Helmut - another analogy to Peirce's triad of abduction, deduction
and induction is:
"free will, determinism and locality" [See "Three types of logical
structure resulting from the trilemma of free will, determinism and
locality"" Yukio-PegioGunjia
KyokoNakamurabceMaiMinouraaAndrewAdamatzkyd
Biosystems vol 195, July 2020
A comment from the article:
"Free will is strongly relevant for concept formation (Rosch, 1973,
1983; Osherson and Smith, 1981; Lakoff, 1987) since free will is
experienced when individuals make decisions."
Concept formation - is abduction.
Edwina
On Mon 14/12/20 2:46 PM , Helmut Raulien [email protected] sent:
Supplement: Abduction means, that something is recognized (truly
or falsely doesnt matter) as seeming like something other. That is
depiction or awareness of resemblance. Please give me one example, in
which this occurs besides the action of a neuronic network.Edwina,I
seem to not come through. I dont know, chance is something quite
trivial for me, and abduction something more complex. To mentally
abduct something means to copy it. Chance is just incertainty.
Incertainty occurs in the physicochemical realm, but the ability of
copying something reqires neurons. I dont know what is wrong with
that. Sorry, best, Helmut 14. Dezember 2020 um 20:08 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut - we'll just have to disagree!
I consider that chance is a basic attribute of abduction, where an
aberration from the norm appears, and the Mind [and I consider that
all matter including the inorganic, functions within Mind] - can
develop a new habit that incorporates this aberration as 'normal'.
This has nothing to do with uncertainty. And nothing to do with
'need' [whatever that means].
I don't see induction as requiring final causality. I see induction
merely as pure observation of 'what is existent'. Nothing to do with
any 'need'.
Edwina
On Mon 14/12/20 1:55 PM , Helmut Raulien [email protected]
sent:Edwina,I agree, that in inanimate world there is chance, due to
the Heisenberg incertainty and to incertainty as calculated by chaos
theory. But I doubt, that this has to do with induction or abduction,
or with final or example causation. I think, that final causation (or
induction) requires a need, which is something only organisms have.
No stone or molecule needs anything. Abduction, example cause,
requires a structure that can recognize or copy a pattern. This is
only doable with a network of neurons, or maybe with a single neuron,
or two of them, I dont know, but anyway with neurons, is what I think.
Best, Helmut 14. Dezember 2020 um 19:39 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut - you are ignoring the role of Firstness, or chance, within
the inanimate and animate world.
Chance, spontaneity are vital actions enabling adaptive and
evolutionary capacities - and these two actions are obviously not
found only within the human realm. But also within the 'inanimate'
and 'animate'.
I'd say that abduction is the Mind process of Firstness - and found
in all forms of existence.
Edwina
On Mon 14/12/20 1:29 PM , Helmut Raulien [email protected]
sent:List,I have to ponder your posts, because up to now my idea has
been, that in inanimate nature merely deduction/efficient causation
occurs, in animate nature (organisms) also induction/final causation,
and in neuro-nature (brain animals) also abduction/example causation.
To suggest that a molecule does abduction, would in my concept be
illegitimate anthropocentrism. But all that is just my ideas, you
know I have some of them, maybe all wrong. Best, Helmut 14. Dezember
2020 um 18:23 Uhr
"Jerry LR Chandler"
wrote:List: I am uncertain as to the semantic, syntactical, formal
and CSP textual sources of meanings of the term “ampliative” as
used in these two sentences. On Dec 14, 2020, at 8:46 AM,
[email protected] wrote: In logical terms, the key is that excluded
middle is a principle only of deductive reasoning, not of
ampliative reasoning, which always comes first in any inquiry;Jon
had written:"That is why it is ampliative rather than merely
explicative, with the tradeoff that its inferences are merely
plausible rather than certain." Note that ampliative reasoning can
be used to infer the necessary connections between atoms and
molecules as many to one mappings from parts to the wholes. That is,
for a collection of atoms to become a single molecule, it is
necessary that new relations must be specified that show the
differences between the individuals and the collective, the emergent
whole with a new name that specifies its uniqueness. In other words,
what is being “ampliated" in this usage of the term
“ampliative”? (I vaguely recall reading a CSP passage that used
the term but can not locate it now.) Secondly, why is the form of
term such a radical departure from the common form of terminology of
logics, such as abductive, adductive, deductive, inductive,
productive, retroductive, (synductive), and transductive. (The term
“synductive” was coined in my 2008 paper to enumerate the logic of
forming a whole from atomic parts by matching all parts to another to
form the molecular network, that is, the pattern of relations that
quantifies the relationships between the qualisigns and the legisigns
of sin-signs.) CheersJerry
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject,
and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the
message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [1] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject,
and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the
message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject,
and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the
message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [3] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ►
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 no subject, and with the
sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [4] . ► PEIRCE-L is
owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed
by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[3] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[4] 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
