On 29 Dec 2012, at 21:32, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
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".
This means you can educate taste, not really explaining it. Here I
meant explaining taste to someone having no taste, or explaining what
is taste.
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.
Here you are right, in the sense that I can't explain the natural
numbers, if you don't have some intuition of them already. Once you
agree on numbers, I can explain the tensor, even if it can take time.
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.
Same for wine.
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.
Yes.
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.
I like both culinary arts, but then my country is influenced by both.
I think we develop taste early in the childhood.
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
:)
Bruno
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-
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
.
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
.
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.
