[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] to concept or not to concept, is this a question?

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:51:07 -0400
Message-id: <20070615175912.KNPV3928.mta15.adelphia.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At 10:55 AM 6/15/2007, KCliffer@xxxxxxx wrote:
>Abdul's explanation (below) leads me to the following thoughts:
>No matter how "intelligent" the machines are, the symbolic code 
>applied to signify some aspect of reality is applied by humans to 
>represent that reality - based on the human's interpretation of what 
>the represented or signified elements of reality are and do. I don't 
>want to get into the fray of whether one should use the term 
>"concept" or not - except here, the point is that the application of 
>the system in a machine is mediated through human interpretation of 
>reality - it is not direct from reality. If the machine "creates" 
>its own signification "directly" from reality, it is still done 
>through human-designed systems for making the correspondence based 
>on human perceptions or rules for the correspondence with reality, 
>and is interpreted by the humans assessing its appropriateness, or 
>using the results.
>Humans have ways of assessing how "accurately" the significations or 
>representations apply to or correspond with the represented reality 
>- I've been in discussions in this forum previously related to such 
>correspondence and its implications for "truth". But however 
>divorced from human concepts or ideas the symbols are, we cannot 
>escape the fact that they have been devised and are interpreted by 
>some path through a human mind, and can only be assessed (so far, 
>barring a new level of machine "intelligence") by a human assessment 
>of the correspondence with a human interpretation of reality.
>To put it another way, the signs are "sensible" (Abdul's word) only 
>by virtue of making sense to the human interpreter of them - which 
>involves that human's perception of the reality to which they apply 
>(dare I say concepts?). "Significance" can be theoretically 
>independent of the human interpretation (Azmat's "symbols ... get 
>their significance without the mediation of the conceptions of human 
>intellect"), but practically speaking, one or more humans assign 
>and/or interpret the significance - the correspondence with their 
>perceptions of the signified reality. As long as humans are the ones 
>using the symbols, we cannot escape the passing of the 
>"signification" through the human mind, and therefore an inevitable 
>"mediation of the conceptions of the human intellect," despite 
>Abdul's indication that they get their significance without it.
>    (01)

All of this is well and good. But then again, all use of symbols 
involves the activation of brain signals, too. Does that mean that 
when I use the word 'potato' I am in fact referring to a brain signal?    (02)

I wear spectacles, which means that everything I see involves an 
inevitable "mediation of the spectacles". Does that mean that what I 
see is spectacles? And is it not odd that I can successfully 
communicate with the non-bespectacled about what I see.
Compare, on all of this, the discussion of what David Stove calls 
"The World's Worst Philosophical Argument" at:
BS    (03)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>