From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Mar 24 09:56:54 EST 1992
Article 4562 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:4562 sci.philosophy.tech:2339
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Causes and Goals (was re: The Systems Reply I
References: <1992Mar16.005137.13005@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar16.003442.9891@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Mar16.224536.2719@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.221024.2012@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 22:10:24 GMT
Lines: 69

In article <1992Mar16.224536.2719@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>
>In article <1992Mar16.003442.9891@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>
>>We have observed two cases of natural signs: one originating from the
>>events occurring in the inanimate realm, and another originating from
>>the actions of an animate being.  Clearly, we do not wish to classify
>
>I suspect that we will have problems with the definition of life.
>
>>the occurrence of a rain cloud as an instance of communication; on the
>>other hand, we are accustomed to saying that the actions of the
>>influenza virus communicate a particular disease.  Unlike a rain cloud,
>
>Let's face it: 1 virus does not bring a disease. It is the combination
>of viruses in a certain human body, with certain chemical structure
>of the blood cells, etc. The viruses on a rock do not communicate anything.
  So?  I do not see how this brings forth any problems with Zeleny's account.


>
>Relevant things can be said for a cloud: One rain cloud, under
>certain atmospherical conditions brings rain, otherwise it
>moves peacefully to another place. 
>
>All these phainomena are supposed obey to certain natural laws, which 
>are partly modelled in physics.
>
>The same holds for computer viruses.
>
>>the virus is an agent; however the nature of its agency is purely {\it
>
>I am wondering why, according to your definitions, a rain cloud does not
>communicate rain.
  Communication requires at least volition.  Zeleny is working on a 
distinction between expressive and natural communciation.  Natural only
requires volition(which may be granted to a computer virus).  Expressive
requires both volition and intention(something which can be denied from
any sort of virus.)  A rain cloud has neither volition nor intention.
Its status as a sign is purely interpreted by the volitional (but, I don't
think necessarily intentional) agent concerned.

>
>>somatic}, sufficient for volition, but not for intention, and hence
>>bereft of non-natural, semantic meaning; in other words, the
>>communication effected by it is natural, rather than expressive.  Thus
>>the necessary condition for an occurrence of expressive meaning is
>>intentional action, which depends on {\it noetic} agency.
>
>What causes the intentionality?
  Noetic agency.


>
>Philip Santas

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu


"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


