Ozzie, lists, Oz: Does your attached exhibit demonstrate that scientists/thinkers universally use signs ... ?
Sung: Yes. Not only scientist/thinkers but everybody who thinks use signs, according to Peirce who is famous for having said "We think in signs." Think, Ozzie, of an elephant. Do you have an elephant inside your head? Of course not. But whatever you have inside your brain when you think of an elephant is, by definition, the sign of the elephant because it stands for it, and not any other things. Furhtermore, we can go one step more and say that the thing induced in our head when we think of an elephant is a pattern of neuronal firings in our brain which is a dissipative structure of Prigogine, since it would disappear from our brain when our brain runs out energy, i.e., when we die. Sung: A good question. What I meant to say with the table was that all those fields in the first column can be viewed as categories since they fit the category diagram consisting of nodes A, B, and C and mappings f, g, and h. To me the mathematical category satisfying the diagram is synonymous with the irreducible triadic relation (ITR), which I think Peirce identified with the sign and the mind ... I believe that the sign and the mind embody ITR ... Oz: I cannot follow the point of your jargon (categories, nodes, mappings, ITR) and other symbols (A->X, etc.) without a common-sense explanation, perhaps because I am a late-comer to the discussion. To humor me, how about providing a yes-or-no, or perhaps a one-sentence reply? Is the purpose of your table to demonstrate that everyone who thinks logically uses signs (sign relationships)? I'm happy to read everything you wish to write, but 1-2 clear sentences would be far more useful to me than a restatement of the same jargon. Sung: As I said above, whenever we think we use signs, whether we are thinking logically or not. The table is a sign, a very complicated one, but a sign none the less, referring to a theory that claims, for one thing, the universality of ITR and its possible significance, i.e., the information-energy complementarity as the natural transformation (predicted by the category theory). Sorry for having to use jargons, but it is unavoidable in order to describe the argument is some detail. Withoug such detailed lingo, it is impossible to describe facts in detail. OZ: Related ... In a comment a few days ago, you wrote about an "emotion-cognition-credition triad." Is that particular triad suggested by Peirce, you or some other scholar? Sung: The emotion-cognition-credition triad was suggested by Dr. Hans-Ferdinand Angel of the University of Graz around 2006, I believe. I first heard about it last year when I attended his annual conference on credition as one of the invited speakers. I suggested at the meeting that emotion-cognition-credition may be related to Peirce's Firstness-Secondness-Thirdness triad, which is included in the ITR table (compare Rows 2 and 10). Oz: There are clearly three elements here, but I do not perceive a anything resembling object-representamen-interpretant. Sung: You are quite observant. This means that there is no relation between Row 1 and Row 10. But if there is some realtion between Row 1 and Row 2 and between Row 10 and Row 2, to that extent there may exist some relation between Rows 1 and 10. This is just may quess, and I am not suggesting here any Aristoteliam syllogism (AS) here (I had enough trouble with Edwina regarding AS). although there may be other kinds of syllogism that may be involved. OZ: That would imply "cognition" is a representamen for emotion and "credition" an interpretant for emotion. But cognition is not generally/universally considered a sign for emotion, and many emotions exist beyond credition (that of receiving credit for an accomplishment). Sung: I agree. I see little if any relation between Rows 1 and 10. tha means, there may be no "functor" connecting these two categories. Oz: Details aside, what is the point of identifying this particular triad? What phenomenon (or need or urge) does it describe? Sung: Again you are raising a deep question. If the emotion-cognition-credition (ECC) triad is indeed irreducible, just as the object-representamen-interpretant (ORI) triad is irreudicible, the ECC triad may help us understand the fundamental aspect of belief, both religious and secular, just as the ORI triad has been helping us understand the fundamental aspect of semiosis, the sign process and hence the "minding" process. All the best. Sung On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Ozzie <[email protected]> wrote: > Sung - > I asked a few days ago about your table (which you have now updated), but > I did not understand your reply: > > My Question: Does your attached exhibit