Edwina, Stan, list, It seems to me that who is misusing Peirce's three categories remains to be seen. (Plesse refer to my next email.)
With all the best. Sung ____________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > Stan- you totally missed my point. My critique had nothing to do with > nominalism vs realism. It had to do with the misuse (by both you and Sung) > of the three categories. > > Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stanley N Salthe > To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 3:38 PM > Subject: [biosemiotics:6206] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for > > > Edwina -- We could sum this all up -- My point of view is social > constructivist/non-realist, while yours (and, I think, Sung's) is > realist. Thus, I do not think Evolution is REAL *in the realist sense); > it is a conceptual construct. As you have said in the past, there is > really no point in arguing between us. I will refine my statements as: > > > 1. Evolution as is (at this moment) -- this is a concept embodied in > texts that has pulled together data from many different sciences. It is > a Thirdness in the sense that it contextualizes much of the thinking of > our society. > > > 2. Evolution as lived -- this is individuation, taking place everywhere > every moment; in organisms,especially in youth. As such (resulting from > continual material interactions at any moment) it is caused within > Firstness. > > > 3. Evolution as theorized -- this is a conceptual problem being wrestled > with -- the process of theorizing would be Seconds. > > > Make mine tonic water > > > STAN > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > > Stan - this is a specious analogy, i.e. 'idle chatter' and belongs in > the coffee shop. > > The three categories are not semantic descriptions; they are terms for > three different modes of organization of exisentiality. > > First, Evolution, by definition, is a process that refers to > continuity of individual existential organization (type to token) and > adaptability of that continuity. > Second, existential reality is triadic, therefore evolution as a > process operates within a triadic format. > > So.. > If you define an evolutionary process, in its triadic format, as > operating purely in a categorical mode of Firstness - you deny the > basic reality of evolution, for a triad in Firstness has no connection > to the past or future or to anything and thus, cannot fulfil any > evolutionary functions. > > If you define it in pure Secondness - you also deny the basic reality > of evolution, for a triad in Secondness has no capacity for > continuity; it is pure brute interaction of 'this' with 'that' in > current time. > > If you define it in pure Thirdness - you remove the process from > existentiality, for a triad in pure Thirdness is an aspatial and > atemporal abstract Argument. > > Have another coffee. > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stanley N Salthe > To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:40 AM > Subject: [biosemiotics:6202] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for > > > Sung -- Here is my reaction to your characterizations of evolution: > > > 1. Evolution as is -- this is a concept embodied in texts pulling > together data from many different sciences. It is a Thirdness > > > 2. Evolution as lived -- this is individuation, taking place every > moment, especially in youth. Firstness > > > 3. Evolution as theorized -- this is a problematic concept being > wrestled with -- Seconds. > > > STAN > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> > wrote: > > (Undistorted Figure 1 is attached.) > > Howard, Kalevi, Helmut, Stan, Wendy, Phyllis, list, > > Unless we are careful, we can be unwittingly fooled by the > apparently > simple looking word, "evolution". To me, "evolution" has three > categories > of meanings: > > (1) Evolution as is. (Firstness) > (2) Evolution as lived/observed. (Secondness) > (3) Evolution as theorized/modeled. (Thirdness) > > It seems that Howard's excellent description of "evolution" in > terms of > variation-communication-selection is primarily concerned with the > Secondness of evolution, i.e., with the mechanisms underlying > evolution > (reminiscent of, but not identical with, Kantâs > noumenon-phenomenon > relation), and leaves open the Firstness (e.g., evolutionary > history as > recorded in paleontological data), and the Thirdness of evolution > (e.g., > mathematical model of evolution such as the one proposed by > Zeldovich and > Shakhnovich [1]). As I will detail in another email, this > mechanism-phenomenon-model triad (see Figure 1 below) seems to > have a > universal quality to it, being applicable to many fields ranging > from > physics to chemistry to biology to mathematics and to semiotics. > > a b > Mechanisms ----------> Phenomenon ----------> Models > | ^ > | | > |_______________________________________________| > c > > Figure 1. The Mechanism-Phenomenon-Model triad, which can be > viewed as > isomorphic with Peirceâs Object- Sign-Interpretant triad. a = > natural > process; b = mental modeling; c = experimental proof of the > predictions > based on models, cf. âcommutativityâ of Rosen [2]. > > > With all the best. > > Sung > __________________________________________________ > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > Rutgers University > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > > > > References: > [1] Ji, S. (2012). The Zeldovich-Shkhnovich and the MTLC > (Molecular > theory of the Living Cell of the Bhopalator) Models of Evolution. > In: > Molecular theory of the Living Cell: concepts, Molecular > Mechanisms, > and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York. Pp. 509-519. > [2] Rosen, R. (1991). Life Itself, Columbia University Press, > New > York. Figure 3H.2, p. 60. > > > > > At 05:52 AM 7/23/2014, Kalevi recommended the "Third Way" > website: > > > > >><http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/>http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com > > > > The site's rationale states: "The vast majority of people > believe > > that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins > of > > biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon > > supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is > > Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a > unique > > creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary > problems. . > > . . There is a need for a more open "third way." > > > > This site confuses three distinct evolutionary processes: (1) > > variation or search strategies, (2) heritable communication, and > (3) > > selection or survival challenges. These are separate processes > but > > all three are essential for evolution. > > > > (1) Evolution has discovered undeterminable varieties of > strategies > > of variation, from extreme randomness (anything not explicitly > > forbidden is allowed) to extreme algorithmic determinism > (anything > > not explicitly allowed is forbidden). Most heritable variation > falls > > in between these extremes (e.g., statistical trends, quorum > sensing, > > heuristics, abduction, genetic "intelligence"). > > > > (2) By far the most heritable information is communicated by > strings > > of symbols (e.g., interpretable base sequences). Most human > > communication is also by symbol strings. Of course there are > many > > other forms of iconic and mimetic communicative structures and > > actions, but they generally do not have the expressive power and > > reliability of symbol strings. > > > > (3) Nature also provides an undeterminable variety of selective > > challenges, from predictable regularities (like day and night > and the > > seasons) to unpredictable events (like volcanic eruptions and > > meteorites). Many plants and animals have evolved good adaptive > > strategies for the former but not the latter. Some bacteria are > > believed to retain adaptive genes from previous ice ages and > other > > remote environmental challenges. > > > > Darwin new little about the processes (1) variation and (2) > heritable > > communication, but he clearly understood their necessity. I do > not > > believe that he would have, "elevated natural selection to a > unique > > creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary > problems" > > as the Third Way states. It is only after the heritable > variations > > occur in a population that selection can take place. Selection > does > > not solve any problems. It only decides if organism have > discovered > > and communicated viable answers. > > > > Howard > > > > > > > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
