Gary F, I guess you missed this:
"Of course, then we have to talk about how learning occurs within this cycle of self-confirmation. That involves biopoiesis not biosemiosis, per se." And as Jon Awbrey notes several times in his posts, this talk of object=objective brings up the Meno question. Jon provided the links to posts going back years on that. > This confirms that you are trying to banish Secondness from the semiotic > universe, That's a bizarre thing to say. Tori _________________________________ Victoria N. Alexander, PhD www.dactylfoundation.org www.biologistsmistress.com On Mar 28, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote: > Tori, > > I don’t see how you (or anyone in the sciences) can actually believe that > “All responses to something as a sign tend to reconfirm a mental habit.” > You’re saying that there is no such thing as a surprise or a habit-change as > a response to it, i.e. no possibility of learning any new habits. This > confirms that you are trying to banish Secondness from the semiotic universe, > to do away with “Obsistence” as Peirce sometimes called it, emphasizing the > root meaning of the prefix “ob-” as “against”. > > gary f. > > From: VN A [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of VN Alexander > Sent: 28-Mar-14 9:41 AM > > Gary F, Ben, John D, Jon A, All > > J Deely and J Awbrey very briefly, YES! > > > Gary F. Ben, Clearly in all biosemiotic processes the object must be > understood as "objective" in the sense that the response to something as a > sign tends to reconfirm a (useful) habit. We need to understand mental > processes in a similar way. All responses to something as a sign tend to > reconfirm a mental habit. Self-confirmation is thus the "objective" of all > semiotic processes, insofar as responses (interpretants) tend to increase the > likelihood of that mental habit occurring again. > > Jon Awbrey writes > > In the case of creatures like ourselves, it is possible to regard our > conscious contents as representing our body’s theory of what is likely to > deserve our mind’s attention. If that theory is a good one, then we may live > to be conscious of another day. > > In other words, you take the "mentalism" out of the term "objective" and you > understand it in terms of the reconfirmation of a tendency. Of course, then > we have to talk about how learning occurs within this cycle of > self-confirmation. That involves biopoiesis not biosemiosis, per se. > > Ben writes: > From the start with Aristotle, a form of a thing was a cause of it simply > because it was its form; a natural end likewise; but in the modern > perspective this means that even thermodynamic decay is an end and a cause in > some Aristotelian sense, and people tend to regard as a final cause something > more agentlike, as we see happening via minds and evolution. There is, > however, nothing in mental life as we know it to suggest a level where ALL > objects, as sources of determination, are really ends or objectives, given > that people deal freely with genuinely mechanical causes and others' wills as > causes, as well as with special ends whose influence is channeled through > desire, expectation, etc., and people generally know the difference(s). Why > should we suppose that evolution, as quasi-mind, has taken a narrower path > than that with organisms generally? It seems like you're bringing in a pure > telicism to compete with pure materialism and mechanism. > > > I do not accept the, to me, purely rhetorical argument that "thermodynamic > decay is an end." At best, decay is "like" an end because it's a tendency. > There the comparison stops. Decay is unlike "end" in the sense of purpose or > objective, which, in every case of purpose, is to maintain the dynamic > identity of the complex system, not dissolve it. > > people tend to regard as a final cause something more agentlike, as we see > happening via minds > > As I noted above, this conception of mentalism is probably mistaken. > Thoughts are also physical tendencies and habits. > > Tori > > ----------------------------- > 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] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More > athttp://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
