[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

Ian,

Ian said:
OK Scott, let's keep it simple ... you mentioned the distinction
between the macro and micro levels of the argument ... how about ...

At the micro-level (the most "atomic" level of reality) I say "any
significant difference" does not require "intellect" for that reality
to be aware of it - its "value" is perceived very simply and
immediately, no metaphors were needed.

Scott:
First, some clarification. Is this a shift in your thinking, that you now 
accept that "aware of" and "perceived" are suitably applied to any 
significant difference? (This is a straight question, that is, I'm not sure 
whether or not you always felt this way, since I don't recall your saying 
so, but may have just forgotten.) That is, are you in agreement that value 
implies awareness of value? Another terminological question, which is what 
do you mean be "proto-". I believe it can mean two things, and I want to 
disambiguate. A protozoon is "first life" -- and is living, but a 
"proto-star" is (I think) "not a star but will be". So, in your view, would 
"proto-awareness" be some very simple and originating kind of awareness or 
something that is not aware but (when complexified) becomes aware?

On to the issue. I deny that one can have significant difference, or 
perceived value, without intellect, and to explain why I refer once again to 
Peirce's distinction between dyads and triads. A dyad is a 2-relation, like 
stimulus and response, or "John saw Mary", while a triad is a 3-relation, 
like "John gave the book to Mary" All semiotic events are triads, which 
involve an interpretant, a representamen, and a referent (an interpretant is 
the cognition of the referent through the representamen). Now the thing is, 
no triad is reducible to dyads, and there are clearly triads, so what are 
dyads? In my view (and this may be going beyond what Peirce says, I'm not 
sure), all dyads are partial observations. We jump off a hot stove 
reflexively, and see it as a dyad. But that is only our view of it, because 
we jump off before we consciously cognize that we are in a dangerous 
situation. However, to the body, this was a triad. The heat of the stove 
makes a signicant difference to the well-being of the body, and so the heat 
is the sign of danger.

So my argument is that to call a difference significant means one is dealing 
with a triad, or semiosis. To be aware without value is impossible (a MOQ 
postulate, which I agree with). But there is value only because what one is 
aware of is within some static pattern of value, which is to say, an 
interpreting pattern. By isolating the "what one is aware of" from the 
interpretive nature of the pattern is how one gets dyads. But in fact that 
isolation only exists because we are only thinking *about* the event in 
question. Because of this we are not cognizant of the interpretant. We are 
only cognizant of the interpretant when we think *with* the situation, as we 
do in understanding what someone else is saying. Because we cannot think 
with atomic activity, or with a cat, for that matter, we see only dyads, not 
triads. Which is to say, objective thinking (thinking about) produces dyads, 
while subjective thinking (thinking with) includes interpretants.

Thus my response to what you say is that there is intellect in subatomic 
activity, but we do not know the interpretant involved. So how do we know 
there is intellect? Because triads are not reducible to dyads, and we don't 
like dualism (I don't, anyway). Or because we assume (as the MOQ does, or 
accept as revelation from mystics) that there is value involved, and that 
implies triadic relations, not dyadic.

- Scott