Too complex. I think this is simple logic. More or less like sperm. One
from many. Sometimes two or more. Clarity is a virtue.

*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 m's
> 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 .




Reply via email to