Franklin: I fear that you missed the essential element of my post. Let's go back to the assertion that motivated it:
>> In any case, change in distinctness is not change in information. Your response fails to address the substantial notion of the meaning of the symbol "distinctness". So, allow me to ask a question: What is the information content of a symbol (as a diagram, icon, index or any term) if the change of the sign does not indicate a change in information? Recent extension of the discussion point out that both "breadth" and "depth" can be viewed as changes in the distinctiveness of the sign (or information content.) I recall clearly my own puzzlement at reading this paper in the first decade of this century. The assertions of CSP are primitive relative to the modern state of information theory, chemical notation and mathematics and hence I could not accept them as meaningful in modern terminology of the natural sciences. More recently, I have accepted the fact that I must follow CSP's mental development from period to period is within the texts I have available to me. A difficult but necessary chore. In this case, CSP extends these very simple notions of information to his constructions of logical diagrams in the 1890's and later, after he developed his remarkable views on relational logics. Historically, the parallelism between his texts on logic and logic of relations overlap with the corresponding development of chemical diagrams. The deep changes in chemical notation that occurred in this period were a consequence of Pasteur's separation of the optical isomers of the tartaric acid and the explanation for these isomers in terms of three-dimension spatial diagrams with different arrangements of the SAME parts into different wholes (van't Hoff and LaBel, ca 1880.) (These two advancements in chemical inquiry dramatically changed the symbolization and signage for chemistry and propelled it toward its modern form. The morphism of chemical notation from one based on mass to its current form which is dominated by electrical particles in space is continuing even today in molecular biology, eg, DNA as a double helix) Thus, CSP used these advances in chemical abstractions to ground his extension of information from "breadth and depth" to graphs, then alpha, beta and gamma graphs. see: CP 4.510-511 for specific claims about the rhetorical meaning of graph extensions and to compare with his work in the 1860's. Is this what CSP is referring to when he writes, "dispatch reasoning of a very intricate kind" and "utmost clarity and precision"? Such terms as "depth" and "breadth" are crude by comparison. See:The Philosophical Status of Diagrams (Mark Greaves), CSLI, 2002 for a lucid and compelling argument on the nature of CSP's argument and it's relation to modern logic. BTW, this is just another example of CSP's usage of his chemical knowledge to ground his logical explorations. Cheers Jerry On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > Jerry, list, > > Yes, that is true, a change in meaning is not necessarily a change in the > state of information. Peirce is clear about that in "Upon Logical > Comprehension and Extension". One can find at least a couple of cases of this > mentioned in the sixth section or 'paragraph', in particular his definitions > of generalization and descent. > > You wrote: > > Is this sentence an example speculative rhetoric or speculative grammar? > > By example, I take it that you mean, is this a proposition or claim (or > observation) in the study of speculative rhetoric, or in speculative grammar? > Actually, I believe this would belong to neither, but instead belong to the > second branch of semiotic logic, i.e. logical critic, the branch that focuses > on inference and its classifications. Speculative grammar, of course, plays a > role: Peirce uses his newly-defined concepts from "On a New List" to > understand information, in particular the concept of interpretant. But the > outcome of the paper on information is an explanation of the three kinds of > inference as represented by their role in changing information. Notice that > in the paper, Peirce references his syllogistic approach to understanding > induction and hypothesis in order to help make sense of the changes of > information brought about by induction and hypothesis. But syllogistic is > properly part of logical critic, not speculative grammar. With respect to > speculative rhetoric, nothing is discussed in regard to questions of > scientific method or of communication and semiotic community generally, > though one would expect an understanding of information and the variety of > changes it can undergo to prove of aid in the issues that speculative > rhetoric treats of. > > You could argue that information theory belongs in speculative grammar after > all, and I can see that. But my instinct is that discussing changes of > anything isn't really the purview of speculative grammar. Grammar classifies > signs, but it does not discuss their changing relations with each > other--that's what inference and method do, and studies of inference and > method properly belong to critic and methodeutic, respectively. Again, > grammar contributes the needed classifications to understand > what-contributes-what to information, but it shouldn't have to do with > discussing changes in information. > > Franklin > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > <[email protected]> wrote: > List: > >> On Nov 1, 2015, at 11:43 PM, Franklin Ransom <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> In any case, change in distinctness is not change in information. > > This assertion appears problematic. > > In particular, it appears to suggest that a change in meaning is not a change > in information. > > Is this sentence an example speculative rhetoric or speculative grammar? > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
