I have no idea where consciousness ends. Nor of the boundaries of mind. If everything is signs, then a substantial part of everything may be mystery, awaiting our understanding. This is one reason why I think words themselves are frail vessels. To set their parameters or even their utility is not easy. Isn't that one reason why semiotics exists -- so we can be appropriately vague, even about terms that border on the ontological?
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Stephen, list: > > 'Mind' is not the same as consciousness. Therefore, to suggest, as Peirce > does, that Mind is functional within non-organic systems, does not mean > that these systems are conscious. > > Complex adaptive systems are not grounded in a 'materialist' ideology, but > fit in well with the Mind processing that is Peircean semiosis. The nature > of a CAS is that it is self-organized, with perimeters, with a network of > relations with other systems, and, working within an ongoing dynamic and > adaptive informational processing. That obviously refers to Mind - and not > just mechanical interactions - which are unable to adapt and are not > self-organizing. > > Edwina > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
