"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
Helmut, - I think I see what you are getting at - but I'm not sure that the term of 'ALL' , a universal, can be understood as a laq [3ns] while the negative universal term 'NO' - is reduced to 2ns.
If I were to say: 'All water transforms to ice at minus 20 degrees Celsius' - well, I'd say that was a normal law, 3ns.
And if I were to say: 'No ice can be formed at plus 35 degrees Celsius ' I'd say that was also a normal law; 3ns.
To write " A Tasmanian tiger does not exist' is NOT a universal or valid form. It refers to only one tiger. So, it is in 2ns. To write the universal correctly, it would be: NO Tasmanian tigers exist - and that's a universal, a 3ns.
I'm not sure of the point of your double negation.
Edwina
On Wed 03/02/21 6:21 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, List,Ok, "A exists" is too general, it can be understood as both particular and universal. I meant "A" as a variable for a universal class, like a unicorn or unicorns or a tasman tiger or a human. I have left away the quotation marks to not let these examples be misunderstood for conceptual entities.I am talking about the difference between the NOT- operator and positive operators, both used for universal propositions. My hypothesis is, that a (universal) proposition containing the NOT- operator is 2ns, and that a (universal too) proposition using a positive universal operator like EXISTS or EVERY, without a NOT-operator, is 3ns. So "A tasman tiger exists" is 3ns, a sort of law, in this case an expired law, while "A tasman tiger does not exist" is 2ns, and not a law.I f we compare "unicorns don´t exist" with "tasman tigers don´t exist", we see, that, more or less automatically, the question about the reason for the nonexistence (the NOT- operator) arises, because the reasons can be, and are different: Unicorns have never existed, are just an idea, and tasman tigers have existed, but are extinct.With "An A exists", or "Class A physically exists", such as "A human exists" or "humans exist", no such question quasi-automatically arises. They exist because they do. Ok, you may ask, do they exist due to evolution or due to creation. But this question is not a question concerning the class of humans alone, but theology and science as a whole. Or you may just accept that they exist, like saying, they exist because that is a fact. If you say "A vaccine against malaria does not exist on the market", well, that is a fact too, but in this proposition the vaccine against malaria is mentioned, so why is it mentioned, and why do pharmacies not sell it? Do they not, because it is too hard to develop, or is a good vaccine already developed, but producing does not pay off, as people with malaria are mostly poor? So the question would not be about the vaccine alone, but about... no, not about that again.Anyway, I think, the NOT- operator produces merely 2ns- propositions, which are not laws, but only instants of laws. These laws are either, that the class of the term that is adressed by the NOT-operator exists, either physically, or formerly physically, or just as an idea.To conclude from a consequence (IF-THEN) to a double negation is always valid. To conclude from a double negation to a consequence is merely valid, if the class whose existence is negated physically exists: Classical logic. But if the class only formerly physically existed, or has just been an idea from the start, the said conclusion is not guaranteedly valid: Intuitionistic logic.Best, Helmut02. Februar 2021 um 18:35 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:Helmut, list
To say that 'A exists' - can be translated, I think, into a syllogistic sentence of, for example: All men are biological organisms. [with 'biological organism' understood as 'existing'.
So, that's a universal, ie, a law.
But, to declare that 'No men are biological organisms' [which is the form of 'A doesn't exist'... is also a valid universal. It's unsound because it's false, but it's still valid logically.
----------------------------------
If you instead switched to the particular where you say, for 'A exists' then this is the format for the sentence of 'Henry is a biological organism'... well, I don't think this is a law. It only refers to Henry. So, it's in 2ns. Same with 'A doesn't exist'..which could translate to 'Henry is not a biological organism'....and this too is particular and in 2ns.
-------------------------------------
The conceptual image of a unicorn does exist - we see it in so many paintings. But biologically, no such animal exists.
----------------------------
I consider that the DO does not exist apart from the semiosic process. That is, when the Object - the external Object which exists outside of our interaction with it - when this external Object is 'grabbed' by the semiosic process, it becomes, then, the Dynamic Object. Its data as received [by my semiosic process] is the Immediate Object. My capacity for receiving the input data may be limited, so my Immediate Object data is quite specific to my capabilities to understand it.
