From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 23:38:38 GMT
Scott said:
If I've understood Peirce correctly (and there is always some doubt in my
mind that I have), an interpretant is not an individual that interprets a
sign, but the interpreting itself. And if that's not what Peirce meant, it
is what I mean. I would insist, though, that the interpreting be a conscious
interpreting, so it is not the case, for example, that there is any
interpreting going on in a computer except perhaps at the electron level.
[Case said:]
Wouldn't interpretation take place at the level of Boolean logic gates?
Scott:
I would say no. A logic gate is designed to act one way only given its
inputs, so there is no choice, decision-making, etc. involved. If there was
interpretation, it was in deciding on the inputs and/or making something out
if its output. For the logic gate all is determined -- no value, no meaning,
no interpretation, since there is no option. An electron, on the other hand,
in a given time period, may or may not jump to a different energy state. Now
I don't know if this should be called an interpretant (which is why I said
'perhaps'), but it seems more so than a logic gate.
[Case]
Doesn't the logic gate have to interpret its input to determine what state
to be in? The input is not determined with respect to the gate. And isn't
this an iterative process? So, the gate has to interprete its input every
clock cycle. Taking interpretation down to the level electron makes it seem
an aweful lot like plain old chance.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 23:59:59 GMT