Thanks, Mike, for your reply. I'll try to arrange a reply - a bit of
cut-and-paste:
1) EDWINA: My view - and I refer you to that 4.551 quote - is that the
Representamen is indeed the ground, by providng the continuity of
constraining and organizing laws, for a hic-et-nunc semiosic act - but -
the result is not necessarily a mental image but can be a material object.
That is, you are confining semiosis to the human process, whereas I - and I
think Peirce did as well - include the biological and physico-chemical realm
within semiosis.
MIKE: I tried to indicate the need for a broader view with the accompanying
[20] footnote and then I discuss that very subject later in the text; I
agree with your scope. I do not, however, view the Representamen as the
ground. Rather, it is potential, which intrudes to signal awareness of the
Object. In the primordial soup, it might be the light or spark that aids
to combine chemicals to create organic compounds. It is any potential of
any nature that can bring focus to the object, the process of which may
result in something new, a Thirdness. In our symbolic realm, it is the
"soup" of language and terms and previous knowledge applicable to the
context at hand that, when directed to the "object" of the current
discourse, can after inspection and practice lead to new ideas and "laws"
and standards, again a Thirdness.
EDWINA: I agree that the Representamen offers potentiality, IF, IF, it is in
any of the modal categories of Thirdness [3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. But if it's in
Firstness or Secondness, then, I think it acts as a mediative ground. I
don't see it as the 'light or spark' that aids in the combination of
chemicals. After all, it has to provide the organizational
habits/laws...that actually combine those chemicals.
-----------------------------
2) EDWINA: Continuing with this, you write: "A sign is an understanding of
an “object” as represented through some form of icon, index or symbol, from
environmental to visual to aural or written"
Again, I quibble with your reduction of the Sign [that full triad] to 'an
understanding' [by whom?] and to calling it a 'representation'. Since I
accept biological and physico-chemical semiosis, then, I'd say that the
SIGN [that full triad] is a Transformation of object-data...not a mere
're-presentation' but a transformation, using the normative Laws within
the Representamen. So ,certainly, the odour of a chemical can be
're-presented' in the mind as an index and symbol ...eg, 'that's
sulphur'. But, the actual chemical of H and O can be transformed by the
laws of a Representamen...to result in an 'Interpretant' of Water.
MIKE: OK, I agree, this language should be tightened up. But for my context,
knowledge representation which is based on symbols that are intended for
human and computer agents, I think I am using symbols (terms) applicable
to them.
EDWINA: Ah, you are focusing, as you say, on AI - I am focusing on the
physico-chemical and biological realms.
-----------------------------
3) EDWINA: . . . . But, the process enabling this diversity is found, I
suggest, within the fact that the Ground-for-Interpretation, the
Representamen - can be in many categorical modes. The Represntamen can be in
a mode of Firstness, Secondness; or Secondness-as- Firstness..or in any of
the THREE facets of Thirdness [3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. This enormous range of
organizing input data from the data, via the broad categorical range found
within the Representamen - results in that adaptive flexibility.
MIKE: See my earlier comment about treating the Representamen as the
"ground".
My understanding is that Peirce fairly uniformly referred to the "ground"
as a "pure abstraction" of the thing or concept at hand (that is, the pure
abstraction of the Object); the Representamen only acts to draw attention
or focus to that thing. The word "milk" draws our attention to the white
stuff in a glass that likely comes from a cow. A picture of milk or
hearing the cow being milked does the same thing. Insofar as a
Representamen can be perceived (however broadly you want to construe this
relationship) by an Interpretant as being near the limit of the Object's
"ground", that is a good thing. But "ground" is not a required character
of something to be a Representamen. (IMO.)
EDWINA: The word/picture is the Object..which is mediated by our knowledge
base of that language/situation [Representamen]..to result in an
Interpretant of 'milk'..
----------------------------------
4) EDWINA: I do, however, quibble with your triangle. Peirce himself didn't
use the triangle. See 1.347, where he uses an 'umbrella spoke triad'. This
image OPENS the semiosic process to networking, whereas the triangle, in my
view, is a closed, one-way linear process and obscures the power of
semsiosis.
This point was then discussed further by Val Daniel.
I was unaware of this earlier history, and would like links to learn more.
I personally prefer an open icon to one that is closed.
That said, however, the closed triangle is found frequently and taken by
many to mean a unity, a whole. I will use whatever the community decides
is the right icon, but quibbling about that is not of much personal
interest to me. It seems like the question is one for the broader
community. Just try this image search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=peirce+semiosis&tbm=isch
EDWINA: Yes - I know that the triangle is THE common image, but, as Val also
pointed out, it was never used by Peirce and in my strong view, does not
convey the correct Peircean semiosic process but actually obstructs and
misinterprets it. The SIGN [that triad] is not a closed unit/unity. It
can't be; it is and must always be open to networking.
---------------------------------------------
Jerry LR Chandler's comments on "decomposability" were very helpful.
Thanks!
Then, Jerry Rhee made some additional points; I only repeat the
questioning ones here:
But he also discovered some dangers in the method; that he will have
trouble communicating it to others because the force of evidence can only
be apprehended through experience.
Sure, but I find his guidance on "natural classes" also informative, and
in that method he recommends assembling the data.
----------------------------------------------------
This next one also generated discussion with Edwina:
EDWINA: - The below is not a discussion with me, but with Jerry Rhee. He and
I have posted our disagreements on the terms today as well.
5) Among your list is “induction deduction abduction”.
I think it ought to be abduction deduction induction (then recursion).
MIKE: Would you mind justifying why yours and not mine?
Yes, I think this is a really key point. Peirce claims that new ideas only
arise from abduction, which he also calls a synthesis. I understand this
to be Thirdness.
Abduction is seeking new connections, new continuities, new ideas, new
understandings and laws resulting from habit or practice. Abduction needs
"truthful" information and a context upon which the hypothesis-creation
process can work.
In the context of my paper emphasizing knowledge representation and
categorization, abduction is also the logic for "decomposing" the category
into further sub-categories, the testing of which is then done through
(first) inductive and then deductive means. The purpose is to establish
the "truth" for that category that, once realized (approximated after
wringing out ready falsehoods), can then be contemplated for hypothesizing
new ideas, perhaps leading to further categorization.
(BTW, the categorization is important because it helps set the knowledge
structure over which inferencing may take place.)
>
> Also, as Edwina mentioned, there are differences between interpretant
and meaning. So why interpretant and not meaning?
>
Not sure what the point is here. Meaning is like a "ground" for the sign,
it is the abstract meaning of the concept or thing at hand that is the
current focus of the sign-attention. In a KR context, the "Interpretants"
are both machine and human, and what they "understand" may be closer or
farther from this ground-truth meaning.
>
> Finally, I think a person working in AI should be concerned with what
makes for a good abduction as opposed to any other formulation. So why
eros and not epithumia?
I was just trying to list all of the Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness
triplets I could find. If you have others to suggest I would love to hear
them and add them to the table.
As for AI in general, I hope to opine and we intend to implement many
different aspects. Good abduction is definitely on the list. ;)
Again, all, thanks for your comments and input. If there is more, I'd love
to hear it.
Best, Mike
-----------------------------
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 .
