> On May 6, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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.) >
I’m not quite sure what you mean here. There certainly is a symbol grounding issue in certain senses due to the arbitrariness of the sign for symbols. But typically that’s somewhat (but not entirely) limited by the indexical signs surrounding the creation of the symbol. However since signs can grow these arbitrary developments can’t be eliminated nor, in a certain sense, grounded. That is chance is always at play. More what I was getting at is that logically red as a class of wavelengths in a given language/culture is entailed by a narrower color within those wavelengths. This however is different from what I might call the historical-ontological development of that relationship. (That is how those particular wavelengths come to have that entailment) It’s not quite ontology since this historical element can have a certain practical element. It’s just that I think we should keep separate the logical analysis given a particular context in which one determines the other from how these broader issues including context are determined from original objects.
----------------------------- 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 .
