Hi Bruno,

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 29 Dec 2012, at 16:07, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>  The classic example
>
> 3p= thirdness= is when I react to the pain
>
>
> Hmm.. this is the idea, except that with comp, this will be only
> plural_1p. But no problem as, locally, first person plural behaves like a
> 3p notion. That is indeed why we confuse them and believe the mind comes
> from matter activity, when eventually matter activity is a way mind
> articulate the information about its the most probable computations.
>
>
>
> 2p = secondness = is when I feel the pain
>
> 1p = firstness = is when somebody stick me with a pin (Quale)
>
>
> Is not "I feel pain" a quale?
>
>
>
>
>
> Also
>
> 3p is when I know and/or say that the coffee tastes bad (mind or reason)
>
>
> ? If you can use reason to explain a taste, I will ask you the method.
>
>
The method is specializing in summing magnitudes of local infinities. With
long enough computational history, you can thus explain a taste, even with
fuzzy linguistic markers. Like wine tasters will agree that a vintage has a
layer of "shoe leather".

Whether the receiver of the message "understands" is a different question
and is domain related. Say math, you cannot communicate with me some funky
tensor equation with words alone, unless I have enough computational
history with the concept in question.

Music is deceptive, in that everybody has apparent access but I don't think
I have to make the case that some music is tasteless. Therefore, not
everybody has musical taste.

Having said that, I'll grant, with sufficient computational history, there
are schools of taste that differ. Like the styles that different architects
come to prefer. But with such history, even a romantic-school architect,
will concede that a building is well designed by a minimalist Bauhaus style
architect and can get versed in that style, or the magnitudes of those
local infinities.


> In french we say popularly that "about taste and color we don't argue".
> (Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas).
>
>
That's because Francophones have no taste, they just try to sell the notion
that they do for marketing ;)

In Germany this is more ambiguous, as we have the equivalent statement but
also its negation: a popular turn-of-phrase is "Über Geschmack lässt sich
bekanntlich streiten." Roughly translates "On matters taste, we can
argue/negotiate/dispute", which fits with the fuzzy linguistic statement
above.

But alas, Germans are known for their lack of taste and world wars and we
don't market our wines and cheeses so well. It is still fact however, that
Germany exports more cheese to France than the opposite. We just give it
some Italian name, and the French buy it, as anybody with culinary taste
will not buy from the Krauts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambozola

Yup, that's German and the French buy more of that from the supermarket
shelves than Germans buy Roquefort and co.


>
>
> 2p is when I am tasting something funny about the coffee. (feeling or
> sensing)
>
>
> I will ask you for the coffee recipe.
>
> Funny?
>
> Cannabis, salvia or even alcohol, I can imagine. But Coffee!?!
>
>
Same. I want that coffee :)

PGC


>
>
>
> 1p is when I take a sip of coffee.(body-QUALE- input to sensing nerves)
>
>
>
> OK, I see why you say this.
>
> Keep in mind in UDA 1p is just defined by the content of the diary of the
> guy or girl annihilated and reconstituted, with their diary, as opposed to
> the diary of an external observer (3p). In AUDA the 1p is defined by "a
> correct belief" with respect to a probable situation.
>
> Just to help you for other threads.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A Few Definitions of the categories
>
> http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/newlist/nl-frame.htm
>
>
> The Categories as used in perception:
>
> I 1p--Quality (Reference to a Ground),
> II 2p-- Relation (Reference to a Correlate),
> II 3p--Representation (Reference to an Interpretant),
>
> I 1p-- Quale (that which refers to a ground),
> II 2p--Relate (that which refers to a ground and correlate, )
> III 3p--Representamen (that which refers to ground, correlate, and
> interpretant. )
>
>
> http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html
>
> "Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of
> indecomposable concepts correspond
> three classes of characters or predicates.
>
> Firstly come " firstnesses," or positive internal characters of the
> subject in itself;
>
> secondly come "secondnesses," or brute actions of one subject or substance
> on another,
> regardless of law or of any third subject;
>
> thirdly comes "thirdnesses," or the mental or quasi-mental influence of
> one subject on
> another relatively to a third." ('Pragmatism', CP 5.469, 1907)
>
>
>
> 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."
>
>
> >>
> >> The following equivalences should hold >>
>
> >> 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)"
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to