[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[ian glendinning]

Hi Scott,

Inserted (under some time pressure - sorry) ... [IG]

On 1/20/06, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
> 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.)

[IG] I trust your sincerity in asking. I don't feel any great shift,
really just a clarification of the language - on both our sides. In
fact the linguistic issue is going to recur here I fear ...

> That is, are you in agreement that value
> implies awareness of value?

[IG] - As you go on to say in your next sentence "another" - I think
this is just a definitional problem with the word "awareness". I agree
it implies "existence of significance" - but we're at a micro scale
here where the "awareness" metaphor is being stretched - it's a very
basic proto-awareness. This is our key difference though - see later.

> 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?

[IG] A very good question, that caused me to think. This is going to
sound like a cop out, but I think this is a definitional problem
again. With proto-zoon, cleary the etymology is "first life", but it's
only first biological (zoological) life. I suspect my working
definition of live - reproducibility - starts a little earlier. So
this is about definition of life. With the star there is an implied
definition of what a "star" is at some point in its life (or the
continuity of some physical life) - it's a bit ontological and well
beyond the "first cause" beginnings of things we're really talking
about.

>
> On to the issue. I deny that one can have significant difference, or
> perceived value, without intellect,

[IG] I appreciate that, That is why I stated (simply) the opposite -
to say - this is our disagreement. We agree on that :-) (But before we
go on, don't forget I qualified my statement at this first-cause point
in proceedings - the first significant difference, not just any one.)

> 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",

[IG] I have trouble seeing "two" here - it looks like three to me -
but I accept you are explaining the Peircian terms.

> while a triad is a 3-relation,
> like "John gave the book to Mary"

[IG] Again this looks more like 5 to me (The 2 and 3 views seem to be
giving greater ontological significance to the "objects" involved)

> 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.

[IG] I'll need to come back to the Peircian point you are trying to
make. My main problem with all this is that we are talking macro
events John, Mary, Stove, etc ...

>
> 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).

[IG] And I agree too, but as we know that's because I see a much
simpler idea of "awareness" at the micro level.

> 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.

[IG] As you can tell from the earlier comments - I can't buy that
conclusion yet - you haven't brought my mind along with us yet :-) I
think we're talking about the right subject though.

>
> - Scott
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>