Edwina, List
>”After all- it’s obvious that you can’t have 3ns without 2ns….or even 1ns.” We don't disagree at all on the principles. This is how embodied cognition works, once you factor in how mind-bodies interface with the environment and culture. Embodied cognition is how the bottom-up interfaces with the top-down. But I’m not preaching to the converted. My intention is to introduce an alternative way of understanding cognition to lay folk, for whom this line of thinking is alien. And so I want to distil to axiomatics, without burdening with the nuances. Grok, at least, is fine with my shorthand for association as integral to causation. Grok gets it, that the interdependencies of the categories are safely accounted for as a given… you don’t, for some reason. Regardless of your scepticism for what Grok is capable of, its application of cold, precise reason, in this instance, speaks for itself. >”I’m not aware that emergence theory is akin to reductionism!!” I feared as much. In this you deprive association of its implications for QM. See my previous reference to Christen & Franklin (2002). For the rest of us, I believe that Peircean semiotic theory might be the missing fundamental in Carlo Rovelli’s RQM. Factor in semiotic theory, and it just might be the key to a complete theory of RQM. No more multiverse, manywords, or magical dead-alive cats… and perhaps even an end to the crisis in physics. sj From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Edwina Taborsky Sent: 18 October, 2025 3:26 PM To: Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quantum Peirce for dummies Stephen, list I’ve reread your Grok summation - and, apart from ‘it’s fun’ - I still have a problem with your alignment of Secondness with ‘Association’ - since,on its own, Secondness doesn’t have the [mental] capacity to ‘associate’ with anything, even if it’s in direct contact with this ‘other! That’s why I consider your ‘downward causation as actually 3-2, or Thirdness in a mode of Secondness. Be that as it may, I continue to view the three categories as all basic and fundamental, - none of them are primary. After all- it’s obvious that you can’t have 3ns without 2ns….or even 1ns. I steer away from any concept of 3ns as primary since, in my view, it inserts an a priori determinism - akin to a teleology. So- I don’t go along with ‘downward causation’.as primary .ie.. Can the higher level properties influence the behaviour of the lower level components? Yes and no. Remember - Firstness is a basic category and will enable novel properties to emerge. But most certainly a developed law can affect and control the behaviour of lower level components. That’s the role of habit!! So- downward causation - fi that is what is meant by the operation of 3-2, is hardly a novel requirement…but is a basic to preventing entropy. I don’t watch YouTube..so.. I’m not aware that emergence theory is akin to reductionism!! Maybe weak emergence but not strong emergence. Again- I refer to Firstness as a basic component of reality . Adaptationand evolution require it..as does entropy prevention. Edwina On Oct 18, 2025, at 8:57 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Edwina, List, Regarding Complex Adaptive Systems. Glad to see that you are factoring in “all three categorical modes in operation… none privileged or primary.” I wonder what your take is of classical emergence theories. Life would not be possible, based on purely physicalist interpretations, such as “classical” emergence theories… thankfully, your 3-category blend is clearly not such an interpretation. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline my objection to pure physicalism, easily summed up in the word “entropy” and this simple demonstration that even Muslims and Christians can understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwqPdWZvjAY Classical emergentists, as physicalists, still don’t get it, apparently. They don’t get it that extraordinary complexity might, by some freak chance, occasionally occur within a universe of infinite possibilities… but that it persists across time and space is the deal-breaker for any and all dumb-luck, physicalist theories of emergence relying solely on sterile stochastics. That “Lego helicopter” in the demonstration, above, won’t last long within a bucket of Lego parts continuing to tumble beyond its happy, ephemeral creation. Christen & Franklin (2002) identify the nub of the problem with emergence theories: "... ‘emergence’ in complexity science, while intriguing to many, is still fully consistent with most forms of reductionism and does not allow for downward causation." This is the position I am also solidly committed to. In other words, most (all?) emergence theories (including predictive stochastics, Bayesianism, etc), masquerade a downward causation that amounts to wishful thinking, failing to properly address the entropy problem. Incidentally, regarding the code-biology/semiotic split at the Biosemiotics journal… I thought that split had been resolved in favour of semiotics, as explained by