Charles,
I think your question hinges on whether the percept is treated as a sign or not. I dealt with this in Turning Signs at http://gnusystems.ca/TS/blr.htm#Perce and you may find that helpful. (Or maybe not. 😊 Gary f. From: Charles Pyle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25-Oct-17 10:13 Thanks, John. Very helpful. However, I get confused trying to map these steps in the process of perception onto sign categories, I would think the first step must be a raw percept, an unprocessed visual field, which would then be instantly analyzed and categorized in terms of the preexisting catalog of types of objects, i.e. symbolic signs. Isn't that mapping the abduction? Only then, after the percept has been mapped onto a symbolic sign, could the process be regarded as a hypothesis from which implications could be drawn. I don't think one can generate hypotheses from an raw image, a pure icon. So isn't there a step before the abduction? Charles Pyle
----------------------------- 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 .
