Semiotics, Computation, Mechanical Philosophy and Freedom
A Semiotic Argument for the Existence of God?
Keywords:
Wax tablet, Information, Representation, Mechanical philosophy, Peirce’s SemioticsAbstract
A long tradition, which starts with the metaphor of the wax tablet presented in the Theaetetus of Plato, leads us to think that the relationship between mental representation and the represented reality is in a certain way mechanical or automatic. But the truth is that the conventional aspects of signification make it impossible to understand it as a physical- mechanical process. The computer sciences, contrary to a superficial vision, do not support but rather disprove this mechanistic conception of rationality, confirming that semiosis can only occur in free subjects, that is to say, not completely subject to the laws of matter.
References
Ayim, M. (1974). Retroduction: The Rational Instinct. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 10(1), 34–43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319699
Ayim, M. (1982). Peirce’s View of the Roles of Reason and Instinct in Scientific Inquiry. Anu Prakasan.
Balasch, M. (1990). Platón. Teeteto. Anthropos.
Barrena, S. (1996). Charles S. Peirce: Un argumento olvidado en favor de la realidad de Dios. Introducción, traducción y notas. Cuadernos de Anuario Filosófico, Serie Universitaria Nº 34. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra.
Churchland, P. (2016, September 1). Will brain science change criminal law? 20 Big Questions about the Future of Humanity. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/20-big-questions-about-the-future-of-humanity/
Crespo, M. (1998). ¿Son las leyes lógicas leyes psicológicas? Aporías de la interpretación psicologista de la lógica. Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoCres.htm
Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness Explained. The Penguin Press.
Fodor, J. (1975). The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press.
García Norro, J.J. (2012). ¿Es natural la inteligencia? En: M. Oriol (Ed.), Inteligencia y filosofía (pp. 151-169). Marova.
Gelernter, D. (2016). The Tides of Mind: Uncovering the Spectrum of Consciousness. Liveright.
Génova, G. (1997). Charles S. Peirce: La lógica del descubrimiento [Tesis de Licenciatura en Filosofía]. Cuadernos de Anuario Filosófico, Serie Universitaria Nº 45. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra.
Génova, G., & Quintanilla Navarro, I. (2018a). Are Human Beings Humean Robots? Journal of Experimental Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 30(1), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2017.1409279
Génova, G., & Quintanilla Navarro, I. (2018b). Discovering the principle of finality in computational machines. Foundations of Science, 23(4), 779–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-018-9552-4
Génova, G., Moreno, V., & González, M.R. (2022). A Lesson from AI: Ethics Is Not an Imitation Game. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 41(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2022.3147531
Génova, G., Moreno, V., & Parra, E. (2022). A free mind cannot be digitally transferred. AI & Society [En revisión].
Génova, G., Valiente, M.C., & Nubiola, J. (2005). A Semiotic Approach to UML Models. First International Workshop on Philosophical Foundations of Information Systems Engineering (PHISE 2005). Porto, Portugal. Held in conjunction with the 17th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2005). Proceedings of the CAiSE’05 Workshops, 2, 547–557.
Génova, G., Valiente, M.C., & Nubiola, J. (2006). Modelos en UML: un enfoque semiótico. Novática, 180, 57– 62.
Gonzalez, F. (2007). Wax Tablets, Aviaries, or Imaginary Pregnancies? On the Powers in Theaetetus’ Soul. Études platoniciennes, 4, 273–293. https://doi.org/10.4000/etudesplatoniciennes.917
González Quirós, J.L. (2021). Sally Brown y los filósofos griegos: ¿tenemos todavía algo que aprender de ellos? HUMAN REVIEW. International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional De Humanidades, 10. https://doi.org/10.37467/gkarevhuman.v10.3079
Hofstadter, D.R. (1987). Gödel, Escher, Bach: un Eterno y Grácil Bucle. Tusquets Editores.
Lewis, C.S. (1947). Miracles: A Preliminary Study. Collins/Fontana.
Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford University Press.
Nubiola, J. (2012). John Henry Newman y Charles S. Peirce: conexiones y afinidades. V Jornadas Peirce en Argentina. Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Buenos Aires. https://www.unav.es/gep/JornadasPeirceArgentina.html
Peirce, C.S. (1893). Evolutionary Love (CP 6.287–317). In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (Eds.), The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1-8 (S. Barrena, Trad.). Harvard University Press. https://www.unav.es/gep/AmorEvolutivo.html
Peirce, C.S. (1897). Ground, Object and Interpretant (CP 2.228). In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (Eds.), The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1-8. Harvard University Press.
Peirce, C.S. (1903). A Second Trichothomy of Signs (CP 2.247–249). In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss y A. W. Burks (Eds.), The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1-8. Harvard University Press.
Peirce, C.S. (c.1902). Why Study Logic? (CP 2.135–139). In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (Eds.), The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1-8. Harvard University Press.
Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press.
Putnam, H. (1988). Mind, Language and Reality. Cambridge University Press.
Reppert, V. (1999). The Argument from Reason. PhiLo, 2(1), 33–45. https://www.lewissociety.org/reason/, https://doi.org/10.5840/philo1999214
Reppert, V. (2003). C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason. InterVarsity Press.
Tallis, R. (2004). Why the Mind Is Not a Computer: A Pocket Lexicon of Neuromythology. Imprint Academic.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2022 HUMAN REVIEW. International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de Humanidades
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles are published under an Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license. Authors retain copyright over their work.