demonstrate that > scientists/thinkers universally use signs ... ? > > Sung: > A good question. What I meant to say with the table was that all those > fields in the first column can be viewed as categories since they fit the > category diagram consisting of nodes A, B, and C and mappings f, g, and h. > To me the mathematical category satisfying the diagram is synonymous with > the irreducible triadic relation (ITR), which I think Peirce identified > with the sign and the mind ... I believe that the sign and the mind embody > ITR ... > > > I cannot follow the point of your jargon (categories, nodes, mappings, > ITR) and other symbols (A->X, etc.) without a common-sense explanation, > perhaps because I am a late-comer to the discussion. To humor me, how > about providing a yes-or-no, or perhaps a one-sentence reply? Is the > purpose of your table to demonstrate that everyone who thinks logically > uses signs (sign relationships)? I'm happy to read everything you wish to > write, but 1-2 clear sentences would be far more useful to me than a > restatement of the same jargon. > > Related ... In a comment a few days ago, you wrote about an > "emotion-cognition-credition triad." Is that particular triad suggested by > Peirce, you or some other scholar? There are clearly three elements here, > but I do not perceive a anything resembling > object-representamen-interpretant. That would imply "cognition" is a > representamen for emotion and "credition" an interpretant for emotion. But > cognition is not generally/universally considered a sign for emotion, and > many emotions exist beyond credition (that of receiving credit for an > accomplishment). Details aside, what is the point of identifying this > particular triad? What phenomenon (or need or urge) does it describe? > > Regards, > Tom Wyrick > > > > > > On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > This is a continuation of "The Universality of ITR (Irreducible Triadic > Relation) -- III" posted on 7/11/2015. > > The purpose of this post is to add another item to the ITR table that was > attached to the above post. The new item to be added is the phenomenon of > "self-organization" [1] that can be defined as the formation of the orderly > patterns (e.g., chemical concentration waves formed in a Petri dish) among > the components of a material system driven by the free energy generated > WITHIN the system itself, e.g., the flame of a candle, action potentials, > etc. > > One of the best studied examples of self-organization is the > Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction that was discovered in Russia in 1964 > [2] and investigated theoretically by I. Prigogine (1917-2003) and his > group in Brussels in the 1960's and 70's, culminating in the formulation of > the theoretical model of BZ reaction called the Brussellator and the > awarding of a Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Prigogine in 1977. As I > explained in [biosemiotics:8320] dated 4/14/2015 [3], the Brusselator > consists of the following 4 main steps: > > > A -------> X > (1) > 2 X + Y -------> 3 X > (2) > B + X -------> Y + D > (3) > X -------> E > (4) > ________________________ > > A + B -------> D + E > (5) > > > where A and B are the reactants, X and Y are transient intermediates, and > D and E are the final products of the reaction. As you can see, these > chemical species constitute 3 distinct groups, and in [biosemiotics:8320] I > proposed that the interactions among these three groups of chemical embody > an ITR (irreducible triadic relation): > > f g > (A + B ) -------> (X + Y) -------> (D + E) > | > ^ > | > | > |_________________________| > h > > Figure 1. Reproduced from Figure 3 in [biosemiotics:8720]. f = > production; g = degradation; h = information flow. For more details, see > Figure 3 in [biosemiotics:8720]. > > Based on Figure 1, therefore, I am suggesting that the Brusselator can be > viewed as a member of the ur-category and hence the ITR table as shown in > Row 14 in the attached table. (Please note that the order of the rows in > this table has been rearranged so that the fields are more or less > organized in the following order: Peircean semiotics and metaphysics, > religion, philosophy, psychology, physics, chemistry, biology, and > mathematics. Also some of the words in the field column have been > modified.) > > For those who may be wondering how the BZ reaction can be Peirce-related, > I just what to remind them that Peirce was basically a chemist, having > received a bachelor's degree in chemistry from Harvard and having had a > chemistry laboratory of his own in his basement that was set up by his > father. It is probably for this reason that Peirce's logical and > philosophical thoughts are heavily influenced