Edwina
On Tue 02/02/21 11:18 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:Edwina, List,with "universally valid law " I meant the universe as domain, especially for the example, that "A exists" has the property of a law, 3ns, but "A doesn´t exist" does not have this property, is merely 2ns.About the object you are right, and I was wrong. The dynamic object preexists, but not the immediate. The interaction starts with 1, and the determination with the DO (2?).About the unicorn I think, that "Unicorn" (put in quotation marks) exists, but not a unicorn.Best, Helmut01. Februar 2021 um 20:16 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:Helmut, list
1] I'm not sure what a 'universally valid law' means. After all, 'laws' in themselves, are evolved habits, both in the natural world and in the conceptual world. Therefore, a conceptual belief, whether operative in a sect, religion, or myth, is as much a 'law' or 'habit-of-belief/behaviour' as in the natural realm. Such laws are not universal but are valid within a domain - only the most basic physical laws are universal and even then, restrictions apply. Or do you mean logical principles, such as cause and effect?
2] I don't think that the 'particular' is an 'illusion or collusion' - but these two terms need to be defined. As Peirce pointed out, the objective world exists, regardless of what anyone thinks of it...Therefore, I do think that the object exists 'before it is denoted'. To consider that objects only exist when denoted [by someone?] is..nominalism.
3] With regard to the process of semiosis, you could check Robert Marty's lattice, which shows, quite clearly, how semiosic interactions begin with the sensate stimuli of 1ns.
4] With regard to your question about unicorns - whether they 'exist' or are 'real' - again, both terms would have to be defined.
But in my view, unicorns most certainly exist. They exist in the conceptual realm - but not in the biological realm. I don't think that our world can be confined only to physico-chemical or biological existents; our concepts and thoughts are also existent. I would define a universal, such as 'goodness' or 'beauty' as 'real', whereas a particular object, even if conceptual such as a unicorn or Zeus, would, in my view, be defined as 'existent'.
Edwina
On Mon 01/02/21 1:15 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:Supplement: With "law" I was meaning "universally valid law", not a law stated by a sect, religion, or myth. These would not concern the difference between the NOT- operator and the EXIST- operator, as both are universal, none of them is particularistic. Particularistic "laws" I would not call "laws", but illusions or collusions._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 find it interesting, that you think, that the semiosic process begins with 1ns, I originally think so too. That is, because in my opinion, the object does not exist before it is denoted. The sign/representamen makes something (a subject?) an object. I only wrote "2-1-3" to not raise a discussion about sequence, as most others always vote for "2-1-3".Regarding the other points, maybe I have not used the proper terms "exist" and "real", or haven´t you, in this case? Isnt it so, that unicorns don´t exist, but are real? Or have I mixed it up again? Anyways, can anybody see through all the mistakes I have written that what I was meaning to tell, whether it is all bull or there is something about it? I thought having refuted the "transparent-world"-hypothesis and tried to show an alternative.Best, Helmut01. Februar 2021 um 18:09 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:Helmut - a few comments:
1] I think the semiosic process begins with 1ns, a sensation...and moves into awareness [2ns]..
2] With regard to your statement 'There is no unicorn that is not pink' - I think that this is what is known as an 'E' or negative form. Essentially you are saying: 'No unicorn is X. And the 'X' happens to be a description which is, 'not pink'. This is not a negative, merely a term that includes of ALL colours that are 'not pink'. It's a law, a major premiss.. Same as the universal positive of 'Every unicorn is pink'. [And this is NOT an illation but an assertion, a major premiss.
3] Laws are not always developed from external actual experience; they can develop within the mind as purely mental assertions [think of myths, of religions].
4] I would also say that Unicorns DO 'exist'. They are mental constructs and we see their images in paintings and artwork all over the world. I don't think we can confine 'existence' to physical/biological forms; I think we have to include conceptual forms as well. After all don't symbols 'exist'?