my buddy, Grok, in my exchange last month (13 September). This is Grok’s summation: The Dispute's Status: Settled on the Surface, But Not Extinct You're right that one could argue the dust has settled institutionally. The journal's editorial team, as of 2025, is led by Yogi Hale Hendlin (Lead Editor-in-Chief, with a focus on environmental philosophy and relational dynamics) and co-edited by Alexei Sharov (a biosemiotician emphasizing semiotic agency in evolution), alongside associates like Carlo Brentari and Ludmila Lackova, all of whom operate squarely within Peircean frameworks. Notably, no code biology advocates appear on the board, and recent issues (e.g., April 2025's exploration of umwelt theory and phenomenology) prioritize interpretive semiosis over code-centric models. The International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), which the journal officially represents, continues to host annual Gatherings (next in Rotterdam, August 2025) that center Peircean-Uexküllian approaches, with little mention of code biology as a parallel school. However, the intellectual divide persists in the literature, and it's not just relic history. A January 2025 paper explicitly notes the "separation" between the two due to "differences in their understanding of cellular-level interpretation" and epistemological concerns—biosemiotics insisting on Peircean triadic signs (requiring an interpretant for meaning), versus code biology's claim that arbitrary codes alone suffice for biological meaning without subjective interpretation. [degruyterbrill.com <http://degruyterbrill.com/> ] Similarly, a February 2025 article in Biosystems dissects Kalevi Kull's 2020 critique of code biology, arguing it could "subordinate" the latter to Peircean biosemiotics if valid, and explores how recursivity in social practices might resolve (or expose) these ontological gaps. [pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov <http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/> ] Even a forthcoming 2025 piece in Biosemiotics itself directly challenges the idea that "codes need interpretation," asserting that codes were the sole form of semiosis for life's first three billion years—echoing Barbieri's physicalist stance. [link.springer.com <http://link.springer.com/> ] Efforts at bridging persist too, often via Robert Rosen's relational biology as a "third way" (e.g., showing how codes can enable emergent interpretation without fully endorsing either side), but these haven't erased the lines— they've just made them blurrier for outsiders. [researchgate.net <http://researchgate.net/> +3] If the email sender is deeply embedded in the journal's Peircean orbit, their "blissful unawareness" might stem from this insularity: code biology feels peripheral, like a road not taken, especially since its society publishes separately. BOTTOM LINE: This is why I believe that Carlo Rovelli’s RQM – or some interpretation along those relational lines – will be key to integrating QM with semiotic theory. Physicalism is a dead-end, imho. REFERENCE: Christen, M., & Franklin, L. R. (2002). The Concept of Emergence in Complexity Science: Finding Coherence between Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the Complex Systems Summer School 2002, 4. sj From: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: 17 October, 2025 5:00 PM To: Stephen Jarosek <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quantum Peirce for dummies 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] <mailto:[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: <https://x.com/i/grok/share/YsZeYKy6Z1ao44GoCXAy869OB> https://x.com/i/grok/share/YsZeYKy6Z1ao44GoCXAy869OB 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: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> On Behalf Of Edwina Taborsky Sent: 16 October, 2025 8:36 PM To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]; Stephen Jarosek < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Cc: Edwina Taborsky < <mailto:[email protected]> [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] <mailto:[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): <https://www.academia.edu/129898049/Association_as_Downward_Causation> https://www.academia.edu/129898049/Association_as_Downward_Causation 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: <https://www.academia.edu/3236556/The_law_of_association_of_habits> https://www.academia.edu/3236556/The_law_of_association_of_habits Jarosek, S. (2020). Knowing how to be: Imitation, the neglected axiom. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 27(3), 33-63: <https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/chk/2020/00000027/00000003/art00003> https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/chk/2020/00000027/00000003/art00003 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 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] . ► <a href=" <mailto:[email protected]> 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> 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
