Steven, list,
You haven't made it clear when you're speaking for yourself and when
you're speaking for Peirce.
You wrote,
Qualia is a subjective fantasy, feeling is not detached from action.
[End quote]
Peirce held that quality of feeling is one of three fundamental
categories, not a subjective fantasy. He held that, to grasp it
properly, one must contemplate it independently of reaction and
reflection. See "What Is a Sign?" (MS 404 of 1894)
http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/ep/ep2/ep2book/ch02/ep2ch2.htm
<http://www.iupui.edu/%7Epeirce/ep/ep2/ep2book/ch02/ep2ch2.htm> .
You wrote,
The "pragmatism" of Charles Peirce refers to results. It is the
behavioral consequence of apprehension. Thus a "meaning" is not
merely the transformation of syntax via semantic rules (Carnap), but
the actual behavior that is the consequence of semeiotic action.
[End quote]
Peirce disagreed with that view from at least the 1870s until the end.
He held instead that a conception's meaning is not any actual behavior
that does take place, but rather the general form of conduct or behavior
that _/would/_ result from belief in the conception, and his emphasis on
the modal _/would-be/_ increased over time, culminating in his embrace
of modal realism. The meaning is not an actual outcome or set of actual
outcomes or the form actually taken by a set of outcomes, but instead an
intellectual _/purport/_. See the quotes from Peirce, gathered mostly by
Jon Awbrey, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_maxim .
Best, Ben
On 3/27/2015 1:40 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
Dear Danko (this is a slightly modified version of the email I sent to
you separately),
I do not think there is much that is consistent with Peirce for you
here. Your description of abduction is unrecognizable, you offer
philosophical hand waving and aspersions to biology but no actual
mechanism. The levels you imagine are not distinct in Peirce. You
describe your model as "formal," yet I see no formality.
Qualia is a subjective fantasy, feeling is not detached from action.
You would do well to study Peirce and begin by understanding his
non-local conception of thirdness - and idea that is not included or
computable by any of the Turing models of computation.
In this sense I must ask exactly what it is that you mean when you say
"pragmatics." As you are, I think, aware Peirce is the founder of
American Pragmaticism, a close European equivalent would be the
neo-Positivism of Rudolf Carnap (with whom you should also be
familiar), although there are fundamental differences in the approach
and some conclusions, there is no essential difference in method. I
urge you to read, in particular, his 1922 The Logical Structure Of The
World and Schlipps Biographical essays with Carnap's response.
The "pragmatism" of Charles Peirce refers to results. It is the
behavioral consequence of apprehension. Thus a "meaning" is not merely
the transformation of syntax via semantic rules (Carnap), but the
actual behavior that is the consequence of semeiotic action.
If I leave this to stand alone I know that several scholars here will
rush forward with arguments concerning the pragmatic maxim, that is
more ambiguous than I have said. The difference is simply idealism,
the Peirce family put ideas first, so it is the case that the meaning
of actions vary depending upon the individual apprehending the act.
There are no absolutes (but do not take this to mean that ultimate
certainty is unattainable). Investigate Charles ideas on falilbism and
his father's ideas on Pure Mathematics.
You also seem to have an exclusive view of your endeavor, but it
should be clear that many of us have been here before you. Your
neuroscience appears to derive more from CS and AI than biology, I
suggest therefore that you spend some time with actual biologists and
brain surgeons. That should not be hard given your location, walk down
the hall and check your assumptions with someone that actually touches
brains and not silicon. Ask them about astrocytes and temperature as a
start.
Regards,
Steven
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Danko Nikolic wrote:
Dear Steven,
Good questions, right to the point! See my answers bellow.
On 27/03/15 05:19, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
-----------------------------
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 .
