscular movements, but also is impaired in 
subconsciously micro-mimicking that of the other, thus reducing the embodied 
feel of the other’s emotional-gestural state (Neal and Chartrand, 2011). 
Empathy is reduced through the disabling of the facial muscles.
 Vittorio Gallese, one of the neuroscientists who discovered mirror 
neutons, has discussed "embodied simulation" through "shared neural 
underpinnings." He states: “…social cognition is not only explicitly reasoning 
about the contents of someone 

[PEIRCE-L] { Information = Comprehension × Extension }

[Jon Awbrey]

Peircers,

A puzzle in Peirce I have puzzled over for as long as I can remember
involves the relationship between his theory of signs, beginning with
the typology of icons, indices, and symbols, and his theory of inquiry,
founded on the three inferences of abduction, induction, and deduction.
I have long felt the resolution would lie in his theory of information,
as epitomized in the formula “Information = Comprehension × Extension”.

Last summer looked like a good time to make another foray into the forest,
which I had begun in a series of selections from and comments on Peirce's
“Logic of Science” Lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute (1865–66).

There's a working draft of those selections and comments here:

Information = Comprehension × Extension
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Information_%3D_Comprehension_%C3%97_Extension

I serialized the selections and comments on my blog as I worked through them.

Introductory Comment
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/05/18/information-comprehension-x-extension/

(First Six) Selections from Peirce's Lectures
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/05/19/information-comprehension-x-extension-%e2%80%a2-selection-1/
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/05/19/information-comprehension-x-extension-%e2%80%a2-selection-2/
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/05/20/information-comprehension-x-extension-%e2%80%a2-selection-3/
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/05/21/information-comprehension-x-extension-%e2%80%a2-selection-4/
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/05/22/information-comprehension-x-extension-%e2%80%a2-selection-5/
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/05/22/information-comprehension-x-extension-%e2%80%a2-selection-6/

By September I had come to what I imagined was a new understanding of
the relationship between the types of signs and the types of inference,
at which time I put the whole matter away to cool, it being far harder
to judge a new idea when it's hot.  At any rate, I think a year is long
enough to gain a cool eye or two, so I'll try sharing the new improved
analysis on the List.

Regards,

Jon

--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
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 .

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
 Gene, list - very interesting -

I wonder if there are multiple issues here about the 'decline of
empathy'.

One reason might be the postmodern method of raising children which,
in a sense, isolates the child from any effect of his behaviour. That
is - no matter what he/she does, he is praised as 'that's great'. If
the child acts out, then, he is assumed to be a victim of some
aggression that is, in a mechanical sense, causing him to release
that aggression on someone else. He is not nurtured to be himself 
causal and responsible. The focus is on 'building self-esteem'.  Some
schools do not give marks to prevent 'loss of self-esteem'. This
building up of a sense of inviolate righteousness is one possible
cause of the decline of empathy, since the focus, as noted, is on the
Self and not on the Self-and-Others.

The interesting thing is that along with this isolation of the Self
from the effects of how one directly acts towards others  - and I
think the increase in bullying is one result, but- we see an increase
in what I call Seminar Room interaction with Others. That is, the
individual interacts with others indirectly, by joining abstract
group causes: peace, climate change, earth day  where what one
does as an individual is indirect and actually, has little to no
effect.

But there is another issue - and that is the increase of tribalism
in our societies. By tribalism I mean 'identity politics' which
rejects a common humanity that is shared by all, and  rejects
individualism within this commonality and instead herds people into
homogeneous groups with unique characteristics - and considers them
isolate from, different from - other groups. Tribalism by definition
views other tribes as adversarial. Therefore the people in other
tribes are 'dehumanized'. We see this in wars - where both sides view
each other as non-human.

But your other issue - the importance of facial expression - is also
important. I can see the argument with regard to Botox, but this
argument is also valid with regard to cultural veils which hide the
face to non-members of the tribe and thus reject outside involvement;
 and to cultural values which reject expression of emotions [stiff
upper lip] and, effectively, also result in the non-involvement of
others. 

Edwina
 On Mon 26/06/17 11:08 AM , Eugene Halton eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu
sent:
 Dear Gary F, Here is a link to the Sarah Konrath et al. study on
the decline of empathy among American college students: 
http://faculty.chicagobooth. [1]edu/eob/edobrien_empathyPSPR.pdf
And a brief Scientific American article on it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/ [2] 
  You state: "I think Peirce would say that these attributions of
empathy (or consciousness) to others are perceptual judgments — not
percepts, but quite beyond (or beneath) any conscious control, and .
We feel it rather than reading it from external indications."
  This seems to me to miss the point that it is possible to
disable the feeling of empathy. Clinical narcissistic disturbance,
for example, substitutes idealization for perceptual feeling, so that
what is perceived can be idealized rather than felt. 
   Extrapolate that to a society that substitutes on mass scales
idealization for felt experience, and you can have societally reduced
empathy. Unempathic parenting is an excellent way to produce the
social media-addicted janissary offspring. 
  The human face is a subtle neuromuscular organ of attunement,
which has the capacity to read another's mind through mirror
micro-mimicry of the other's facial gestures, completely
subconsciously. These are  "external indications" mirrored by one. 
   One study showed that botox treatments, in paralyzing facial
muscles, reduce the micro-mimicry of empathic attunement to the other
face in an interaction. The botox recipient is not only impaired in
exhibiting her or his own emotional facial micro-muscular movements,
but also is impaired in subconsciously micro-mimicking that of the
other, thus reducing the embodied feel of the other’s
emotional-gestural state (Neal and Chartrand, 2011). Empathy is
reduced through the disabling of the facial muscles.
  Vittorio Gallese, one of the neuroscientists who discovered
mirror neutons, has discussed "embodied simulation" through "shared
neural underpinnings." He states: “…social cognition is not only
explicitly reasoning about the contents of someone else’s mind. Our
brains, and those of other primates, appear to have developed a basic
functional mechanism, embodied simulation, which gives us an
experiential insight of other minds. The shareability of the
phenomenal content of the intentional relations of others, by means
of the shared neural underpinnings, produces intentional attunement.
Intentional attunement, in turn, by collapsing the others’
intentions into the 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Eugene Halton]

