From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Wed Nov 23 2005 - 23:17:16 GMT
Case,
[Case said:]
Wouldn't interpretation take place at the level of Boolean logic gates?
Scott said:
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.
Scott:
In the first place, I want be clear that I am not attempting to reduce the
supposed interpretation of the logic gate in terms of the possible
interpretation of the electrons. If one can say that an electron is
interpreting anything, it is NOT the inputs to the logic gate. It's just
interpreting some photon wandering by, somewhat like a water molecule will
not be interpreting a ship causing a wake that moves the water molecule
around.
An interpretant takes a representamen AS something else, that is, it
interprets a sign. I do not think of a logic gate as taking its inputs AS
anything, no more than the plumbing in a house takes the water that flows
through it AS anything. At a juncture, some water flows one way, some
another, but it seems (to me) ridiculous to say that the juncture is
interpreting the water. (Yes, this would also make one highly dubious about
an electron's interpreting anything in this sense, so let me wish I hadn't
mentioned electrons.) We build mechanisms so they will do what we want done
without interpreting. A car is more dependable than a horse, because a car
doesn't interpret anything, while a horse does (a sudden sound is
interpreted as possible danger, so it rears up). That we then (if we are
materialists) turn around and say "what the machine is doing is
interpreting, just like people do" is, I think, bad thinking.
- Scott
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 : Thu Nov 24 2005 - 00:06:53 GMT