Stephen, list: Thanks for your comments - See my replies below:
On Sun 10/12/17 2:35 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" [email protected]
sent:
1] EDWINA>” You say 'how a living entity, as a self, defines the
things that matter'. But how does the 'self' emerge? Exist? How does
it KNOW the 'things that matter'. After all - does a bird have to,
via its own self, learn which insects are food and which are
poisonous, or is there an innate stored knowledge base that provides
such information to the collective, of which that single bird is
merely one example? ”
STEPHEN; My position on this is that imitation plays just as vital a
role for birds. Furthermore, I am also receptive to Rupert
Sheldrake’s morphic resonance theory, because it is consistent with
the DNA nonlocality that I discuss in my article, Quantum Semiotics
[1]. The idea that knowledge of which insects are food and which are
poisonous is somehow stored in the genetic code, in the sense of
information determinism, is conjectural. The question of morphic
resonance (and DNA nonlocality) introduces another subconscious level
of choice-making, as an alternative to instinct in the sense of
information determinism. And what do you mean by “How does the
‘self’ emerge?” It emerges by experience, and experience wires
the neuroplastic brain (Norman Doidge, The Brain that Changes
Itself).
EDWINA: I] Essentially, you seem to be saying that there is no such
thing as stored knowledge - which can be stored both genetically and
epigenetically. You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly,
that continuity of behaviour exists only by imitation, where, I
presume, the young imitate the elders. This is equally a
hypothesis/conjectural. I would guess that your species introduces
new behaviour..by accident?...and if it is successful..others imitate
it? I wouldn't agree to that accidental hypothesis..
Your idea of 'morphic resonance' [could you explain it
simply?]...seems to be rather similar to instinct/ communal
knowledge, i.e., stored general knowledge within the species.
How does the self emerge? How does a newborn antelope know how to
suckle from its mother? How to run? It has no experience of either
action. How does a leaf 'know' how to expand; how does a flower
'know' how to turn to the sun?
----------------------------------------------------------
2] EDWINA; >”But this didn't explain how different isolated
populations developed the same technology or mode of
behaviour/belief.”
STEPHEN; Examples? I can’t really comment without specifics. HOW
different are these different, isolated examples? For example,
communities that were once connected but later become isolated from
one another, will share the same predispositions in cultural logic,
to go on to create the parallel technologies and beliefs.
Predispositions are as relevant to cultures as they are to
mind-bodies. A human mind-body (hands, vocal-cords) is predisposed to
self-evident inventions like fire and the wheel, or even mud huts and
tree huts and even pottery, across most cultures, even when they are
isolated from one another.
EDWINA: An example would be the populations in Egypt, Aztec, Inca;
none were ever in contact and yet - ALL developed symbolic methods of
storing information; i.e., some form of symbolic reference system
[writing] to store their information about harvests, beliefs, rules.
None were in contact with each other. Also all developed architecture
of 'high temples'. The commonalities, however, were that all had high
populations dependent on irrigation agriculture, which requires a
large passive work force. All also set up the Rulers as God-Kings to
effectively enslave the population.
As for your 'pre-disposition' of man - this seems to me to be based
on the actuality of the human mind to 'REASON' and think and
anticipate/plan/ and to imagine. This is specific to our species.
===============
3] EDWINA>”that the FORM of matter, i.e., a particular body-shape
predisposes the organism as to its behaviour.”
STEPHEN; The late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically
parallels my own, when he attributes an ape’s inability to speak to
the absence of vocal chords:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html
[2]
EDWINA; I disagree. The capacity to imagine, to anticipate, and thus
to use symbolic imagery, is, in my view, the key to speech - whether
it is in visual images or spoken word. The fact that the ape can't
physiologically speak isn't the point; the ape can't imagine beyond a
limited range.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4] EDWINA;>”So - the wings of a bird will predispose it to fly -
but that's not an analysis in my view.”
STEPHEN; What do you mean that it’s not an analysis? It’s a
self-evident observation… like an axiom. Experience wires the
neuroplastic brain (Norman Doidge), and a winged animal is
predisposed to wiring its brain to fly. Furthermore, in many species
of birds, young birds learn to fly from their parents. That is, they
learn to apply their winged predispositions, from their parents. So
again, imitation plays an important role, despite the physiological
predispositions.
