Jerry C., List: In light of the recent posts about triad vs. trichotomy, I am surprised that you chose to label qualisign/sinsign/legisign, icon/index/symbol, and rhema/dicisign/argument as "triads," when Peirce clearly preferred to call them "trichotomies" since they are "divisions of signs" according to whether the sign itself, its relation to its object, and its relation to its interpretant are Possibles/Existents/Necessitants (cf. CP 2.243-253; c. 1897). Could you clarify what you mean when you associate qualisigns with "antecedent observations" and legisigns with "logical consequences"? Which five of the nine terms do you see as being "introduced from CSP's 'mindset,'" and what exactly do you mean by this? What was the source for the other four terms?
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > 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 >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
