"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
Helmut - the point of abduction is the appearance of a novel situation - and the adjustment by an organism to that novelty by its development of a new hypothesis or law.
The organism - and I maintain this can be a plant, a cell, an insect, a human...interacting with the environment, receives input data that is novel to its system.[surprising fact is observed]. So- it adapts; it develops a new set of habits[ new hypothesis] such that it can continue to live in that environment with that novel situation.
So- a bird adapts to new seeds that have developed harder shells by itself developing a harder beak.
I don't see that abduction means an 'awareness of resemblance'.
Edwina
On Mon 14/12/20 2:46 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de 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._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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.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, Helmut14. 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 h.raul...@gmx.de 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, Helmut14. 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 h.raul...@gmx.de 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, Helmut14. 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, g...@gnusystems.ca 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