EDWINA; An observation [induction] is not an analysis; it is simply
an observation. I also disagree that the bird learns to fly from its
parents. It has an instinctive capacity-to-fly. It doesn't need to
watch some other bird in order to figure out that a wing can enable
flight; that wing, on its own, enables flight. The brain is already
'wired to fly'. The bird doesn't fly and then, 'wire its brain'.
Are not 'winged predispositions' the same as instinct?
-----------------------------------------------------
5; EDWINA; >”Am I correct that your analysis excludes Mind and
Thirdness? It seems to focus primarily on Firstness and Secondness -
if I may use these Peircean categories within its framework.”
STEPHEN; Absolutely not. Thirdness is integral to my line of
thinking. I was addressing that aspect of semiosis - pragmatism and
imitation - that is best characterized in the context of firstness
and secondness. What is it that motivates an organism to imitate
(the associations that become habits)? That’s a question, in the
first instance, of Firstness.
EDWINA; So- where is Thirdness in your line of thinking? You seem to
define Firstness as Will. Is that the case - that you define Firstness
as Will? But genuine Firstness has no predisposition. It is
independent. And therefore - where is Reason or Mind in your theory?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6]EDWINA>”It also seems to focus on the individual [as Self]
rather than the collective [i.e., that exclusion of Thirdness].”
STEPHEN; Again, as per preceding point, I am addressing that aspect
of semiosis – pragmatism and imitation – that most immediately
takes place at the level of the self. There is, of course, the
collective that provides the recursion of behaviors that manifests as
habit, or Thirdness, but that’s beyond the point that I wanted to
emphasize.
EDWINA: I see. But isn't the individual self networked to the
collective? Indeed - an articulation of the collective?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN; Just a final comment on what I am trying to achieve with my
line of thinking. There are now estimated to be trillions of galaxies
throughout the universe, with a couple hundred-thousand stars per
galaxy. What I am outlining, with my line of thinking, suggests life
as inevitable, and not accidental. It’s a living universe. Mine is
an attempt to address the entropy problem - Shannon entropy,
thermodynamic entropy, entropy as the tendency to disorder. By
contrast, the notion of instinct as stored information, as with the
NeoDarwinian theory of evolution, are inconsistent with the reality
of entropy. It is the persistence of complexity across time, as
evident in the persistence of life across time on Earth, that is the
deal-breaker for any kind of information determinism.
EDWINA; I agree with you that life is/was inevitable - and
functions to prevent entropic dissipation of energy. I don't agree
that stored information is inconsistent with the reality of entropy.
After all, entropy operates along with 'far-from-equilibrium complex
systems that 'fight' entropy. The two work together. I also reject
the NeoDarwinian theory of evolution, for I reject that randomness [a
mechanical action] can function as a successful method of adaptation.
EDWINA; I would argue that it is not only the persistence of
complexity but the increased complexity of systems [CAS, complex
adaptive systems] that supports a universe based around information
DYNAMICS. That is - I am seeing the universe as a complex information
system, which operates semiosically. This is NOT information
determinism which does indeed suggest mechanical rigidity.... , but
information dynamics, where stability-of-type is maintained within
stored information - and adaptation and change of type.. is enabled
by interactive dynamic freedom to generate novel information.
Regards sj
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected] [3]]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 5:40 PM
To: [email protected] [4]; [email protected] [5];
[email protected] [6]; 'Mike Bergman'; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature
Stephen, list:
I think that this is a vastly different perspective from one that
includes Mind and Thirdness.
You say 'how a living entity, as a self, defines the things that
matter'. But how does the 'self' emerge? Exist? How does it KNOW the
'things that matter'. After all - does a bird have to, via its own
self, learn which insects are food and which are poisonous, or is
there an innate stored knowledge base that provides such information
to the collective, of which that single bird is merely one example?
