# Re: Re: 1p, 3p and the black box of 2p

```Hi Bruno Marchal

It makes sense to think of 1p as subjective, and I used to do so.
But the "black box" model of consciousness which I have adopted
to closer fit Peirce's categories,  if it is treated as a classical "black
box",
suggests that, to accord with both Peirce and system theory:  ```
```
1p (objective input voltage) ---> 2p (intelligent (subjective) signal
processing, convolution) --> 3p objective output voltage.

What happens in the box is then basically subjective (intelligent), although
if you permit the analogy, 3p may be represented as a convolution of 2p
with 1p, so that (to use an analogy to system theory)

3p (t) = convolution integral = Int[2p(t-c+t)*1p (t)*dt]

where functions of t are "down here", in objective space, but also
in "above" in platonic or  frequency space (w) which i take to be the
subjective state,
so an quivalent form would simply be the product

3p(w) = 2p(w)*1p(w)

As backup suppport for this understanding of 1p as objective or down here in
time,
note that Peirce also refers to Firstness as being the OBJECT of perception
(such
as an apple, "out there"), thus making his Firstness, while associated,
still entirely removed from the mindbrain, being only a portal and completely
objective.

As further backup support. Leibniz would consider the apple as an actual (ie
objective)
phenomenon, which would be his 1p. If it is a substance then it is represented
as 2p in mental (subjective) space as an apple-monad. I think he would
then refer to thel 1p (obj) +2p (sub)  as  = 3p (obj but aware of 1p and 2p).

[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
Time: 2012-12-30, 10:57:06
Subject: Re: 1p, 3p and the black box of 2p

On 30 Dec 2012, at 13:35, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal
.
IMHO, which you don't have to agree with,  3p is completely differnt from 1p

Better not agreeing, as this limit the interest of conversing.

Here's how I see the whole picture:

1p = physical input signal from outside world into brain -----> (2p =  the
mind's black box of mental (not brain) signal processing) --->
---> 3p = physical signal output to outside world through brain.

Usually, 1p = the subjective personal account of the experience.
And 3p is some "objective view".

1p is not communicable (except approximately by artists)
3p is usually communicable, or locally communicable.

All scientific statement is 3p. Even when talking about "1p".

1p = physical input of outside world as part of the brain.

2p = "black box" mental signal processing of 1p

3p = physical output from 2p as through the brain to outside world.

You might give too much importance to the physical, which with comp appear to
be only 1p plural. Eventually, we can limit ourself to arithmetic for the 3p.
Then the 1p & Co. are "numbers with an angle, or a point of view".

Bruno

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/30/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Time: 2012-12-29, 14:36:58
Subject: Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their
use(in perception)

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.

In french we say popularly that "about taste and color we don't argue". (Des
go?s et des couleurs on ne discute pas).

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!?!

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.

Bruno

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Few Definitions of the categories

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
For more options, visit this group at

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
For more options, visit this group at

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