o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o (01)
Richard, (02)
Your mention of Peirce's "commons" brings to mind Aristotle's
notion of the ''sensus communis''. Awbrey & Awbrey discuss
this a bit in the first two papers listed here: (03)
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?JonAwbrey#nid12VU (04)
Jon Awbrey (05)
Richard Murphy wrote:
>
> Christopher Menzel wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 2007, at 7:49 PM, richard murphy wrote:
> >
> >>Christopher Menzel wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Aug 5, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Frank Guerino wrote:
> >>>...
> >>>
> >>>>Think of how the brain works and how it breaks down information and
> >>>>also how it uses it to categorize, store, structure, correlate,
> >>>>index, find, recall, aggregate, transform, format, render, etc.
> >>>>everything it works with.
> >>>
> >>>What good it will do us to think about how the brain works? We do
> >>>indeed need to deal with such issues as categorization, storage,
> >>>recall, etc, but we're doing all those things on computers. How will
> >>>thinking about how the brain works help us do those things better?
> >>
> >>Plenty. As with most of our prior creations, we make machines in
> >>our own
> >>image. Include software, mathematics and logic in this class of
> >>machines. Peirce's manuscripts develop semiotics directly from how we
> >>understand the world. We think in signs, as do machines.
> >>
> >>When we're lucky enough to have intersection between sender and
> >>receiver, information flows easily. Otherwise, information sharing
> >>is a
> >>problem in knowledge, perception and belief, to steal a phrase from
> >>Dretske.
> >
> >
> > Interesting observations to be sure, though I can't see that any of
> > them addresses the question of how it is that understanding how the
> > brain, e.g., stores memories or keeps the heart beating or processes
> > visual and auditory information will aid us in developing tools to
> > facilitate information sharing and integration. Nothing you say even
> > mentions brain function.
> >
> > -chris
>
> I can't say much about memories or heart beats, but in cognition we use
> signs in processing visual, auditory and other sensory inputs. In
> computation, machines use signs in processing inputs from sensors,
> sockets, etc. So it's signs that provide the link between cognition and
> information sharing.
>
> In addition to signs, there are many other links, such as the similarity
> between intersection and understanding. Consider the following
> definition of an information channel from Barwise and Seligman's
> Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems.
>
> "An Information Channel consists of an indexed family of infomorphisms
> with a common codomain C, called the core of the channel."
>
> then consider the following Peirce quote from 1906:
>
> "There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the
> mind of the utterer; the Effectional Interpretant, which is a
> determination of the mind of the interpreter, and the Communicational
> Interpretant, or say Cominterpretant, which is a determination of that
> mind into which the minds of the utterer and the interpreter have to be
> fused in order that any communication should take place. This mind may
> be called the commons. It consists off all that is an must be, well
> understood between the utter and interpreter, at the outset, in order
> that the sign in question should fulfill its function. This I proceed to
> explain."
>
> The similarities between the core and the commens are striking. It's
> getting to late to go into more detail tonight, so I hope you'll have
> the opportunity to read a short paper I recently wrote that says more
> about information flow as a formalization of information sharing. You
> can find it here:
>
> http://www.rickmurphy.org/iffe-paper.pdf
>
> I enjoy reading your posts and value your perspective. I hope you'll
> have the time to share your thoughts on the paper.
>
> BTW - Here's another perspective on the original question of what the
> study of the brain tells us about information sharing and integration.
> If our study of cognition determines everying that is cognizable, would
> we expect that machines could conceive of a logic that is incognizable
> to humans ? I think not and if not, then cognition seems fertile ground
> for models of computation.
>
> Rick (06)
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
¢iare: http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-UserTalk:Jon_Awbrey
zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|