> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > It’s interesting that while everyone chimed in on the mechanics part of the > quote no one clarified to me the more troubling main part on habits being > reversible. I suspect, although I don’t know, that he may actually be > thinking thermodynamically here and the problem of reversibility there. Yet > it seems to me this runs up agains the problem of thermodynamics (in the > statistical mechanics version) being due to pure chance. Yet I’m not sure > Peirce’s adopting of the Epicurean swerve is pure chance in the same way. > That is mind traditionally was seen as something between determinism and pure > equally distributed chance. I’ll confess that I can’t recall of a place > Peirce addresses this though.
I’m trying to find something on this. Unfortunately none of my resources I have at hand discusses this. Although Peirce and Biosemiotics: A Guess at the Riddle of Life discusses the issues somewhat starting around page 88. They try and frame it in terms of quantum decoherence. It doesn’t seem to quite address the quote at hand though.
----------------------------- 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 .
