List: Does anyone have the citations for the two statements with respect to indices and mental acts as "forms" of inferences? I am curious about the textual origins in view of the following feelings.
The first suggests a role for the connection between sin-sign and index as a consequence of the antecedent analysis of the sin-sign. The latter is stunning from the perspective that inferences require a conclusion (!) and for me, at least, passing thoughts float by without apparent motivation and often without a hint of closure, just a gentle fade. Cheers Jerry On Nov 7, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > Ben, list, > > You wrote: > > If the sample is an index, as he later said, of the whole, what sort of > actual index indicates a hypothetical, potential whole? > > Yes, that is a good point. He must have changed his views, but I'm not sure > exactly how. I just re-read the paragraph in Kaina Stoicheia where he > introduces depth, breadth, and information, but there is not much there, and > certainly nothing about how they relate to inference. He clearly still has > the basic ideas there so many decades later, but how to apply them in light > of changes to his views in semiotics? > > If all mental action has the form of inference, then they all must be related > to inferences in some way. > > Yes, exactly my thought. > > Franklin > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > Franklin, list, > Thanks for pointing out those subsequent passages and unraveling them for us. > It's been a while since I read "Upon Logical Comprehension and Extension" > from beginning to end. > When Peirce previously in the same paper defined induction as increasing the > breadth without changing the depth, the idea seem to be that of extending the > character to a larger population which is asserted to exist, i.e., > induction's conclusion asserts an actual increase of breadth without > asserting a change of depth. But he comes to say of induction: > [....] On the other hand, P is not yet found to apply to anything but S', > S'', S''', and Siv, but only to apply to whatever else may hereafter > be found to be contained under M. The induction itself does not make known > any such thing. [....] > [End quote] > It is true that the induction does not _make known_ the truth of its > conclusion's claims, but in this picture the induction does not even _assert_ > the existence of a larger, encompassing population, but instead leaves it > conditional and hypothetical, so the breadth increase is potential, not > assertedly actual. Moreover the conclusion isn't usually framed like > "whatever else may hereafter," it just says "Any M is P" and this doesn't > even entail that there are S's found to be M & P. This is a question of what > is the fairest way to frame an inference. You make a good point about Peirce > not bringing iconicity and indexicality much into the account in that paper. > If the sample is an index, as he later said, of the whole, what sort of > actual index indicates a hypothetical, potential whole? > > You wrote, > It is a bit unclear to me why some of the changes in information didn't seem > to correspond to one of the three inferences [....] > [End quote] > I had that thought recently too. I once tried to make a table of all the > changes in information and I found that the potential size of the table was > rather larger than I expected. If all mental action has the form of > inference, then they all must be related to inferences in some way. > Best, Ben > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
