Frederik, Howard, Lists,

Frederik answered "By the first semiosis" to Howard's question, "When in
the history of the universe do you say the *first proposition* occurs?"


Frederik,  can you speculate on what you think was the first semiosis like ?

Would you agree that whatever it was, it must have been an irreducibly
triadic process, or a self-organizing chemical reaction-diffusion system,
similar to the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction or the artificial Krebs cycle
of the Matsuno type?

All the best.

Sung




On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Frederik Stjernfelt <[email protected]>
wrote:

>  Dear Howard, lists -
>
>  Den 28/04/2015 kl. 12.44 skrev Howard Pattee <[email protected]>
>
>  At 05:18 AM 4/28/2015, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
> [snip]
>
>  - Dicisigns - applies to biosemiotics as well. To me, this forms part of
> a naturalization of semiotics. But, simultaneously, a naturalization which
> takes generalities such as empirical universals as well as
> mathematics/logic as parts of nature.
>
>
> I have argued that to be consistent with the physicists' view of natural
> laws, the *first phenomenon* occurred with the *first self-replication* (as
> did the* first self*, the *first semiosis, *and the *first evolvable life*,
> etc.).
>
>
>  I think we're in agreement here. To me, semiotics and biology are
> co-extensive.
>
> Pansemioticians like Peirce think differently about natural laws and
> origins.
>
>
>  I do not think Peirce is consistently a pan-semiotician (even if that
> tendency can most certainly be found in his work, so can
> counter-tendencies). We covered this ground before, did we not?
>
>
> I have three questions about your view:
> (1) What "parts of nature" do you include in "naturalization of semiotics"?
>
> I am not sure I understand the question. I do not think the results of
> mathematics are a human invention. I think mathematics is part of nature in
> the sense that it contains structures which are as they are without human
> agency - no matter whether they have physical realizations or not. They may
> be seen as hypothetical or modal in order to avoid naive Platonism.
>
> (2) Do you think of mathematics and logic as a part of (subset) of
> semiotics?
>
> No. I rather think semiotics is a subset of logic in Peirce's broad
> epistemological conception of logic.
>
> (3) When in the history of the universe do you say the *first proposition*
>  occurs?
>
> By the first semiosis.
>
>  Best
> Frederik
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .




Reply via email to