Edwina, List: I appreciate the explanation, but the struggle that I continue to have with this approach is that in my mind, mathematical functions are *static*, even when used to model phenomena that are *dynamic*. The equation f(x)=y entails that given the same input, the function will *always *produce the same output; i.e., the transformation is *deterministic*, rather than generative. For example, if f(x)=y=2x^2-3x+1, and x=3, then (necessarily) y=10; no *other *result is *ever *possible. This is true no matter how complex and non-linear the equation for f(x) might be; and what would ever prompt that equation *itself *to evolve over time, rather than remaining the same?
I agree that the function of a Sign is not simply moving data from one site to another, but it is also not transforming data into information. Rather, in Peirce's words, a Sign is "a Medium for the communication of a Form," such that "in respect to the Form communicated, the Sign produces upon the Interpretant an effect similar to that which the Object itself would under favorable circumstances" (EP 2:544n22; 1906). In other words, a Sign does not take something from its Object (input) and turn it into something different (output) that *is *its Interpretant--it *represents *or *stands for* its Object *to* its Interpretant; i.e., it *mediates between* its Object and its Interpretant. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 8:29 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, list > > I think it's right to use the term 'function' with regard to the > semiosic triadic process. The 'function' shows that the mediative process > of the Representamen is not a static action of passively moving raw data, > but a generalizing act that actually changes the raw data. This also means > that the rules embodied within the Representamen can change; they can > evolve and adapt. > > Without such an acknowledgement that the mediative process of the Semiosic > triad is a generative rather than static action, then, adaptation and > evolution - whether it be of language or of biological organisms, would be > impossible. > > Therefore your knife, as an object, can have multiple Interpretants, via > the mediative functional relation of the Representamen. That object is able > to function within a diversity of interactions and this enables diversity > of existence and thought. > > Biologically, an object with only ONE Interpretant is the least capable of > preserving matter/energy on this planet. That is, an object with multiple > Interpretants contributes to a rich and diverse domain. A fish, as a > material object, has the Interpretant result of producing many more fish. > It also has the Interpretant result of eating the plankton and bacteria and > cleaning the water. And also, of providing food for the predator objects > that eat it. > > A meadow, which has a huge number of biological objects networked with > each other is far richer and more powerful in maintaining matter - than a > peat bog with its few limited species. > > The point of defining the semiosic triadic process as a function, is to > explain, in a non-verbal example, how this process is not one that simply > moves data from one site to another site [O->R->I] but actually, at the > nodal site of the Representamen, actually changes this raw data into > information by adding, changing, transforming it within its stored laws. > That is a powerful process. > > So- I will maintain my view that explaining the semiosic triad as a > function of f[x]=y is a valid examination. > > 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 .
