Hi Cowboy, 

Reason and truth can only be expressed objectively in words, and symbols. 
    They are public, communicable expressions. 

Experience is subjective (1p) and so cannot be so expressed, at least 
precisely. 
The objective expression or description of an experience (3p) for communcation 
purposes is therefore never exact.  

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
12/31/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-12-30, 10:48:19 
Subject: Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their 
use(in perception) 




On 29 Dec 2012, at 21:32, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: 


Hi Bruno, 


On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Bruno Marchal  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 
go?s 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 "?er Geschmack l?st 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-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. 



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.

Reply via email to