Helmut - no, this is not Lamarckianism - which is the movement of a
learned habit into a genetic form. And 'common' Darwinism, with its
reliance ONLY on random mutations - has long been refuted in the
biological studies, where it is observed that organisms react
'intelligently' to stimuli in their environment and themselves
develop productive adaptations.
I won't go into the literature - which is extensive - but you could
check out the journal BioSystems and also the Physics of Life and
journals on Developmental Biology and also, works by S. Kauffman,
Brooks and Wiley etc on self-organization and complex systems and how
they function.
And I think that you should perhaps re-read Peirce's works on the
three modes of reasoning: Induction, Deduction and Abduction. You and
I have different understandings of these three.
Edwina
On Wed 16/12/20 11:18 AM , Helmut Raulien [email protected] sent:
Edwina, I think this view (intelligent response, informed
interacton) is called Lamarckism, has been refuted for a long time by
Darwinism, but is since shortly restored in a weak form with the
discovery of epigenetics. With "perceived similarity" I meant a
knowledge about similarity or identity of a thing that surprises, and
another thing or class of things known. For example, in Peirces
example, the similarity expressed with the name "beans" between the
seen white beans, and the beans known to be in the bag. Best,
Helmut 15. Dezember 2020 um 21:47 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut - No, the beak is a NEW form, not the old form of the beak,
and it developed in 'intelligent' response to the NEW harder seed
shell. This is novelty; this is abduction.
Yes, mutations [new forms] are the results of abduction. And
mutations are not necessarily random, but can be the new form
developed as a result of 'informed interaction' by the organism with
the environment.
I don't understand what you mean by 'perceived similarity' with
regard to abduction.
Please remember that Peirce understood 'Mind' as operating within
all of the Universe, both the inorganic and organic - and most
certainly not confined to human beings.
Edwina
On Tue 15/12/20 3:20 PM , Helmut Raulien [email protected] sent:
Edwina, ok, thoug I would say, the strengthening of the beak might
also be seen as a kind of induction, because both the seed shell, and
the beak have been there before, so there is no complete novelty nor
total surprise. Maybe mutations are part of abduction? Though
abduction might be seen as a guess with a reason, a hypothesis based
on a real perceived similarity, while a mutation is rather a wild
guess without a hypothesis? If in a forest there surprisingly occur
carnivores that live on the ground, and a squirrel has due to a
mutation a skin between its arms and legs, so it can glide from one
tree to the other without going to the ground, it has an advantage.
But the mutation is random. But maybe on a slow evolutuionary scale
this might be interpreted as hypothesis? Or would such an
interpretation be anthropo- or neurocentrism? Best, Helmut 14.
Dezember 2020 um 21:12 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
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 [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.) Cheers Jerry
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
