[Fis] Autogen & Iconsim . . .

[Marcus Abundis]

Hey Terry,

I am still working my way through your paper and I have some thoughts. I
have seen this paper a few times and I am now taking time to give a very
close (for me) reading.

On page 11:
> How can we characterize this most basic and simple interpretive
competence in semiotic terms? The point of this model system is to
establish what can be considered the ground of interpretive competence. . .
. In this respect, iconism is the most basic semiotic operation because it
marks the limit of what can be interpretively distinguished. <

There is a bit of genius in iconism that I overlooked before, where I may
have finally found where/how our views complement each other. I will
attempt some questions, that may give you a better idea of what I mean:

Earlier in your paper you mention a ‘naked replicator’ – does this match or
precede your ‘zeroth level’ iconism?

What do ‘things’ beneath a zeroth level look like, what constitutes that
world?

Purely mechanical autogen iconism as ‘some things fit, and other things do
not fit’ seems critical. Even absent a ‘likely interpretative agent’ it
seems one might infer some type of crude subjectivity (proto-dualism of
Self and Other, mechanical proto-subjectivity?). Is that your intent? This
would be an important ‘cusp’ prior to the advent of Life.

In assessing our views, we both use functional analysis – but with
different starting points. You use thermodynamics (you already know my
opinion on this) and I use DIRECT mechanical inter-relations. Despite our
differences, I see functional analysis as essential! I any other approaches
I find suspect – Nature evaluates everything(?) functionally, after all, no?

Re iconism – we have similar but differently-worded views. I phrase your
iconism above as ‘some things fit, and other things do not fit’ – my view
extends this role to basic mechanical possible FITs, around aesthetic
values (i.e., an aesthetic fit). Further I see that aesthetic fit-ness
(including FIT variants) as central to a type of ‘sense-making’ or a
pre-cognitive core. It does not take much to next make a connection to
Darwinian fit-ness, early cave painting, music, etc based around
pre-cognitive aesthetic sentience.

Finally, the last few months have me working on a talk on
super-intelligence. Should you have interest, a draft script (2,400 words,
near completion?) is at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ldyqY64TPCYw2qA4jo2iuXD6hVx25ToG/view?usp=sharing
In it I address the points I raise above (but in my own terms) in respect
to the advent of super-intelligence. Still, as it is a draft script for a
recorded talk, the images I later include will add more detail. The core
challenge I found in posing super-intelligence is that I had to first ask
and answer ‘What is a most basic level of intelligence?’, before moving
onward, which seems tied directly to your iconism (my base aestheticism)
above.

Any thoughts are appreciated. That is all for now, but more will follow . .
.

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220310/0a4861fb/attachment-0001.html>