Stephen wrote:
" . . . the totality of what is in the mind is at best (6231-1)
subjected to a selection process that could ignore a
huge number of possibilities foreclosed by the process
of naming."
This statement is consistent with the RPM category theory of everything
reproduced in Figure 1, since Step b corresponds to your naming process.
Step b is thought to represent a one-to-many relation in that a given
phenomenon can generate many, say, n, possible models or interpretants, of
which only a subset m of n is selected by the environment based on ms
agreement or compatibility with reality as symbolized by Step c. The
Shannon information generated by selection process of Step b can be
estimated to be at most log_2 (n/m) bits.
a b
Reality -------------> Phenomenon --------------> Model
(Object) (sign) (Interpretant)
| ^
| |
|____________________________________________________|
c
Figure 1. The RPM category theory of everything. This is a mathematical
category because a x b = c, i.e., the path a-b leads to the same result as
the path c, where a = natural process, b = mental model, and c =
experimental or empirical validation.
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
> What's more public than this list? You and me make two. That's almost
> public. I would throw in Nietzsche who was openly hostile to the notion
> that words are a be and end all. Plus any author knows - certainly Peirce
> did - that the totality of what is in the mind is at best subjected to a
> selection process that could ignore a huge number of possibilities
> foreclosed by the process of naming.
>
> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Stephen -- "a slaying of what was there?" Do you mean the letter killeth
>> the spirit? J Actually I think this is pretty close to what I've said
>> (citing Eugene Gendlin) in Chapter 4 of *Turning Signs* (
>> http://www.gnusystems.ca/bdy.htm#person). But then this is an
>> introspective view of mental activity, which according to Peirce is
>> unreliable unless we can investigate it logically through *public*
>> observations.
>>
>>
>>
>> gary f.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:[email protected]]
>> *Sent:* 31-Jul-14 6:39 PM
>> *To:* John Collier; Peirce List
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the
>> basis for
>>
>>
>>
>> It is the penumbra of everything within the mind that you experience
>> prior
>> to putting a word to it that attests to the independent existence of
>> "uninterpreted phenomena". I think it is for this reason that the
>> writing
>> of words is always a sort of slaying of what was there. This is a
>> temporal
>> event. It proceeds I think from the conscious sense of there being more
>> than one can name and its editing down to one or more terms that is seen
>> to
>> be the named sign. This is my experience of how signs may evolve within
>> consciousness.
>>
>>
>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>
>>
>>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
