Frederik wrote: " . . . to say non-biological physics is semiotic is a (091314-1) bit equivalent to saying that dead matter is living beings with a zero metabolism,. . . "
I agree. Do you think it is possible to define terms in such a way that "dead matter" is "continuous" with "living matter" as Peirce seems to be saying when he says that "matter is effete mind" ? With all the best. Sung > Dear Sung, lists, > > I do not think so - not in any non-trivial sense, that is. > To me, to say non-biological physics is semiotic is a bit equivalent to > saying that dead matter is living beings with a zero metabolism, or to say > that atoms are molecules with a zero degree of connection, or one person > is a zero-degree social structure - such claims are not false, but they do > not add much to our understanding of things. > > Best > F > > Den 10/09/2014 kl. 22.31 skrev Sungchul Ji > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: > > "Does entropy or entropy change implicate semiosis ?" (091014-4) > >
----------------------------- 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 .
