Jeff, Clark, Jerry C, List,
What determines whether CP 5.189 is or is not a syllogism? Is it predicated in the mind of the commens? That is, in B? But B depends on C and A…So, what determines C…and what determines A? Is this simply a problem of will, defined as “whatever benefits oneself”? But what is the will of the community of inquirers who seek after truth? This sounds like the problem of the *Republic*, which is to harmonize the will of the individual with the will of the community. But the example of a harmonized society is missing in *Republic*. Perhaps this is a "symbol grounding problem". Best, Jerry R On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > 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] 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
