creators_name: Collier, John editors_name: Dubois, Daniel type: confpaper datestamp: 2002-06-21 lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:54:23 metadata_visibility: show title: Autonomy in Anticipatory Systems: Significance for Functionality, Intentionality and Meaning ispublished: pub subjects: bio-behav subjects: cog-psy subjects: phil-mind full_text_status: public keywords: autonomy, function, intentionality, meaning, anticaptory systems abstract: Abstract Many anticipatory systems cannot in themselves act meaningfully or represent intentionally. This stems largely from the derivative nature of their functionality. All current artificial control systems, and many living systems such as organs and cellular parts of organisms derive any intentionality they might have from their designers or possessors. Derivative functionality requires reference to some external autonomously functional system, and derivative intentionality similarly requires reference to an external autonomous intentional system. The importance of autonomy can be summed up in the following slogan: No meaning without intention; no intention without function; no function without autonomy. This paper develops the role of autonomy to show how learning new tasks is facilitated by autonomy, and further by representational capacities that are functional for autonomy. date: 1999 date_type: published publisher: Springer-Verlag pagerange: 75-81 refereed: TRUE referencetext: 1. Dennett, D.C., The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987. 2. Dretske, F., “Machines and the Mental,” Proceedings and Addresses of the APA 59: 23-33 (1985). 3. Searle, J., “Minds, Brains and Programs,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3,: 417-58 (1980). 4. Searle, J., The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992. 5. Churchland, P.F. (1996). The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the Soul. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 6. Bickhard, M.H., “Representational Content in Humans and Machines,” Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 5, 285-333 (1993). 7. Bickhard, M. H. and Terveen, L.. Foundational Issues in Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science: Impasse and Solution. New York: Elsevier, 1995. 8. Christensen, W.D., “A Complex Systems Theory of Teleology,” Biology and Philosophy 11: 301-320 (1996). 9. Christensen, W.D., Collier, J.D. and Hooker, C.A., “Adaptiveness and Adaptation: A New Autonomy-theoretic Analysis and Critique,” Biology and Philosophy (submitted). 10. Wright, L., “Functions,” Philosophical Review 82, 139- 168 (1973). 11. Millikan, R.G., “In Defense of Proper Functions,” Philosophy of Science 56, 288-302 (1989). 12. Neander, K., “Functions As Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst’s Defense,” Philosophy of Science, 58, 168-184 (1991). 13. Christensen, W.D. and Hooker, C.A., “Autonomous Systems and Self-Directed Heuristic Policies: Toward New Foundations for Intelligent Systems,” Hayes, B., Heath, R. , Heathcote A., and Hooker, C.A. (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Cognitive Science Conference, Newcastle, Australia, 1997. 14. Foss, J., “On the Evolution of Intentionality as Seen from the Intentional Stance,” Inquiry 37: 287-310 (1994). 15. Collier, J. D., “Supervenience and reduction in biological hierarchies,” M. Matthen and B. Linsky (eds) Philosophy and Biology: Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume 14, 209-234 (1988). 16. Maturana, H and Varella, F., Autopoiesis and Cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980. 17. Carani, P., “Emergence and Artificial Life’, C.G. Langton, J.D. Farmer and S. Rasmussen (eds) Artificial Life II, SFI Studies in Complexity, vol 10. Addison-Wesley, 1991, 775-797. 18. Carani, P., “To Evolve and Ear,” Systems Research 10, 19-33 (1993). 19. Peirce, C.S., Collected Papers, edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, Cambridge University Press, 1960. 20. Dretske, F., Knowledge and the Flow of Information. MIT Press, 1981. citation: Collier, John (1999) Autonomy in Anticipatory Systems: Significance for Functionality, Intentionality and Meaning. [Conference Paper] document_url: http://cogprints.org/978/3/CASYS98.pdf