"Jerry Rhee" <[email protected]>wrote:
You said:
“What do we want.
Do we want to keep the form of EGs as they are,
then we outsource the question of reflection.”
“But it is such a beautiful experiment.”
This is probably the strongest motive behind the applications of science;
the scientist needs the confirmation from an impartial judge,
from Nature herself, that he has understood her structure.
And he wants to see the effect of his effort.
From this attitude one can also easily understand the motives which determine the line of research for the individual scientist.
Such a line of research is usually based on some theoretical ideas, on conjectures concerning the interpretation of the known phenomena or on hopes for finding new ones.
But which ideas are accepted?
Experience teaches that it is usually not the consistency, the clarity of ideas, which makes them acceptable, but the hope that one can participate in their elaboration and verification.
It is the wish for our own activity,
the hope for results from our own efforts, which leads us on our way through science.
This wish is stronger than our rational judgment about the merits of various theoretical ideas.
~ Heisenberg, Tradition in Science
With best wishes,
Jerry R
PS:
You said,
“A think about a think makes the think fall in the sink.”
haha!! J
on precise “inspectable” schema:
I have long ago come to be guided by this maxim: that as long as it is practically certain that we cannot directly, nor with much accuracy even indirectly, observe what passes in the consciousness of any other person, while it is far from certain that we can do so (and accurately record what [we] can even glimpse at best but very glibberly) even in the case of what shoots through our own minds, it is much safer to define all mental characters as far as possible in terms of their outward manifestations. ~ Peirce
Supplement: It is a question of outsourcing or insourcing. What do we want. Do we want to keep the form of EGs as they are, then we outsource the question of reflection. But do we want to have some more fun, or, eh, work? Then why not insource the topic about reflection in some way. Peirce cannot.----------------------------- 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 .List,I think, that the "existential graphs" don´t have to do with existence in the first place, that is with things that do exist, or phenomena of the real world, but rather with semes(?) that origin in reflection, reflection of reflection, and so on. Do they exist? Are they real? Are they phenomena? I guess, every answer may be so constructed to give a "yes", and if the phenomenon merely exists in one head. A thought-sign by the thinker to the same thinker. It exists, ok, it is real, ok. But what do we gain from this generalisation? Nothing. So I propose to more and better analyse reflection, its nature, its different levels of representation, and so on. Some years ago there was a hype and high flying hopes about research about the brain and consciousness. Now there is nothing more of that left. I guess, the reason is, that too much focus was directed on the technical function of the brain, and not enough focus was directed on the nature of reflection. Reflection is tricky. If you think that you are thinking, you merely think that you are thinking, but in fact you think that you think that you are thinking, and forget to think. A think about a think makes the think fall in the sink. And with every "about" the time direction changes. EGs dont cover that. They dont tell the reflectional level of a proposition. Any proposition, no matter of what order, may be inserted. EGs are about nothing but reflection (not about existence, contradictory to their label), but do not show of which order the reflection is (reflection about a natural process, reflection about this reflection, reflection about this reflection...) Why not try to make them do? I can´t, too busy and too stupid anyway, so your turn.Best, Helmut
-----------------------------
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 .
