Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi Bruno Marchal Just trying to clarify things. 1) OK, I partly understand if we allow words as output. But words are descriptions (3p, or Thirdness), not experience (1p, or Firstness). 2) Let us admit for the moment that it is possible for a computer to be conscious. What would it be conscious of ? The code it is running, which would be like a stream of consciousness, ie an experience ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 12:00:41 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You said: God, matter, consciousness are never computable Is that because the above are nonphysical ? Matter is physical, by definition, yet non computable. This follows from the UD Argument. If consciousness is not computable, can ideas be computable ? Yes. Most of them are (the programs, the monads). I'm totally lost. I don't even understand how ANYTHING other than numbers can be computable. Strings of letter are not number, but the operation of concatenation is computable ( a + baba = ababa). Look at your computer, you see mails, letters, etc. Not number, yet all what you do with your computer (like sending a mail) are computable operation. Suppose you do a computation. You get a number or a bunch of numbers. How can you say what they mean ? By remembering the definitions, the axioms I am assuming, etc. I don't see the problem. If you refer to the qualia, this is explain by the peculiarity of the logic of machines self-reference: when machine introspect they can understand things, without completely understanding the understanding process itself. It is normal, but it needs a bot of computer science and mathematical logic to get the complete picture. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 23 Jan 2013, at 11:42, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Just trying to clarify things. 1) OK, I partly understand if we allow words as output. ... and inputs. OK. But words are descriptions (3p, or Thirdness), OK. not experience (1p, or Firstness). Yes. Experiences are not words. 2) Let us admit for the moment that it is possible for a computer to be conscious. What would it be conscious of ? The code it is running, which would be like a stream of consciousness, ie an experience ? In fact, a computer is never conscious. Similarly, my brain is not conscious. No more than my liver. It is the (immaterial) person which is conscious. The brain, or the computer, is only a local tool to make that conscious person able to manifest itself relatively to its most probable computational histories. The person is defined mainly by its first person experience, which is not something that we can identify with anything third person describable. But we can define it, at least in a first approximation, by the knower (notably the one who know the content of its memories). It has been shown, by Montague and Kaplan precisely, that like truth, knowledge by a machine cannot be defined in the language of the machine. But as scientists, by studying much simpler machine than ourselves, we can use a local and little theory of truth (like Traski's one) to (meta) define the knowledge of the machine (notably by linking the machine's belief (which are definable and representable in 3p) and truth. This works well, and explains already why the introspecting machine cannot know who she is. The identity card, or even the complete description of her body, will not do the trick (that leads only to a 3p copy, not her). That explains also that the knowing machine can only *bet* on a substitution level, without ever being sure it is correct, making comp asking for an act of faith (similar to some faith in some possible reincarnation). It is counter-intuitive, and it does leads to the reversal: eventually the brain and bodies are construct of the mind, even if they are also related to deep and complex 3p number relations. Consciousness is not due to the running of a computer. It only appears locally to be like that. In the global big picture, it is the running of a computer which appear as an event in consciousness. I hope this can help a bit. It is hard to explain something counter- intuitive in intuitive terms, and that is why I use the deductive method, starting from the hypothesis that there is a level where we are 3p duplicable. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 12:00:41 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You said: God, matter, consciousness are never computable Is that because the above are nonphysical ? Matter is physical, by definition, yet non computable. This follows from the UD Argument. If consciousness is not computable, can ideas be computable ? Yes. Most of them are (the programs, the monads). I'm totally lost. I don't even understand how ANYTHING other than numbers can be computable. Strings of letter are not number, but the operation of concatenation is computable ( a + baba = ababa). Look at your computer, you see mails, letters, etc. Not number, yet all what you do with your computer (like sending a mail) are computable operation. Suppose you do a computation. You get a number or a bunch of numbers. How can you say what they mean ? By remembering the definitions, the axioms I am assuming, etc. I don't see the problem. If you refer to the qualia, this is explain by the peculiarity of the logic of machines self-reference: when machine introspect they can understand things, without completely understanding the understanding process itself. It is normal, but it needs a bot of computer science and mathematical logic to get the complete picture. