Edwina, list, You wrote:
ET: I'd say that 'resonance' can be equated with 'semiosis', which in my view, is a constant ongoing reality in our material world. As the article says ' all things are constantly in motion, vibrating'. I'd say that all things are in a constant process of semiosis. I can't say that I completely follow you here although, I must admit, I have only begun thinking about Hunt's theory and am still quite confused about it. How can 'resonance' be '*equated*' (as you wrote; a rather strong term to use in this context, I think) with 'semiosis'? In physics resonance is typically defined along the lines of its being "the oscillating, reciprocating, or other periodic motion of a body or medium forced from its original position or state., etc" I'm not yet sure how this 'equates' with semiosis? But Hunt's use of the term is technical, and I'm still uncertain exactly how he's using it. But, similarly, how is it that all things being in constant vibrational movement is similar to "being in a constant process of semiosis"? Semiosis has a definite structure involving, as you yourself frequently point out, all three categories, a direction, etc.. I don't YET see anything corresponding to this in the constant vibration underlying all matter in the universe. You continued: ET: Coherence - can be compared with Thirdness or synchronization. I think I might begin to see what you're suggesting here were this comment phrased somewhat differently, say: "Coherence (or synchronization in the context of the discussion in the article) - can be compared with Thirdness." For 'synchronization' is generally understood as the activity of two or more things operating at the same time/rate (perhaps, consequently, in a closely related manner, etc.) While this synchronizing would no doubt involve a kind of 3ns, it's hard for me to see *how *it should be "compared" with 3ns. And yet, as Hunt employs synchronization in his theory as likely involved in generating self-organization, I do, perhaps, begin to see how--especially when welded to the idea of 'coherence'--that it might have some significant relation to semiosis and, so, be an expression of 3ns. In this connection Hunt writes; Resonance is a truly universal phenomenon and at the heart of what can sometimes seem like mysterious tendencies toward self-organization. Obviously, I will have to do a great deal more thinking on this matter, and especially as 'coherence', tending as it does towards forming unities involving qualities of logicality and consistency, does seem aligned to 3ns. 1. ET: With regard to the article's use of consciousness - they seem to refer to a process going on within individualism or Secondness, rather than a mental reflection of the external environment. This process is mental. So, I'd substitute 'Mind' for 'consciousness' in these situations. So, yes, all things are individual instances of Mind/Matter. A bacterium has a sense of its own finiteness and also, is an expression of Mind and as such, can interact with other expressions of Mind. While from the standpoint of Peirce's theory I can certainly see why you might prefer 'mind' to 'consciousness', yet to do that would deeply undercut Hunt's theory from the get go as he summarizes it near the conclusion of the piece: The central thesis of our approach is this: the particular linkages that allow for macro-consciousness to occur result from a shared resonance among many micro-conscious constituents. The speed of the resonant waves that are present is the limiting factor that determines the size of each conscious entity. So, personally, I would prefer to give his hypothesis some considerable reflection on its own principles before rejecting 'consciousness' as the appropriate term for what he's getting at. Perhaps he's onto something suggesting that "It’s resonating structures all the way down—and up," and that these 'resonating structues' are, indeed, conscious to some degree or another. ET: And I'd agree that 'as matter becomes more complex, 'so does mind'. I think I might agree with this, but at the moment can think of so many possible exceptions at both the micro- and macro-levels as to make me question even that. Meanwhile, thank you ever so much for this post as it has helped me to begin to wrestle with Hunt's theory. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:57 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the article - and yes, although it doesn't mention Peirce, it > fits right in with his more exact theory. > > A few points: > > I'd say that 'resonance' can be equated with 'semiosis', which in my view, > is a constant ongoing reality in our material world. As the article says ' > all things are constantly in motion, vibrating'. I'd say that all things > are in a constant process of semiosis. > > Coherence - can be compared with Thirdness or synchronization. > > With regard to the article's use of consciousness - they seem to refer to > a process going on within individualism or Secondness, rather than a > mental reflection of the external environment. This process is mental. So, > I'd substitute 'Mind' for 'consciousness' in these situations. So, yes, > all things are individual instances of Mind/Matter. A bacterium has a sense > of its own finiteness and also, is an expression of Mind and as such, can > interact with other expressions of Mind. > > And I'd agree that 'as matter becomes more complex, 'so does mind'. > > Edwina > > > > On Wed 05/12/18 11:58 AM , Mike Bergman [email protected] sent: > > List, > > Speaking of quasi-minds, this reference is very thought provoking, > though the author does not mention Peirce: > > > https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man/ > <http://parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.scientificamerican.com%2Fobservations%2Fthe-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man%2F> > > Mike > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
