Well, "relation to a relation" is my way of talking, not Peirce's. he uses the word "sign", but he uses that term in such contorted and ephemeral ways that I have started to try to understand him WITHOUT using it.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be snarky. It is "inner" and it is a kind of "sanctum", isn't it? The second meaning from Dick.com is . "A private or secret place to which few other people are admitted." Isnt that a fair reading of your position with respect to emotions and motivations? IE., that our behaviors arise from such a privileged causal place? I think Peirce imports teleonomy into biology, but not teleology. You recall that my general position is that everybody else but me confuses causality at a lower level with structure at a higher level. I.e., when we say that joe wants a hot fudge Sunday, we are not referring to an inner causal demon who is pressing Joe toward the Sunday shop, rather we are referring to an organization of Joe's behavior over time with respect to icecream shops and the presense of some triggering even that sets that structure in motion in the present instance. On my account, thinking that joes Sundae hunger cause his sundae eating is hypostization. I think Peirce would agree with this position. Rushing, but not snarky, Nick From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:23 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Peirce and teleology I object to the snarkiness of the term Inner Sanctum. But that aside, I now have 2 points. * It struck me this morning that the position you attribute to Peirce (and that you accept yourself?) imports teleology into biology (or even physics if it applies to matter as well). If a biological organism B does act A because something C is the case that suggests that B expects that doing A when C is the case will produce some anticipated result R, i.e., that B is attempting to bring about R, i.e., that B is acting teleologically. But I thought that teleology had been banned from biology. The emphasis is on the because, which was the word you used. I'm assuming that Peirce is distinguishing between (a) belief and action in this sense and (b) traditional physics where, for example, a rock dropped from a height falls to the ground because of gravity. It would be useful if you would clarify what Peirce means by because if it isn't intended teleologically. * I hesitate to add this point because I don't want the discussion to get sidetracked onto a discussion of subjective experience. But since you brought it up, here goes. I don't see what Peirce accomplishes by calling feeling a relation to a relation. Is his claim that someone like me claims to have a subjective experience if and only if (Peirce can demonstrate that) I'm in a relation to a relation? Since I'm not sure what he means by a relation to a relation, I'd need clarification to see whether I agree or even if it's simply a tautology. -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles Google voice: 747-999-5105 Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ vita: <http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/> http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ _____________________________________________ On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Douglas Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: Nick, It's actually pretty simple. No surprise, there, what with me being an engineer & all. There are only two requirements for getting me to believe in something: 1. I have to be interested enough about the topic to even care if it is worth believing in, and 2. Sufficient evidence must exist to support whatever claim is requiring my belief. Sadly, the topic of "induction" and all the intricacies involving the philosophy of "induction" as a thought process does not meet requirement number 1, above. --Doug On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: Hi doug, and Bruce I realize that the following was hundreds of words deep in a verbose email message, and so it is understandable that you did not respond, but I am curious about your response. I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction] is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all the way back into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction. Also, I was curious about your comment that you were not all that keen on induction. Can you describe how, if not by induction, you come to believe things. Nick From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone? Yes, well; I'm not entirely sure it works that way, at least not for me. It's either interesting, or it's not. Examining how other folks derive their fascinations just doesn't, you know, get my hormones flowing. --Doug On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: Where we seem to disagree is on one of my most fundatmental ideas: if somebody finds something interesting, there must be an underlying question or issue to which the phenomenon has gotten attached in their mind that I WOULD find interesting if I knew it. I was asking you to expand my experience. Or not. Nick From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [mailto: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:09 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone? <Lilke> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[email protected]> wrote: Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am -- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we inhabit as is possible. To put it another way: Why are you interested in the details of the definition or use of induction? I found that discussion massively uninteresting and irrelevant to the actual practice of science. There are many variants of philistinism, and of engagement. Bruce On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies > INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don't capture my > imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that > NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an > interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking > that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these > fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting. > The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off > being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren't the > Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR > noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming > > > > Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- Doug Roberts [email protected] [email protected] http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- Doug Roberts [email protected] [email protected] http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- Doug Roberts [email protected] [email protected] http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
