List, Mike:
Your essay is framed in the context of “AI” (computations), a very wide
framework indeed! Nothing is excluded from AI is it?
I will be only slightly more focal in responding to your call for comments.
You write in your article:
"Concepts attempt to embody ideas, and while it is useful to express those
concepts with clear, precise and correct terminology, it is the idea that is
real, not the label. In Peirce’s worldview, the label is only an index. I
concur."
My questions emerge from considerations of your essay from the perspective of
trans-disciplinarity (multiple symbol systems). I will make four relevant
comments before coming to the questions about your essay.
1. The three triads of CSP,
qualisign, sinsign, legisign;
icon, index, symbol;
rhema, dicisign, argument,
can be, in my opinion, a “recipe” for realism; that is, the logical association
of antecedent observations (Qualisigns with logical consequences (legisigns))
What I find exceedingly curious about the (strange) words of this table is that
only the last word, “argument” is used in logic. The other eight words are
merely dictionary words. Clearly, some similarity with 21 st Century AI exists
in these three 19th Century triads.
2. I strongly suspect that CSP arranged these words in such a manner that his
meaning very loosely corresponded with his understanding of chemical ‘proof of
structures’ (graph theory) as it existed in the second half of the 19th
Century. I had earlier posts on some chemical aspects of the meanings in
selected subsets of the terms. And, I have posted critical comments on
non-chemical interpretations of the meaning of these three triads, for example,
that proposed by Frederik Stjernfelt.
3. Yet, CSP’s “mindset” is such that he asserts that the eight semantic objects
are NECESSARY to form an argument. It is as if the three triads are an
antecedent to the concept of induction and modality. This approach to
generating conclusions (scientific knowledge) has not been widely accepted. I
further note that the eight words do not denote mathematical concepts. One
wonders why CSP’s three triads have not been adopted.
4. Five of these nine terms are introduced from CSP’s “mindset”, whatever that
may have been.
Returning to your very strong assertion, it is unclear to me what you are
concurring with. More specifically, how does your essay relate the the logics
of realism?
For example, consider an index of species.
Is it real?
Or, ideal?
Allow me to rephrase this extremely convoluted issue that is related to several
perplex disciplines. In what sense is a "mindset" illative of representational
competencies? Is an individual mindset generated and maintained by the
knowledge of the symbol systems that one knows?
Cheers
jerry
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:29 PM, Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi List,
>
> I thought perhaps some on the list might be interested in my latest article
> on Peirce and knowledge representation:
>
> http://www.mkbergman.com/2020/being-informed-by-peirce/
> <http://www.mkbergman.com/2020/being-informed-by-peirce/>
> Thanks! (and feel free to also give me comments offline).
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .
