Clark, List: > On May 6, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On May 6, 2016, at 8:16 AM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> There’s no question that scarlet is a determination of red and red a >> determination of color. That’s just another way of saying that scarlet is a >> specific shade of red and red is a specific class of color. But I don’t see >> how this is a case of one abstraction determining another. Even if we call >> scarlet, red and color “abstractions” (which I would not do), it would make >> no sense to say that scarlet determines red, or that red determines either >> scarlet or color. >> >> Whenever determination occurs (as a process), something gets determined to >> be more determinate than it was, and something else does the determining. > > An other way of putting this is we have to distinguish a logical analysis > from other types of analysis. > > With regards to the question of “determination” my sense is that those asking > aren’t asking in terms of logical entailment. Rather they’re asking more in > terms of Peirce’s semiotic realism as a kind of foundational ontological > process. Am I right in that? While I’ve not followed the discussion carefully > it seems that the questions as raised are somewhat ambiguous. > > The question of how an object determines an interpretant seems just wrapped > up in where Peirce discusses signs ontologically. > >
Do you see this issue as part of the “symbol grounding problem?” When with the determination generate a correspondence between the semantics of the determination and the measurements associated with the proposed determination? (thinking about CSP many years of doing pendulum experiments.) 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 .
