At 11:09 AM 9/25/2014, Frederik wrote:
So, like Peirce, I hesitate to make consciousness part of the definition of thought, also because we have as yet no means to ascertain which animal thoughts are accompanied by consciousness.
HP: The distinction between unconscious and conscious thought is very important in psychology, the cognitive sciences, AI, and certainly for biosemiotics. There are many differences between them in humans, and these differences are the subject of many studies. I don't see why ignorance of animal thinking justifies ignoring these basic differences in brains.
I think Peirce's failure to separate conscious reasoning from unconscious abduction greatly weakens his arguments. He is generalizing "logic beyond reason," which is both illogical and unreasonable. It seems strange that Peirce the logician would lump unconscious abduction with logical reasoning.
Peirce: "Abduction is that process in which the mind goes over all the facts the case, absorbs them, digests them, sleeps over them, assimilates them, dreams of them, and finally is prompted to deliver them in a form, which, if it adds something to them, does so only because the addition serves to render intelligible what without it, is unintelligible."
That is not the conventionally meaning of logical reasoning. Peirce simply obscures the difference that makes a difference.
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 [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 .
