List: Peirce's semeiotic studies *all *signs, not just concrete sinsigns/tokens; and in accordance with his thoroughgoing synechism (see that thread <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-11/msg00084.html>), each of those is an individual replica/instance of a general legisign/type. Human minds do not *construct *such representations, they are *real*--they are as they are regardless of what anyone thinks about them, including whether humans happen to have invented *linguistic *legisigns/types for them.
What an infinite community *would *affirm after infinite investigation is precisely how Peirce explicates the meaning of *truth *in practical terms--those beliefs whose corresponding habits of conduct *would *never be confounded by any *possible *future experience. Again, this is a regulative principle and an intellectual hope, not an actual achievement. Denying it is rejecting scholastic realism and thus pragmaticism, i.e., straightforwardly disagreeing with Peirce himself. Medically unexplained symptoms are still *symptoms *and therefore indexical sinsigns/tokens that are replicas/instances of legisigns/types. The fact that they are currently *unexplained*--we do not yet know what underlying conditions are their dynamical objects--does not entail that they are *inexplicable*; and according to Peirce, logic forbids us to *assume *that they are inexplicable. After all, the medical profession presumably has not given up on explaining them *eventually*. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 4:17 AM robert marty <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > Jon, I couldn't get back to you sooner for personal reasons. > Admittedly, Gemini 3 and ChatGPT 4 are not on the list, but neither is > Charles Sanders Peirce, which is a pity. His semiotics is not built for > infinity. It studies signs that are concrete objects, so it presupposes a > world with objects and human minds that construct representations by > establishing connections between objects according to particular > modalities. There must also be a human community that seeks and establishes > revisable laws, held to be accurate until proven otherwise, which govern > these objects and their relations. If, in the future, a world without > objects or humans comes into being, there will be no more semiotics unless > there remains a world populated by robots endowed with quasi-minds that > allow it to continue in a degenerate form. > > Admittedly, the current scientific consensus recognizes that there is no > proof that the laws of nature are eternal. However, they appear to be > stable and universal within the limits of our observations, without ruling > out the possibility that they may have been different in the past or may > become different in the future. For this to be the case, there must be > observations, i.e., objects and human beings to observe. To evoke an > infinite community and an infinite number of investigations is pure > speculation with no practical consequences. Eternity is a concept that, by > definition, cannot be measured experimentally. We are therefore not going > to stop doing semiotics while we wait for the end of eternity. Personally, > I am not in that situation. > > I am not aware of any reservations you have regarding LLMs. I do not read > all of your writings, just as you do not read all of mine. To support such > a claim, one usually cites at least one reference. Indeed, your > reservations are only of interest if they are shared by a large part of the > community that is constantly discussing them. > > With regard to qualia, it is incorrect to say that *"human scientists > have indeed already formulated the laws that govern our sensations of* > colors, smells, pain, etc." Scientists have not formulated any universal > laws about qualia. They have established robust correlations between brain > activity and subjective experiences, and have proposed explanatory > theories, but the mystery of their nature remains. No law in the universe > explains how an electrical signal becomes the color "Red." The challenge > remains to understand how and why the brain produces these conscious > experiences, and whether a unified theory is possible. > > As for a "*specific *example of an iconic sinsign/token that is > associated with the sensation of red and is *not *a replica/instance of > an iconic legisign/type," there is nothing better than asking ChatGPT > (despite your reservations). Here are some examples from the medical field, > many of which are familiar to everyone. These are "medically unexplained > symptoms (MUS) or functional symptoms. These are real, observable, and > sometimes measurable symptoms, but no known disease, structural > abnormality, or laboratory explanation has been identified despite > evaluation." > > But you asked for an example of the sensation of redness. So I asked > ChatGPT if, among MUS, some in the dermatological field were involved in > skin redness. Here is its response: "Several *dermatological symptoms*, > including *skin redness*, can be part of *MUS (Medically Unexplained > Symptoms)* or conditions known as *functional* or *idiopathic*. Here is > the first of the seven most recognized cases: > > *1. Intermittent facial erythema (flushing) with no identified cause: *sudden > redness of the face or neck, often accompanied by heat. > > 1. No identifiable rosacea > > 2. No allergies or food intolerances > > 3. Thyroid function, carcinoid, mast cell, menopause, etc., > normal > > This type of "idiopathic flushing" is relatively common in MUS. > > *Summary: "Several forms of skin redness can be considered medically > unexplained symptoms, particularly intermittent flushing, functional > neurovascular redness, certain idiopathic erythemas, and manifestations > related to dysautonomia."* > > *Regards,* > > *Robert Marty* > Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy > fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty > *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>* >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
