Jon, I agree with you.
I think f(x) = y is dyadic, not triadic. It has THREE symbols, f, x and y, but that does not mean that they constitute a TRIADIC relation. Another way of saying the same would be that f(x) = y is not a mathematical category, since it has only one arrow, whereas a mathematical category must have at least three arrows that satisfy the composition condition among them. This is another of those simple problems that has escaped a solution on these lists over the past year or two. (What a shame.) 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 > STOI. Semiotic Theory Of Information > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559 > > STOI-DIS. Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion > ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14570 > SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14573 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14577 > ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14579 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14581 > SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14584 > SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14585 > ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14590 > > Edwina, Sung, List, > > I see that most likely non-terminating loop going round the bend again, > so I'll take my breakpoint here and attend to more promising processes ... > > In the meantime you might reflect on the fact that a function f : X â Y > is a > species of dyadic relation, expressible as f â X Ã Y, and thus falls > short of > capturing the genus of a triadic relation L â O Ã S Ã I among the > domains of > objects, signs, and interpretant signs. You can say that there is a > triadic > relation among O = a set of objects, F = a set of functions or function > names, > and I = a set of interpretant signs, but here once again you are > specifying a > triadic relation that is far more special than the genus of sign relations > we > can easily observe in practice. Going down that road would reduce > semiotics to > a brand of stimulus-response behaviorism that long ago proved itself > inadequate > to the task at hand. > > Regards, > > Jon > > > Edwina Taborsky wrote: >> Sung - I've still no idea what you mean by semiotics as a mathematical >> category - despite your frequent descriptions of it. I've advocated, for >> many years, that the semiosic process, in its single triadic process, is >> a function. f(x)=y. X is the input data from the Dynamic Object and Y >> is the output Interpretant. F, of course, is the Representamen. This >> acknowledges the dynamic mediative nature of 'f', or the Representamen, >> where input data is transformed/interpreted into one basic conclusion. >> >> Your other concepts (besides your 'mathematical category')...such as the >> wave-particle duality and your complementarism and your formal/material >> dualism etc - I don't agree with because they have little to do with >> semiosis...and my views of 'what is matter' and 'what is Mind' are quite >> different, as I follow the 'matter is effete Mind' view of Peirce. >> >> My point in bringing these issues into these discussions is a perhaps >> sideline attempt to move the discussion from the isolation of the >> philosophy seminar room into pragmatic reality. That is, biology and >> evolution, and economics, and artificial intelligence and yes, societal >> organization, have a great deal to learn from semiotics. I think that >> Frederik's outline of the dicisign moves semiosis from the heady fields >> of literature, film, language etc...into the actual material world - and >> to me, that's where it is innovative and exciting. >> >> Edwina >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> >> To: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Peirce List" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:30 AM >> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion >> >> >>> Edwina, Jon, lists, >>> >>> If the idea expressed in [biosemiotics:7096] is, in principle, correct >>> that the "new" semiotics can be viewed as a mathematical category >>> comprising physics, biology and linguistics, among others, it may be >>> necessary for natural scientists to become semioticians and >>> semioticians >>> natural scientists. >>> >>> >>> For example the model of morphogenesis (see attached) proposed in one >>> of >>> the articles collected in the link Edwina provides below states thus: >>> >>> >>> "This image is a representation of a regenerating planarian (100714-1) >>> flatworm. The tail portion, which has been amputated, will >>> regrow perfectly. This illustrates the concept of morphostasis-the >>> ability of some living systems to dynamically restore their pattern. >>> The image shows neoblast stem cells (light red dots), blastema >>> (orange tissue at the wound site), and the bioelectrical gradients >>> that are crucial for maintaining long-range anatomical polarity >>> (yellow "field" lines). The morphogenetic field of patterning >>> information (the target morphology) which will guide the rebuilding >>> of the tail is schematized as a wire framework (white)-a scaffold >>> of force and information underlying the subsequent gene expression >>> and anatomy." >>> >>> >>> One possible explanation for the amputated tail regrowing to its >>> original >>> shape would be the action of the wave-particle duality in >>> morphogenesis, >>> since the standing waves determined by the topology of the whole embryo >>> can guide the regeneration of the appropriate cells (i.e., particles) >>> to >>> form the missing tail. I have not yet read the original paper but I am >>> almost sure that the authors non-local explanation for this phenomenon >>> would be consistent witht he wave-particle dual model here described. >>> >>> From the wave-particle model to Peircean theory of categories may not >>> be >>> too far, since semiosis would implicate the irreducible triad of >>> physics >>> (a First), biology (a Second) and linguistics/informatics/genetics (a >>> Third). >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Jon - these people have attempted to move semiotic analysis out of the >>>> comfort of the pipe-smoke-filled seminar rooms into the pragmatic >>>> realm. >>>> So, >>>> they've been exploring the semiotic informational and knowledge >>>> processes >>>> that actually take place within artificial intelligence, within >>>> economic >>>> processes within societies, within humans both as the individual and >>>> as a >>>> collective, within societies as cohesive organisms and of course, >>>> within >>>> the >>>> biological realm - where a lot of work is being done within >>>> biosemiotics. >>>> Therefore these are not trivial but necessarily very specific >>>> outlines of >>>> the informational processes that take place in these systems. >>>> >>>> http://www.dca.fee.unicamp.br/~gudwin/compsemio/ >>>> http://link.springer.com/journal/12304 >>>> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/biosystems/ >>>> >>>> In many cases they refer to Peirce. In many cases they do not but the >>>> actual >>>> analytic framework they are developing and using is a triadic semiosic >>>> unit >>>> with all the complexities of the three categories. >>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03032647/109/3 >>>> >>>> >>>> In other areas, they are focusing on semiotics as a dynamic complex >>>> process >>>> not confined to the individual but as operating within the >>>> collective..and >>>> not as a single interaction but as a network of interactions.. as in, >>>> eg, >>>> the economic processes (and of course within the biological realm) >>>> >>>> http://www.frankfurt-school.de/clicnetclm/fileDownload.do?goid=000000396632AB4 >>>> >>>> >>>> And entropy and complexity research further explores the basic nature >>>> of >>>> semiosis, again, often referring to semiosis (and Peirce) and often >>>> not. >>>> I'm >>>> sure you are aware of the >>>> COMPLEXITY DIGEST and of Entropy online >>>> >>>> http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/9?utm_source=issue_link&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=releaseIssue_entropy >>>> >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]> >>>> To: "Peirce List" <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 8:24 AM >>>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thread: >>>>> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551 >>>>> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559 >>>>> ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561 >>>>> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14570 >>>>> >>>>> Edwina, List, >>>>> >>>>> I don't recall running across Perlovsky before but I have at least >>>>> skimmed >>>>> a few >>>>> papers coming out of the Computational Semiotics group (or maybe it >>>>> was >>>>> another >>>>> such group out of Waterloo?) At any rate, aside from my own humble >>>>> efforts it >>>>> has only been the computer science semioticians who actually tackle >>>>> anything >>>>> approaching non-trivial examples of sign relations. By tackling a >>>>> non-trivial >>>>> example I don't mean simply waving ones hands in the direction of a >>>>> complex case >>>>> and remarking how complex it is, but actually articulating a concrete >>>>> example as >>>>> a sign relation proper. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jon >>>>> >>>>> Jon Awbrey wrote: >>>>>> Edwina, List, >>>>>> >>>>>> I decided the other title was too long, and I like the acronym STOI >>>>>> much >>>>>> better. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not so much that we touch on learning and reasoning just now as >>>>>> the >>>>>> fact that we've been immersed in them all along. >>>>>> >>>>>> In every realm of inquiry we encounter complementaries, dualities, >>>>>> or >>>>>> trade-offs between two aspects of the phenomena we are trying to >>>>>> understand. Viewed in the setting of a triadic sign relation that >>>>>> encompasses all the relevant objects and all the signs and ideas we >>>>>> have >>>>>> of them, we can often recognize these aspects as corresponding to >>>>>> the >>>>>> denotative and connotative planes of that sign relation. >>>>>> >>>>>> In computer science, especially in AI, one runs smack dab into the >>>>>> problem of integrating data-driven and concept-driven aspects of >>>>>> intelligent functioning. You find yourself recapitulating in the >>>>>> ontogeny of your software development something like the phylogeny >>>>>> of >>>>>> classical oppositions between empiricists and rationalists. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, it's late ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Jon >>>>>> >>>>>> Edwina Taborsky wrote: >>>>>> > If we are to touch on learning and reasoning, it might be >>>>>> fruitful to >>>>>> > expand the research domain of this blog to include the research >>>>>> areas >>>>>> > of >>>>>> > such people as Leonid Perlovsky and Ricardo Gudwin. Both of them >>>>>> are >>>>>> > involved in cognition, semiotics, learning, evolution. That is, >>>>>> most >>>>>> > of >>>>>> > this list (Peirce list) and its discussions seems devoted to the >>>>>> purely >>>>>> > theoretical area of the philosophical domains of Peirce. These >>>>>> two >>>>>> > (and >>>>>> > others) are focused on the applied, pragmatic domains of >>>>>> cognition, >>>>>> > semiotics, artificial intelligence, bioengineering, and etc. And >>>>>> yes, >>>>>> > both of them have explored Peirce. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://faculty.dca.fee.unicamp.br/gudwin/node/2 >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >>>>> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >>>>> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ >>>>> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA >>>>> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey >>>>> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> 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 >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >
----------------------------- 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 .
