Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quantum Peirce for dummies

Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:00:31 -0700

Stephen, List

Well, Grok is a lot of fun. [ I don’t have an X or any social media account]… but have speed read through your Word link.  I’d have to go through it more slowly to come to an obeisance to Grok …I remain sceptical, but, I was surprised. I do reject that the difference between us is ’terminological’ - for I consider your association certainly reeks of Thirdness. Possibly Thirdness-in-a- mode of Secondness [ which brings in the indexical association aspect]. But - it remains: Thirdness. ..and as such - is ‘downward causation- and I reject both downward and bottom up causation in favour of a CAS., ie, that the universe is a Complex adaptive system, with all three categorical modes in operation…and none privileged or primary. All are quite active and interactive….

[Note- I remain stunned that the three objections to my naming the Universe as a CAS, were all totally ignorant of the definition of a CAS!! How’s that for scholarship.]. 

As for Barbieri- yes - in my view - his taking over the bio semiotic world [ and he’s quite a forceful personality, personally] andn his incredible complete ignorance of Peirce - ended a bright future for biossemiotics. It’s just ‘reductionist code now. 

I promise I will go through the Grok outline you provided more slowly - and give a feedback in the next few days. 

Edwina



On Oct 17, 2025, at 10:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote:

Edwina, List
 
Edwina, I ran your objections past Grok. If you have an X account (others in this list might), you can access the chat here:
Grok is fine with my perspective. If you can’t access the above link, then see the attached for the relevant bits of my exchange with Grok (the copy-pasted format is untidy… it’s fine when viewed online). If you’re still sceptical of what Grok is capable of, perhaps now is the time to consider changing your mind. 
 
>”As such, Barbieri has ended the Peircean focus of Jesper Hoffmeyer within the biosemoitic world…”
Seriously? That’s disappointing. The physicalist code-biology bs has long exceeded its use-by date. No wonder there’s a crisis in physics.
 
sj
 
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Edwina Taborsky
Sent: 16 October, 2025 8:36 PM
To: [email protected]; Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]>
Cc: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quantum Peirce for dummies
 
List, Stephen
 
I will only post this one time as I recall our earlier arguments over this focus - which went nowhere.  I think the basic augment for me - is not whether or not Peircean samosas is applicable at the quantum level, for I think that is -but  is about the role of and the nature of : The Categories. I feel they are deeply ignored and/or misunderstood among the Peircean world. 
 
Again - my concern in Jarosek’s outline is the definition and use of Peircean Thirdness [ the mental organizational principle] as both some form of Secondness [ indexicality] and as a hierarchical  authority by ‘downward causation’ which implies some kind of separate abstract out-of-body force. And I don’t see ‘bottom-up causation’ as reductionism but as an acknowledgement of the realities of both Firstness and Secondness as organizational principles of energy/matter. . I won’t comment further because it’s all been said before. 
 
My view, as I’ve said before is that all three categories are fundamental to achieve the organization of energy/matter. This view also differs from that of JAS and Gary R - who see Thirdness as primary.
 
And  - as another example of a different focus on the categories - there’s the view of Marcello  Barbieri, who, in my view, totally and deeply misreads and misunderstands Peirce - confining Peirce’s semiosis to ONLY the interpretative phase of the triad {O-R/S-I] ..while, he,  Barbieri has removed both Firstness and the Object and redefined it as ‘Manufacturing’; and removed Secondness and redefined it as  a ’signalling function’. 
As such, Barbieri has ended the Peircean focus of Jesper Hoffmeyer within the biosemoitic world…I won’t comment further on this sad state..
 
I am grateful to Robert Marty whose outline of the categories seem, to me, to be accurate and correct analyses of Peirce’s agenda in providing us with these three categories.  Again - all are, in my understanding, fundamental to the formation of energy/matter. . 
 
Edwina
 
 


On Oct 16, 2025, at 5:11 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote:
 
List,
 
A few weeks ago, I posted a comment to a forum that was well-received, somewhat to my surprise. It was a summary of my main thesis, currently under review with a journal, available as a preprint, here (some of you were introduced to earlier drafts of it a couple of months ago): 
 
My brief comment to the forum was an outline of why, though I’m not a fan of panpsychism, I certainly do support a theory of “mind stuff” playing out throughout all levels of existence, including matter. Apparently, people can still “get it” without having to read the 20+ pages of my more thoroughly supported document. Here is that tl;dr summary for those who prefer a briefer outline. 
 
THEORY OF EVERYTHING FOR DUMMIES
 
References to panpsychism make me nervous. I'm more inclined to look to raw "mind stuff" as first cause, and in this regard, the semiotic theory of CS Peirce and Terence Deacon's (2012, 2021) notion of molecules as signs are especially interesting. Peircean association, as downward causation, "informs" bottom-up causation (reductionism) of the options that are available, and so addresses the entropy problem. Example of association? Two Hydrogen atoms + one Oxygen atom, in association, constitute a water molecule. 
    Association also plays out in the quantum void, virtual particles, etc, as per the Feynman diagrams - association relates to the tensions between the known and the unknown.
    What other entities must contend with the tensions between the known and the unknown? We do. All living things do, and that's why Peircean association is important to them and us, too (Jarosek, 2001). The opposable thumbs, eyes, ears, sex differences, vocal apparatus, etc that constitute human embodied cognition enable us to associate language, experiences, meaning and culture... culture is our downward causation, wiring our neuroplastic brains (Jarosek, 2020). 
    Then factor in Carlo Rovelli's Relational QM to seal the deal. If my conjecture is right, this does away with physicalism, Copenhagenesque subatomic billiard-balls popping into and out of existence, and the even nuttier notions of multiverse, manyworlds, and dead-alive cats.
    Rovelli's RQM (1996) is key, imho... that's about as close to panpsychism as I'm prepared to venture. [Had I heard of Rovelli’s work before 2001, I would have cited him in my 2001 paper]
    And with this extensive simplicity and generality, from top to bottom (Michael Levin's "all the way down"), we satisfy Occam's razor. 
 
REFERENCES 
Deacon, T.W. (2012). Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. New York: W.W. Norton&Co. 
Deacon, T.W. (2021, September 25). How Molecules Became Signs. Biosemiotics, 14, 537-559. 
Jarosek, S. (2001). The law of association of habits. Semiotica, 133(1/4), 79-96: 
Jarosek, S. (2020). Knowing how to be: Imitation, the neglected axiom. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 27(3), 33-63:
Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, 1637–1678. 
Watson, R., & Levin, M. (2023, May 23). The collective intelligence of evolution and development. Collective Intelligence, 2(2), 1-22.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . 
►  <a href=""mailto:[email protected]" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;">mailto:[email protected]">UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to
https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
 

Attachment: 251017c Peirce Categories - Definitions.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . 
►  <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . 
But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then 
go to
https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Reply via email to