As expected :-) I spoke for myself wherever I did not explicitly say "Peirce."
Steven On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 . > > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