Edwina
On Mon 01/02/21 11:03 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:Auke, Jon, John, Edwina, All,I don´t see, that a transparent universe is the critical point: Jon A.S.´ example is valid in a transparent universe too: From "There is no unicorn that is not pink" , which is true, does not follow "Every unicorn is pink", which is not true, even or especially not in a transparent universe, in which everybody knows that unicorns don´t exist. I would like to know if you all ("ye", why has this word been abandoned?) think the following makes sense:I rather think it has to do with categories: A natural semiosis goes 2-1-3, a representative semiosis too, as it is a natural semiosis too. This is generation. But inside a representational semiosis the reflected is not generated, but degenerated, or remains on the same level. Meaning, you cannot conclude a law (3ns) from a situation (2ns). "There is no unicorn that is not pink" is a description, a situation, a status, a 2ns. "Every unicorn is pink" is an illation, consequence, law, 3ns. This cannot be inferred from the said 2ns. Only with another 3ns-law it might. This second premiss should have to be "Unicorns exist". If they would, the step from the double negation towards the illation would be valid. But why is the (fictional) latter premiss "Unicorns exist" not a 2ns, a status-report, but a 3ns, a law? I guess, the existence-operator does it. Either it is so, that certain operators that adress universality, such as "Every" or "Exist", make a proposition a law (3ns), while others, such as the NOT- operator, don´t, are merely status-reports, 2ns, although they are universal as well.The NOT-operator cannot make a law, because a law is only based on reality, existence, not on denial or neglection. The Exist-operator, and the Every-operator, and also the IF-THEN- operator make a law. A law is a produce of habit-formation, which has been a process in reality, so something positive. Negatives, things that are not there, or are missed, donot form habits, so not laws. Something like that it must be I think, what do you think?Best, Helmut01. Februar 2021 um 13:07 Uhr
"Auke van Breemen"
wrote:John,
This part of the article Edwina send is relevant:
It follows that logic, in Peirce’s illative, ecstatic sense, is better understood as an
inductive rather than a deductive science, for the ampliative work of inductive inference
better exemplifies, in a richer, fuller sense, the illative, ecstatic essence of inference per
se. While deduction still stands as essential and irreplaceable aspect of logic, it remains a
purely formal and hence more abstract (and more ‘degenerate’) _expression_ of the illative
essence of inference (and argumentation) in its fullest sense.---
You keep assuming that Jon is talking about logic as a calculus in a transparant logical universe. But in this respect he never denied negation its role. As far as I get it, Jon's attempt can be seen as a diagrammatical calculus in the way of its development, but not for logic in the sense you take it, but as a dia-logical calculus. And in dialogues we ought to be interested in the reasons for the negation. Proof must be constructive.
The shaded ovals are interesting, especially in combination with the sheets and the lines of identity running on (self conversation) and through different sets of them (comminication or dialogue).
It is as if you at the end of your carreer are diving in the method of tenacity.
Best,
Auke
Op 1 februari 2021 om 5:10 schreef "John F. Sowa" :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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,
Thanks for the URL of that article. I changed the subject line to the title of https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=ossaarchive
The full title is "Inference as growth: Peirce�s ecstatic logic of illation", and I want to emphasize that this article is talking about illation as a process, not as a particular sign for if-then,
The Latin verb 'infero' is irregular. Its present participle 'inferens' is the source of the English word 'inference'. Its past participle 'illatus' is the source of the words 'illation' and 'illative'.
When Peirce said that 'ergo' (therefore) is a sign of illation that signals the end of a process. Modern logicians use the term 'rule of inference' for what Peirce called 'permission'. The present participle suggests one step of a continuing process.
The article makes some good points, but it should not be considered as an argument for the scroll as a logical primitive. Peirce's permissions (in every version of EGs from 1897 to the end) depend only insertions and deletions in negative or positive areas.
A scroll is just one particular arrangement. As Peirce wrote in R670, a scroll is equivalent to a nest of two negations. In L231 and later, he raised his pen when he drew two ovals in order to avoid any suggestion that the scroll shape had any significance.
There is, of course, more to say.
John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