As for 'imitation' - this sounds similar to the old 'diffusion'
explanation of human behaviour, where it was assumed that a new
technology was invented once and then, diffused by imitation to other
populations. But this didn't explain how different isolated
populations developed the same technology or mode of
behaviour/belief.
You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that the FORM
of matter, i.e., a particular body-shape predisposes the organism as
to its behaviour. So - the wings of a bird will predispose it to fly
- but that's not an analysis in my view.
Am I correct that your analysis excludes Mind and Thirdness? It
seems to focus primarily on Firstness and Secondness - if I may use
these Peircean categories within its framework.
It also seems to focus on the individual [as Self] rather than the
collective [i.e., that exclusion of Thirdness].
Edwina
On Sun 10/12/17 11:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" [email protected]
[7] sent:
Hi Edwina
No, knowing how to be is not a synonym for instinct. It is an
expression of pragmatism, and how a living entity, as a self, defines
the things that matter. It particularly relates to firstness and self.
Knowing how to be incorporates the self into pragmatism. I suppose
one might say, in this context, that a proper appreciation of
firstness needs to factor in the role of self, and the self’s
relationship to the world, in the context of its needs. By taking
this approach, we attain a different and more compelling perspective
on the role of imitation, particularly in the context of pragmatism.
By factoring in imitation, we obtain a greater appreciation of the
nuances that motivate a self to imitation… for example, fear. Fear
motivates selves to imitate the current Bitcoin craze… the fear of
missing out, versus the fear of loss when people begin to flee the
market. The comfortable known versus fear of the unknown.
Mind-body predisposition… again, relates to pragmatism. The body
provides the “tools” that predispose us to how we define the
things that matter… as per Mark Twain’s famous aphorism, ‘A man
whose only tool is a hammer will perceive the world in terms of
nails’.
There are different layers to pragmatism, for example:
1) There are the mind-body predispositions;
2) There is imitation.
Imitation sometimes overrides mind-body predispositions, for
example, in the domestication of animals or in the feralization of
humans (feral children, eg, the Wild Boy of Aveyron).
Regards
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected] [8]]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:26 PM
To: [email protected] [9]; [email protected] [10];
[email protected] [11]; 'Mike Bergman'; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature
Stephen - the problem I have with your hypothesis is that you
haven't explained what 'know how to be' involves. How does it exist?
Where? How does it evolve? It seems to be a synonym for 'instinct'!
What is a 'mind-body' predisposition?
Edwina
On Sun 10/12/17 10:05 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" [email protected]
[12] sent:
List, in the interests of the universality of semiosis, it would be
helpful, I believe, to do away entirely with the notion of instinct.
No such thing. ALL organism's are decision-makers, making choices
from their ecosystems. What one might typically categorize as
instinct, in other animals, is nothing other than a reduced horizon
of options (analogous to a goldfish living inside a small bowl
instead of a wide ocean). ALL organisms have to "know how to be." A
fish behaves exactly as I would behave if my body were that of a
fish. Or, putting it another way… a man behaves as a woman would
behave if her body were that of a man.
And once we do away with this notion of instinct as a preprogrammed
blueprint for behavior, so too we might extend the same reasoning to
atoms and molecules. That is, the mechanics of chemical bonds and
subatomic forces are not what "determine" atomic and molecular
properties (behavior). Rather, atoms and molecules must also "know
how to be", in accordance with their own mind-body predispositions...
that's why semiosis is relevant also to quantum mechanics, imho... and
nonlocality (entanglement) is integral to enabling semiosis to take
place at that level. The mechanics of chemical bonds and subatomic
forces are the product of semiosis, and not its cause. Hence the
motivation behind my previously-referenced article, Quantum Semiotics
[13].
