Howard wrote Statements (021715-1) and (021715-3) which seem to me to focus
on only one aspect of the irreducibly triadic process known as 'semiosis':
"For example, the moment I typed "Ben" it became a
(021715-1)
sequence of 24 0s and 1s, and such sequences are all
that is ever manipulated and transmitted throughout all
our discussions (and everyone else's). Of course there
are complex hierarchies of coding and parsing of these
sequences, but all of this is still done by physical circuitry
executing two-variable Boolean truth tables."
This statement clearly refers to communication between say Howard and
Peircers (including Ben) via the Internet as evident in the phrase
"throughout all our discussions". As such Statement (021715-1) must
implicate the irreducible triad of the object, the sign (also called
representamen), and the interpretant:
f g
Object -------> Sign -------> Intepretant
| ^
| |
|_________________________|
h
Figure 1. A commutative triad representation of the Peircean sign and
semiosis. f = sign production; g = sign interpretation; h = information
flow
The word "Ben" in (021715-1) can be replaced by any other words or texts,
since they can all be 'translated" into strings of 0's and 1's without
loosing essential 'information'. These 0's and 1's can in turn be
"translated" into electrical signals inside a commuter and further into
electromagnetic waves in space so that the associated information can be
transmitted from one computer to another at a distance.
As you can see, even at the purely "signal translation/transformation"
level, the transmitted 'information" (which is essential for any
discussions) assumes varied physical forms -- (i) 0's and 1's on a piece of
paper or on a monitor screen, (ii) electrical pulses chasing around the
circuit board inside a computer, and (iii) electromagnetic wave forms
spreading throughout the Universe. If these considerations are valid, I am
inclined to conclude that
"No communication/discussion/semiosis is possible
(0231715-2)
without all of the three kinds of the sign-object relations,
i.e., iconic, indexical and symbolic, are implicated at
various stages of semiosis."
which contrasts with the following statement:
"At this level I see no reason to introduce indices and icons."
(021715-3)
All the best.
Sung
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Howard Pattee <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ben and list,
>
> I agree that Poincaré's complaints about logic were excessive, probably
> because he was irritated more by Russell's attitude than by logic itself;
> but I'm still missing something about that strange theorem.
>
> Peirce says: "The logical Principle is that to say that there is some one
> individual of which one or other of two predicates is true is no more than
> to say that there either is some individual of which one is true or else
> there is some individual of which the other is true."
>
> HP: The way I interpret it there are two statements here that are not
> equivalent:
> (1) There is some one individual of which one or the other of two
> predicates is true.
> (2) There either is some individual of which one predicate is true or
> else there is some individual of which the other predicate is true.
>
> Statement (1) is explicit that the *two predicates refer to just one
> individual.* Statement (2) is ambiguous about the number of individuals
> to which the two predicates refer, so that "some individual" in statement
> (2) could reside in a non-empty set of *a number* of individuals and that
> one or the other predicate could apply to one or another individual in the
> set.
>
> Another topic: I also understand how one might develop higher order logics
> as you suggest, but I do not see what would be gained by more complex
> logics (except fun for logicians). As I mentioned earlier, what I still
> find amazing (and what in their time neither Peirce nor Poincaré could have
> appreciated) is that all our distance communication is today accomplished
> by just *two symbol vehicles* manipulated physically by the simplest
> two-variable Boolean logic. This appears to ultimate extreme of *semiotic
> reduction* or simplification. For example, the moment I typed "Ben" it
> became a sequence of 24 0s and 1s, and such sequences are all that is ever
> manipulated and transmitted throughout all our discussions (and everyone
> else's). Of course there are complex hierarchies of coding and parsing of
> these sequences, but all of this is still done by physical circuitry
> executing two-variable Boolean truth tables.
>
> At this level I see no reason to introduce indices and icons.
>
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
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
-----------------------------
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 .