by the principles of > chemistry known to his time, and I have no doubt that, had the BZ reaction > been discovered while he was alive and its mechanistic model, the > Brusselator, known to him, Peirce might have been fascinated by the > presence of the "termolecular" reaction, (2) above, in it. It is probably > not an accident that the key to the self-organizing chemical reaction is > this "termolecular step" (as once pointed out to me by Prigogine) and that > it is irreducible, i.e., cannot be replaced by any combination of > biomolecular steps such as (3) and/or monomolecular steps (1) and (4). > Thus I suggest that the termolecular step in the Brusselator represents the > Peircean irreducible triad at the molecular level. > > > I would like to emphasize the following points abut the ITR table: > > (1) To the extent that each row satisfies the ur-category (or the > commutative triangle) shown in the legend to the table, it represents a > mathematical category [4, 5, 6]. > > (2) The relation that connects one category to another is called > "functors" [4, 6]. One striking feature of the ITR table is that most, if > not all, rows have their "j" column labeled as "information flow" or > "cordality" defined as the information-mediated interactions. Therefore, it > seems logical to conclude that "information flow from A to C", i.e., > codality, is a functor of the categories listed in the ITR table. > > (3) Since Step j commutes with the combined Steps f and g, it may be > justified to view the combination of mappigs f and j (which was identified > with the traditional concept of "causality", or energy- or force-mediated > interactions) as another functor. > > (4) The relation that connects one functor to another is called the > "natural transformation" [4, 6]. I here suggest that the relation between > the two functors, namely, CAUSALITY (energy- and force-mediated > interactions) and CODALITY (information-mediated interactions) that appear > in the ITR table constitute a natural transformation and that this natural > transformation in turn can be identified with the Principle of Gnergy or > the Information-Energy Complementarity [8]. > > (5) It should be pointed out that the term Gnergy (a complementary union > of information, "gn-", and energy , "-ergy") belongs to the same category > of concepts as the Dao, God, Brahma, Substance, etc. [10]. > > If you have any questions, comments or suggestions for any irreducible > triads to be added to the ITR table, 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 > > References: > [1] Ji, S. (2012). Principles of Self-Organizaition and Dissipative > Structures. Section 3.1 in *Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: > Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications.* Springer, > New York. Pp. 69-78. PDF at http://www.conformon.net under Publications > > Book Chapters. > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction > [3] [biosemiotics:8320] attached. > [4] Spivak, D. I. (20xx). *Category Theory for the Sciences*. The > MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Open Access HTML Version at > *http://category-theory.mitpress.mit.edu/ > <http://category-theory.mitpress.mit.edu/>* > [5] Abrey, J. (20xx). Mathematical Notes. > http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wikiindex.php/User:Jon_Awbrey/Mathematicsl_Notes > . > [6] Brown, R. and Porter, T. (20xx). *Category Theory: an abstract > setting for analogy and comparison.* PDF at > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.65.2083&rep=rep1&type=pdf.\ > > [7] Ji, S. (2012). ibid. p. 93. > [8] Ji, S. (2012). Information-Energy Complementarity > <http://www.conformon.net/?attachment_id=1110> as the Principle of > Organization. Section 4.13 in* Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: > concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications.* Springer, > New York. Pp. 110-113. PDF at http://www.conformon.net under > Publications > Book Chapters. > [9] Taiji or Tai Chi. See > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiji_(philosophy). > [10] Ji, S. (1995). Complementarism: A Biology-Based Philosophical > Framework to Integrate Western Science and Eastern Tao, > <http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Complementarism_1995_Proceedings2.pdf> > *in* *Psychotherapy East and West: **Integration of Psychotherapies, *Korean > Academy of Psychotherapists, 178-23 Sungbuk-dong, Songbuk-ku, Seoul > 136-020, Korea, pp. 517-548. PDF at http://www.conformon.net under > Publications > Proceedings & Abstracts. > > > > <Brusselator as an ITR.docx> > > <Universality of ITR_table_07082015.docx07132015.docx> > > <Hertz_Pattee diagram.docx> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