While we are discussing the role of mind-body predispositions in
semiosis and pragmatism... I am reminded of Simon and Garfunkel's El
Condor Pasa. In its original form, it was a Peruvian folk song about
a group of Andean miners who were exploited by their boss. The condor
(condor mind-body) looks from the sky, at the human mind-bodies
toiling away in the mines, and it becomes the symbol of freedom for
the miners to achieve:
I'd rather be a sparrow than a snail
Yes, I would; If I could; I surely would
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail
Yes, I would; If I only could; I surely would
Away, I'd rather sail away
Like a swan that's here and gone
A man gets tied up to the ground
He gives the world its saddest sound
It's saddest sound
I'd rather be a forest than a street
Yes, I would; If I could; I surely would
I'd rather feel the earth beneath my feet
Yes, I would; If I only could; I surely would
Regards
From: Edwina Taborsky [ mailto:[email protected] [14]]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 2:07 AM
To: [email protected] [15]; [email protected] [16]; Mike
Bergman
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature
Mike, list - My reference to semiosis within the physical realm
refers to its functioning as a triadic process:
Object-Representamen-Interpretant, with each of these nodes in any
one of the three modal categories.
Certainly, as in the quotes from my other post - habit-taking is a
basic quality in the physical realm [see his discussion of such by
atoms]. But semiosis is not simply habit-taking [ which is a modal
category]. It is a relational or interactive process where one 'bit'
of matter interacts with another 'bit' of matter. This is not, as
Peirce frequently pointed out, confined to mechanical interactions
[Secondness], but includes both spontaneity [Firstness] and also,
Mind or Thirdness.
But - the focus is on the results of these interactions. Does a
crystal simply increase its size by simple mechanical contact or, are
its atoms such that Mind both attracts and organizes this expansion.
The latter is a key semiosic interaction. [though I would say that a
simple mechanical triadic interaction is also semiosic - with each
node [O-R-I] in a mode of Secondness. But organization of the
results of contact - involves Mind or Thirdness.
Edwina
On Sat 09/12/17 6:50 PM , Mike Bergman [email protected] [17] sent:
Hi Gary f, List,
I am generally familiar with the general references for laws and the
tendencies to them. I guess I did not address my question well. Are
there passages from Peirce where he specifically connects semiosis or
signs to nature, other than the passing reference to crystals? I
believe we can infer that Peirce likely believed the laws of nature
to be subject to semiosis, but is it anywhere stated something like
that?
I found the connection of CP 5.105 'law of nature' to signs or
semiosis in the context of my question to be unclear, though
suggesting it was helpful. I read on and found CP 5.107 a little more
to the point, but still vague. I do like the fact this comes up in his
discussion of the reality of Thirdness. Still, pretty thin gruel.
Maybe that is as strong as the evidence gets.
Thanks!
Mike
On 12/9/2017 5:02 PM, [email protected] [18] wrote:
Mike,
There are plenty of passages in Peirce which virtually identify
semiosis with Representation and thus with Thirdness, and the laws of
nature being general laws, Thirdness is predominant in them. For
instance there is CP 5.105, EP 2:184):
[[ Thirdness, as I use the term, is only a synonym for
Representation, to which I prefer the less colored term because its
suggestions are not so narrow and special as those of the word
Representation. Now it is proper to say that a general principle that
is operative in the real world is of the essential nature of a
Representation and of a Symbol because its modus operandi is the
same as that by which words produce physical effects. ]]
Gary f.
From: Mike Bergman [mailto:[email protected] [19]]
Sent: 9-Dec-17 17:25
To: [email protected] [20]
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature
Hi List,
I was reading Nathan Houser's piece on "Peirce, Phenomenology, and
Semiotics" in the Routledge Companion [1] and came across this quote:
"One of the principal realms of sign activity, or semiosis
(semeiosis), is human thought; but semiosis prevails wherever there
is life and there is some reason to believe that even the laws of
nature are semiotic products." (emphasis added)
I am aware of the reference to crystals and bees (CP 4.551), but do
not recall seeing Peirce references to signs in inanimate nature
other than crystals. Does anyone on the list know of others?
Thanks!
Mike
[1] Houser, N., “Peirce, Phenomenology, and Semiotics,” The
Routledge Companion to Semiotics, P. Cobley, ed., London ; New
York: Routledge, 2010, pp. 89–100.
Links:
------
[1]
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63
[2]
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[8] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[9] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[10] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[11] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[12] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[13]
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63
[14] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[15] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[16] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[17] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[18] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[19] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[20] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
-----------------------------
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 .
