Hi Gary f and list! Here are some quotes direct from Promoting convergence: the phi spiral in abduction of mouse corneal behaviors:
“Sufficient explanations are three-term relations between a topic, a contrast-class, and a relevance relation, which “specifies what sort of thing is being requested as answer” for a given context [21] <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.21562/full#cplx21562-bib-0021> . The PA differs from other statements of abduction (cf., [24] <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.21562/full#cplx21562-bib-0024>) in that it draws special attention to the important role cognitive processes play in organizing and advancing scientific theories. That is, it guides transformation of our attitudes toward mental models [25] <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.21562/full#cplx21562-bib-0025> from surprise (other than expected) -> suspect (relevance relation) -> matter of course (belief/habit). Therefore, admissibility of the FEM model as a potential explanation depends on the likelihood that generation of a logarithmic curve is a veridical statement that the phenomenon is present and whether further modifications to the model reflecting finer measurements can affect tightening of curvature to 17°. That is, we choose the working hypothesis (*ϕ*, FEM model), in contrast to rest of contrast-class X (i.e., Netlogo model), because A (deduction of logarithmic spiral, relevance relation) [21] <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.21562/full#cplx21562-bib-0021> .” :) J On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:31 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > A post from my blog *aftersigns,* > > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2016/02/relevance-in-context/: > > > > Sperber and Wilson (1995, 142) suggest that the goal of the comprehension > process is > > [[ to maximize the relevance of any information being processed. … people > hope that the assumption being processed is relevant (or else they would > not bother to process it at all), and they try to select a context which > will justify that hope: a context which will maximize relevance. In verbal > comprehension in particular, it is relevance which is treated as given, and > context which is treated as a variable. ]] > > > > This is another perspective on the process of ‘context construction’ > described in Chapter 15 <http://gnusystems.ca/TS/ntx.htm#conster>. But > *context* being holarchic, that process itself has a context. *Relevance* > involves some relation to the known (or presupposed), but also some > novelty; if i tell you what you already take for granted, that is not > relevant. Relevance itself, then, is determined by context, i.e. by the > ‘state of information’ (Peirce) in which the communication or ‘processing’ > is situated – or in Peircean terms, in which the sign determines an > interpretant. > > > > Peirce in a 1906 text identified three kinds of interpretant: > > [[ In all cases, it includes feelings; for there must, at least, be a > sense of comprehending the meaning of the sign. If it includes more than > mere feeling, it must evoke some kind of effort. It may include something > besides, which, for the present, may be vaguely called “thought.” I term > these three kinds of interpretant the “emotional,” the “energetic,” and the > “logical” interpretants. ]] —EP2:409 > > > > Naturally it is the ‘logical interpretant, the conveyed thought’ (EP2:410) > which is most crucial for a sign involved in a process of dialog or > inquiry; and ‘the essence of the logical interpretant’ (EP2:412) is the > *habit* which is established or modified by that semiosic process. Not > all signs can have a *logical interpretant*, and even a sign which *would* > have one if the semiotic process were completed may not produce it in an > actual semiotic process, depending on the timing: > > > > [[ It is not to be supposed that upon every presentation of a sign capable > of producing a logical interpretant, such interpretant is actually > produced. The occasion may either be too early or too late. If it is too > early, the semiosis will not be carried so far, the other interpretants > sufficing for the rude functions for which the sign is used. On the other > hand, the occasion will come too late if the interpreter be already > familiar with the logical interpretant, since then it will be recalled to > his mind by a process which affords no hint of how it was originally > produced. Moreover, the great majority of instances in which formations of > logical interpretants do take place are very unsuitable to serve as > illustrations of the process, because in them the essentials of this > semiosis are buried in masses of accidental and hardly relevant semioses > that are mixed with the former. ]] — EP2:414 > > > > What makes a semiosis ‘relevant’ or essential (rather than accidental) to > the formation of a logical interpretant? To deal with this question, Peirce > constructs a scenario of an inquiry process and conducts a > thought-experiment to investigate how it works. > > > > [[ The best way that I have been able to hit upon for simplifying the > illustrative example which is to serve as our matter upon which to > experiment and observe is to suppose a man already skillful in handling a > given sign (that has a logical interpretant) to begin now before our inner > gaze for the first time, seriously to inquire what that interpretant is. It > will be necessary to amplify this hypothesis by a specification of what his > *interest* in the question is supposed to be.… unless our hypothesis be > rendered specific as to that interest, it will be impossible to trace out > its logical consequences, since the way the interpreter will conduct the > inquiry will greatly depend upon the nature of his interest in it. ]] — > EP2:414 > > > > The inquirer’s ‘interest’ is part of the *context* of the inquiry – not > the ‘context which is treated as a variable’ according to Sperber and > Wilson, but the situational context which determines what is essential and > what is irrelevant in the text. > > > > > > Gary f. > > > > } You are unique, just like everyone else. { > > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
