Dear Edwina, I meant, that time is reversed virtually, not really, and with "virtually" I meant as represented by the mind. But now I suspect, that the term "virtually" is not proper. I just meant, that the sequence of the real events (1. smelling, 2. eating) is the other way round than the sequence of the representations of these events in the rangers mind: He/she first has a representation of eating in his/her mind (due to perception), and then a representation of smelling (due to interpretation): 1. repres.(eating), 2. repres.(smelling). This mirror-wiseness in time I thought to be the reason why people call it "reflection".
Best,
Helmut
Supplement: In order to de-deviate back to the topic: In physics this reflection is documented in reports of experiments, but in teaching books, physical events are mostly described along with their real sequence. In philosophy this is not always possible, because there is more than one model, and philosophers have to explain all the time, why they prefer one model over the other, so they always have to show their thoughts in the sequence as they happen. I thought, this was so, because philosophy is abduction in the first place, looking for induction and deduction to confirm. In this respect I suggested abduction, firstness, to be in the first place (as the main category), and induction, secondness, and deduction, thirdness to be subcategories of firstness in this case. But that was wrong.
Best,
Helmut
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Sorry, Helmut - I've no idea what you are talking about.
I don't think that 'time' is reversed when the ranger thinks about the wolf having smelled the rabbit before it caught the rabbit. Because one thinks about what has taken place before -now, doesn't mean that TIME is itself reversed! Time isn't physically connected to an event.
And I don't know what your reference to the categories implies; I think that you often have a confused understanding of the categories - but- I won't go into them.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----From: Helmut RaulienTo: Edwina TaborskyCc: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-LSent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 2:58 PMSubject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and philosophy ?Thank you, Edwina! Sorry for my mistake: When in reality a wolf smells a rabbit, and then eats it, and a ranger sees the eating wolf and thinks: "The wolf must have smelled the rabbit", time is virtually reversed somehow, but not the categories.Best,HelmutHelmut - try EP:2, pp 480-481. And the CP, Vol. 8, ..all the parts to Lady Welby.See also an interesting article:Edwina----- Original Message -----From: Helmut RaulienTo: Sungchul JiCc: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-LSent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 12:11 PMSubject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and philosophy ?Sung,I am glad, that my post you did not find too inadequate, as I have not yet read your attachment (with my old computer that cannot read DOCX- So I will go to the internet-cafe). I am not sure about what I wrote- that reflexion turns time around (virtually, in the mind), and also provides the possibility that there is a secondness and thirdness of firstness (in a virtual way or system: A mind). So now I am asking: Does anybody know about the ten classes of signs in a semiosis with immediate object (object of the mind)? I sometimes have read, that Peirce has written about these, and that the ten classes with immediate object are different. But I havent found the text by Peirce.All the best,Helmut
"Sungchul Ji" <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
Helmut,Thanks for your thought-provoking ideas, and I am glad you brought up Peirce.
To me, Peirce is connected with the diagram in at least two ways:(1) Peirce used numbers and matrices in expressing logical statements [14], which justifies including "semiotics" as a target of Step e in the diagram. (I would love to hear from Jon what he thinks about this step.) The modified diagram is attached to this email.(2) Physics, biology, and philosophy may be viewed as an example of the irreducible triad of Peirce. If so, the set of physics, biology, and philosophy may be considered as constituting a category (or a commutative triangle):fPhysics -----> Biology
\ |\ |\ | gh \ |\ |V V
Philosophyor, more conveniently,f gPhysics -------> Biology -------> Philosophy| ^
| |
|__________________________|hFigure A. The postulate that physics, biology, and philosophy constitute an irreducible triad of Peirce.The commutative conditions, f x g = h, is thought to be satisfied in many universes ofdiscourse.
f = origin of life, evolution (natural processes)g = origin of mind (mental processes)h = constraining influence of natural laws; information flow
One way to express the content of Figure A in words would be:"Physics determines biology and biology determines philosophy (062715-1)in such a way that philosophy becomes consistent with physics."Statement (062715-1) may not be valid under all circumstances but only under some carefully prescribed contexts.All the best.SungOn Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:Sung, Lists,I think, in medieval time it was integrated, because it all was but abduction (they even burnt witches because of abductive inferment). Disintegration took place because science invented/explored wishful complete induction, and deduction. Now, as abduction is firstness, induction secondness, and deduction thirdness, and Peirce said, that secondness consists of firstness and secondness of secondness, and thirdness consists of first-, second-, and thirdness of thirdness, maybe this is the path to reintegration: Eg. Heisenbergean uncertainty (firstness of thirdness?). Philosophy still is firstness (guessing) somehow, but has taken a lot of advantage from science and logic- so, as a reflective science (reflexion-time- reversely)., I would say, there is secondness and thirdness of firstness- well, virtually (reflected)-time- reversely. I mean, isnt that so, isnt the reflecting mirror a spatial 3D- "axis" of reflexion turning around the time flow direction between reality and (mind-) virtuality? So it is all three modes going to and fro, a happy family, physics, biology, philosophy reunited.Best,HelmutHi,----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .Physics, biology, and philosophy are well established disciplines that cover a major portion of all human knowledge. The natural question that arises is"Are physics, biology, and philosophy related ? If so, how ?" (062615-1)My tentative answer to this question is Yes, because I now begin to see how this challenging task might be accomplished -- along the lines indicated in the scheme I recently formulated (see attached). The title of the scheme is"An argument-symbolic-legisign that integrates physics, biology, and yin-yang philosophy." (062615-2)The scheme is not yet complete and may contain some illogical elements which need be identified and corrected. If you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know.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--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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