Dear Gary F,
 Here is a link to the Sarah Konrath et al. study on the decline of
empathy among American college students:
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/eob/edobrien_empathyPSPR.pdf
   And a brief Scientific American article on it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/

 You state: "I think Peirce would say that these attributions of
empathy (or consciousness) to others are *perceptual judgments* — not
percepts, but quite beyond (or beneath) any conscious control, and . We
*feel* it rather than reading it from external indications."

 This seems to me to miss the point that it is possible to disable the
feeling of empathy. Clinical narcissistic disturbance, for example,
substitutes idealization for perceptual feeling, so that what is perceived
can be idealized rather than felt.
 Extrapolate that to a society that substitutes on mass scales
idealization for felt experience, and you can have societally reduced
empathy. Unempathic parenting is an excellent way to produce the social
media-addicted janissary offspring.
 The human face is a subtle neuromuscular organ of attunement, which
has the capacity to read another's mind through mirror micro-mimicry of the
other's facial gestures, completely subconsciously. These are "external
indications" mirrored by one.
  One study showed that botox treatments, in paralyzing facial muscles,
reduce the micro-mimicry of empathic attunement to the other face in an
interaction. The botox recipient is not only impaired in exhibiting her or
his own emotional facial micro-muscular movements, but also is impaired in
subconsciously micro-mimicking that of the other, thus reducing the
embodied feel of the other’s emotional-gestural state (Neal and Chartrand,
2011). Empathy is reduced through the disabling of the facial muscles.
 Vittorio Gallese, one of the neuroscientists who discovered mirror
neutons, has discussed "embodied simulation" through "shared neural
underpinnings." He states: “…social cognition is not only explicitly
reasoning about the contents of someone else’s mind. Our brains, and those
of other primates, appear to have developed a basic functional mechanism,
embodied simulation, which gives us an experiential insight of other minds.
The shareability of the phenomenal content of the intentional relations of
others, by means of the shared neural underpinnings, produces intentional
attunement. Intentional attunement, in turn, by collapsing the others’
intentions into the observer’s ones, produces the peculiar quality of
familiarity we entertain with other individuals. This is what “being
empathic” is about. By means of a shared neural state realized in two
different bodies that nevertheless obey to the same morpho-functional
rules, the “objectual other” becomes “another self”. Vittorio Gallese,
“Intentional Attunement. The Mirror Neuron System and Its Role in
Interpersonal Relations,” 15 November 2004 Interdisciplines,
http://www.interdisciplines.org/mirror/papers/1
  Gene Halton




On Jun 20, 2017 7:00 PM,  wrote:

> List,
>
>
>
> Gene’s post in this thread had much to say about “empathy” — considered as
> something that can be measured and quantified for populations of students,
> so that comments about trends in “empathy” among them can be taken as
> meaningful and important.
>
>
>
> I wonder about that.
>
>
>
> My wondering was given more definite shape just now when I came across
> this passage in a recent book about consciousness by Evan Thompson:
>
> [[ In practice and in everyday life … we don’t infer the inner presence of
> consciousness on the basis of outer criteria. Instead, prior to any kind of
> reflection or deliberation, we already implicitly recognize each other as
> conscious on the basis of empathy. Empathy, as philosophers in the
> phenomenological tradition have shown, is the direct perception of another
> being’s actions and gestures as expressive embodiments of consciousness. We
> don’t see facial expressions, for example, as outer signs of an inner
> consciousness, as we might see an EEG pattern; we see joy directly in the
> smiling face or sadness in the tearful eyes. Moreover, even in difficult or
> problematic cases where we’re forced to consider outer criteria, their
> meaningfulness as indicators of consciousness ultimately depends depends on
> and presupposes our prior empathetic grasp of consciousness. ]]
>
>   —Thompson, Evan. *Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in
> Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy* (Kindle Locations 2362-2370).
> Columbia University Press. Kindle Edition.
>
>
>
> If we don’t “infer the inner presence of consciousness on the basis of
> outer criteria,” but perceive it directly *on the basis of empathy*, how
> do we infer the inner presence (or absence) of empathy itself? In the same
> way, i.e. by *direct perception*, according to Thompson. I think Peirce
> would say that these attributions of empathy (or consciousness) to