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi Bruno Marchal You said: God, matter, consciousness are never computable Is that because the above are nonphysical ? If consciousness is not computable, can ideas be computable ? I'm totally lost. I don't even understand how ANYTHING other than numbers can be computable. Suppose you do a computation. You get a number or a bunch of numbers. How can you say what they mean ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 09:36:34 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote: On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract computations. ? God, matter, consciousness are never computable. Where did I ever used God to designate computations. It seems to me that I insist a lot for not making that kind of spurious identification. I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth, explaining why it makes God unnameable by machines. Computation are Sigma_1 Truth is Sigma_1 union Sigma_2 union Sigma_3 union Sigma_4 union ... You are a bit quick here, Brent, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 21 Jan 2013, at 23:14, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: ...I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth, does that mean: complying with human logic (any)? Not really. Arithmetical truth is independent of the humans. 17 would be prime even if the humans did not exist. This is made explicit by the comp context. if comp is false it might be different, and you are free to propose a non comp theory. But once you accept a digital brain prosthesis and survived, it is only a matter of time and work to understand that 17 is prime is not a specifically human truth, but an universal one. Just imagine a world (universe) without logically THINKING beings (humans?) with no math to formulate (numbers, to express): is there a God there? God is universal truth (that we are searching, or not). With comp, I would say yes, there is a God there, as with comp God is arithmetical truth, and arithmetical truth in true even in a world without any math formula. Now if you say that there is no number in that world, then there will be no God in the sense of comp. But I am not sure I can make sense of the word world with or without numbers. Numbers are not the type of things belonging to world, at least not with further precision. May be your question is not precise enough. Feel free to elaborate. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You said: God, matter, consciousness are never computable Is that because the above are nonphysical ? Matter is physical, by definition, yet non computable. This follows from the UD Argument. If consciousness is not computable, can ideas be computable ? Yes. Most of them are (the programs, the monads). I'm totally lost. I don't even understand how ANYTHING other than numbers can be computable. Strings of letter are not number, but the operation of concatenation is computable ( a + baba = ababa). Look at your computer, you see mails, letters, etc. Not number, yet all what you do with your computer (like sending a mail) are computable operation. Suppose you do a computation. You get a number or a bunch of numbers. How can you say what they mean ? By remembering the definitions, the axioms I am assuming, etc. I don't see the problem. If you refer to the qualia, this is explain by the peculiarity of the logic of machines self-reference: when machine introspect they can understand things, without completely understanding the understanding process itself. It is normal, but it needs a bot of computer science and mathematical logic to get the complete picture. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote: On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract computations. ? God, matter, consciousness are never computable. Where did I ever used God to designate computations. It seems to me that I insist a lot for not making that kind of spurious identification. I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth, explaining why it makes God unnameable by machines. Computation are Sigma_1 Truth is Sigma_1 union Sigma_2 union Sigma_3 union Sigma_4 union ... You are a bit quick here, Brent, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 1/21/2013 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote: On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract computations. ? God, matter, consciousness are never computable. Where did I ever used God to designate computations. It seems to me that I insist a lot for not making that kind of spurious identification. I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth, And that's the most common sense of the word??! Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Bruno: *...I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth, * * * does that mean: complying with human logic (any)? Just imagine a world (universe) without logically THINKING beings (humans?) with no math to formulate (numbers, to express): is there a God there? JM * * On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/21/2013 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote: On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract computations. ? God, matter, consciousness are never computable. Where did I ever used God to designate computations. It seems to me that I insist a lot for not making that kind of spurious identification. I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth, And that's the most common sense of the word??! Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 17 Jan 2013, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote: Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. Note that such 1p/3p distinction is made precise informally by the inside/outside the teleportation/duplication boxes in UDA, the terms/ wave in Everett (implicitly), and formally by the Bp and Bp p in AUDA. But this makes just more precise, for the reasoning, the usual subjective/objective distinction, or even the first and third person usual grammatical distinction. One apparent exception is that the physical reality is no more that much objective, as it is (with comp) a first person plural construct. Physical objectivity appears to be a first person plural construction (by *all* Löbian machines, not just the humans). Of course this is due to the reversal: objective is just taken in the usual 3p sense, but physics is no more 3p. The use of the traditional sense for 1p/3p is even more well suited for the Neoplatonist (Plotinian) trinity, as we get more or less precisely the same type of trinity with the intensional variant of self-reference (p, Bp, and Bp p, playing respectively the role of the outer God, the Noùs, and the inner God-universal-soul). This might or not be compared with Pierce, I don't know. Best, Bruno Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 18 Jan 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. This can make sense. We can relate this with the common notion of subjectivity. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Hmm... Why not, but I don't see this as fundamental. It can be distracting. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. OK. Then with comp thirdness is arithmetic (and physics is, counter- intuitively, still 1p, hopefully plural). The physical is a mode of being which is *not* such as it is. Bruno I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract computations. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi meekerdb All computations are abstract. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 14:44:33 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract computations. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: we cannot do without 1p and 2p Especially 2p, most posts on this topic contain a extraordinary large amount of pee pee. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
I First person singular We First person plural You Second person singular / second person plural He Third person masculine singular She Third person feminine singular It Third person neutral singular They Third person plural / third person gender-neutral singular On Friday, January 18, 2013 7:29:43 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) All of these are 1p. To get to 3p you would have to talk about things like the volume or composition of the cat's body. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au javascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you
Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi Russell Standish 2p is clearly needed for perception, as explained by Peirce. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/29/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-29, 01:21:53 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 29 Dec 2012, at 07:21, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. 3p is when we agree that the coffee is too hot. 1p is when we find it tastes very bad. 2p is when your wife ask you to clean the coffee machine. :) Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 29 Dec 2012, at 11:04, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p is clearly needed for perception, as explained by Peirce. That kind of 2p can be explained in term of 3p and 1p. I don't think it is fundamental, and we should try to stay as simple as possible. I do agree with Peirce, I think, but I find the notion of 2p quite non pedagogical, and also unrelated to the use of the you, that is the grammatical 2p, where on the contrary 1p and 3p refers easily to grammar. But that's only my opinion, and it concerns only pedagogy, Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/29/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-29, 01:21:53 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 12/29/2012 4:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 3p is when we agree that the coffee is too hot. 1p is when we find it tastes very bad. 2p is when your wife ask you to clean the coffee machine. So THAT'S why philosophers don't talk about 2p. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 06:21:06AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Good point. You are right, but we cannot do without 1p and 2p unless we want to live in Flatland (Thirdness, the publicly available world of 3p logic). Truths are stated in words, so it includes necessary and contingent truths. The p levels are depth levels of a Peircean sort (closer to meanings than What I wanted to get at is why are you claiming this? The 1p and 3p refer to subjective and objective points of view. There is no 2p. There is also a 1p plural, for shared subjective things. The p is short for person I'm not saying these things are unconnected to Peircean semiotics, but without more elaboration from you as to why you think so, I can't see the connection. It is certainly not obvious. truths, since they are unstated and personal), where 2p is II and 1p is I. I suggest we call them personal meanings and leave truths to III. I hope I can remember that. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/27/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-26, 20:21:34 Subject: Re: On the truth of comp --Fw: 1p= pragmatic or experiential truth vs3p = truth by calculation What is the point of redefining 1p and 3p this way? If you want to do this, you should first show that you recover the usual meanings of the terms, otherwise you may as well be speaking gibberish. On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 11:33:04AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Note that 1p = contingent truth 3p = necessary truth So the question of whether comp is true or not is whether or when or where 1p = 3p - Have received the following content - Sender: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-26, 11:26:27 Subject: 1p= pragmatic or experiential truth vs 3p = truth by calculation Hi everything-list IMHO that comp iis true or not is equalvalent to the question does 1p = 3p ? where 1p= truth by experience (or actuality) and 3p = truth by description (by theory) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/26/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
