Helmut, list - isn't the instantiation of a natural law - a token of
that law, showing the law itself at work. I don't get your point. A
type is a general that governs existents; the token is the existent.
So- I'm unsure of your point.
I don't see that there are 'no tokens' [existents] of a natural law
in the inanimate world. The inanimate world - by which I am assuming
you mean the physic-chemical world - does have laws! For example, the
laws of forming a hydrogen molecule...of which that individual
molecule is a token of the type/law.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Sat 08/04/17 2:59 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
John, List, Speaking of inanimate reactions, and assumed, that
there are natural laws existing governing them, whether or not they
have been thoroughly analyzed by humans, I would say, that the
instantiation of a law is not it´s token, but the law itself at
work. That is so, because in inanimate affairs there are no closed
systems, no piece of matter or energy, which is not interacting with
all other matter and energy in the universe. So there are no signs
either which are spatially separate by their nature. So law is all
type, there are no tokens of it in inanimate world of efficient
causation. Is my guess. Best, Helmut 08. April 2017 um 20:34 Uhr
"John F Sowa" wrote:
Jon and Edwina,
Jon
> I am still trying to figure out how to classify that real aspect/
> regularity as a Sign itself, if in fact it is legitimate to treat
> reality as consisting entirely of Signs.
Anything that can affect our sense organs is a mark. Those marks
could be interpreted and classified as tokens of types.
Some of those tokens could be instances of individual qualities
or things that we could classify as redness or as a cat. Other
tokens could be instances of relational patterns, such as
"A cat on a red mat".
All those tokens could be represented by existential graphs with
just
monads or dyads. As Hume and others have said, it's not possible
to observe an implication. Post hoc does not imply propter hoc.
The existence of a law (a triad) is always a hypothesis (abduction),
which must be tested by predictions that are confirmed by further
observations.
Edwina
> the Dynamic Object of a law of nature [which is Thirdness] is also
> Thirdness. This enables individual organisms, when they interact
> with another external organism, to informationally connect with
> the external organism's LAWS - and thus, possibly, change their
> own [or both sets of] laws.
I agree. But every kind of Thirdness must be learned by abduction.
Observation can only detect post hoc. Propter hoc is an abduction.
An infant observes patterns in the parents' babbling, imitates the
babbling, and discovers that certain patterns bring rewards.
John
-----------------------------
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 [1] .
Links:
------
[1] 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 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 .
