On unicorns and the like. I see no reason why a single horned horse could not exist, but I would wonder whether it might exist with all of the magical attributes attributed to it.
Centaurs seem possible on the surface, but if you start asking questions like how many lungs and where is their heart it becomes much less clear that such a thing is possible. Can something not possible be real? An especially worrying example along these lines is a square circle (or even a circle squared by traditional geometric methods). John Collier Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Clark Goble [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 14 February 2017 10:15 PM To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" from AI perspective On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: A Replica of the word "unicorn" is thus a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign that calls up the idea of a unicorn because, although no unicorn really exists, real descriptions of the unicorn are well known to the speaker and his/her auditor. This is why I said I thought things depend upon equivocation. When we say “phoenix” it’s not clear if we’re intending to refer to the idea of the phoenix (and thus a real general) or the phoenix in the world (which is false and thus has no referent). The question is what type of object we’re referring to. Of course if I refer to the existing object of say “trucks” I’m also referring to the idea of them since that is partially how I refer. I refer by giving hints since the indexical link can’t be directly shared. Instead I share replicants of icons or indices or gesture to indicate indexically. I’m of the opinion much of this is an artifact of language simply because our words are often ambiguous regarding the sense in which we intend them. By simply making clear how we intend to use a word a lot of the problems disappear. I wouldn’t go so far as to say all of them do of course. There’s always that gap between dynamic and immediate object and immediate object and interpretant. Not to mention ambiguity over how the sign-vehicle functions.
----------------------------- 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 .
