Edwina, List,
in my last post I was trying to not anthropomorphise: I wrote, that the non-atheist view, that God is a person, can be justified by saying, that what makes a person is intelligence, and the reason for everything is intelligent, so a person. Of course, this argument is only then not anthropomorphic, if we all agree, that "intelligence" is not an anthropomorphic concept. Is it or not?
About "agential, deterministic": "Deteministic" I see as too mechanical, intending only one purpose, instead of the Talcottian system aspects "AGIL": Adaption, goal attainment, integration, latency. These system properties can also be explained in a Peircean way, I think, with habit formation and the three categories.
I´d say, everything is a system, but the more complex a system is, the more these AGIL aspects hold. "Goal attainment" of course is agential. Luhmann too spoke of the intention of a system. Its intention is to get bigger, more powerful, more complex, more latent (homeostatic), and therefore more capable of integrating all that may help to achieve all that.
Now- Is the universe a system? I´d say, yes, but a perfectly closed one (apart from possibly presumed divine intervention). Because of this closedness, it doesn´t have to adapt, and it cannot integrate, at least nothing from outside. But intention and agentiality, I´d say, yes, it has. The question, whether the universe is God´s tool, a part of God, or God Himself, I find irrelevant, due to this question´s non-solubility for us humble creatures. We should rather bother with problems we can deal with, and, apart from that, either unify or dump all religions, and praise God (just a suggestion).
Best regards, Helmut
Helmut, List
Since I follow the theory of CAS, complex adaptive systems, then, I view the universe as a logical process of energy/matter transformation. And yes - this doesn’t necessarily lead to theism, unless one wants to anthropomorphize the nature of this logical adaptive process. Andn of course- to atheism, which merely rejects the anthropomorphic or agential, deterministic Supreme purpose—and, more often, accepts a self-organizing, self-creating process of energy transforming to matter. As Peirce so often says ‘ matter is effete mind’.
Edwina.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.On Aug 29, 2024, at 2:05 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:List,the argument "If A then B, if B then C, so: If A then C", given, that the two premisses are true, has a third premiss: Transitivity. Transitivity is an axiom, because it cannot be deduced from other premisses. Logic/reason is based on axioms. They are the reason for logic. In a universe, where in this example "If A then C" would not be true, no intelligent life could emerge, I am quite sure. And there would be no reason for anything.Given, that the axioms are the ens nessecitarium, we may say with John (Johannes) of the bible, that God is logic. I think, this view does not nessecarily lead to theism, it might as well lead to pantheism or panentheism. Panentheism, because logic/reason/God may exist ouside of our universe too.May it lead to atheism too? I guess, atheists say, that there is no personal God. But may logic, reason, the reason, be impersonal, inanimate? I´d say, if something is intelligent, it is a person. Intelligence is proved by action, e.g. if somebody fills out well an IQ-test. The emergence of intelligent life on our planet has a reason, because transitivity is in charge. This reason has done an act, we may call "creation" or "evolution". So this reason is intelligent, so it is a person, no matter, however technical, inanimate the term "axioms" sounds, with which mathematicians name the reason.Best regards, HelmutGesendet: Donnerstag, 29. August 2024 um 13:57 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
An: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Peirce-L" <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Anselm (was "A man could not have any idea that was not anthropomorphic")JAS, ListBut - Peirce, in 1.412, does indeed very specifically outline how the three categories ‘come into being’ from Nothing. So, contrary to your interpretation, I think it’s quite proper to ‘ascribe this belief’ to him.As for your arguments about ponens and tollens [both are modus] - if your premises are false due to circularity or ambiguity or.., then the logical validity is totally irrelevant.You can hardly want to ‘prove’ an assertion by its logical format alone; your premises must have value of truth. Otherwise, I could ‘prove’ anything - such as the existence of unicorns and ..If horses exist, then unicorns exist.Horses existTherefore, unicorns exist.Finally - The ambiguity comes from the merger of ‘possible’ and ’necessary’…which makes the ‘god' argument false.Edwina_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.On Aug 28, 2024, at 10:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _List:Regarding #1 below, my point is simply that we can properly ascribe beliefs to Peirce that he explicitly endorses, such as God being Ens necessarium, "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience"; and we cannot properly ascribe contradictory beliefs to him, such as the three universes (and corresponding categories) being eternal or somehow coming into being from absolutely nothing.Regarding #2 below, the following argument is deductively valid--if both premisses are true, then the conclusion must also be true.P1. If God is not actually real, then God is not possibly real.P2. God is possibly real.C1. Therefore, God is actually real.It is neither circular (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning) nor question-begging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), because C1 is not already assumed in P1 or P2. Denying the antecedent after denying the consequent is not a fallacy, it is (as I said) the classical inference rule called modus tollens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens). Accordingly, the following argument is also deductively valid.If it does not rain then my car will not be wet.My car is wetTherefore it did rain.If my car is wet because the sprinkler was on, not because it rained, then the first premiss is false--the argument is still valid, but unsound. Likewise, the only way that C1 could be false is if either P1 or P2 is false.Regarding #3 below, the following argument is also deductively valid.P2. God is possibly real.P3. If God is possibly real, then God is necessarily real.C2. Therefore, God is necessarily real.This is (as I said) the classical inference rule called modus ponens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens). There is no ambiguity here because "possibly" has exactly the same meaning in P2 and P3, and "necessarily" has exactly the same meaning in P3 and C2. Again, the only way that C2 could be false is if either P2 or P3 is false.Regards,Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran ChristianOn Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 6:56 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:List1]First - I think you should follow your own advice - about Dynamic Interpretants and Immediate Interpretants.I did NOT say that "every "individual and current personal reading of Peirce" is equally valid”.I said that each of us interprets Peirce’s writings, within a semiosic triad, particular to their own knowledge base. As to which of these interpretations is ‘valid’ - that’s for the ‘community of scholars to affirm. Not the individual author of that interpretation.2] You wrote this example:P1. If God is not actually real, then God is not possibly real.
P2. God is possibly real.
C1. Therefore, God is actually real.This is called the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning, where the conclusion [god is actually real] is used as a premise. And also - a version of the Fallacy of denying the antecedent.An example would be:If it does not rain then my car will not be wet.My car is wetTherefore it did rain. [No, the sprinkler was on].3] You wrote this example:P3. If God is possibly real, then God is necessarily real.C2. Therefore, God is necessarily real.This is in my view, fallacious due to ambiguity, since it merges the two terms of ‘possibly’ and ’necessarily’.Again - these are your BELIEFS- about the universe, god, etc- and no-one is going to discuss your beliefs with you… The problem is, I feel, that you seem to want to pull Peirce into being a supporter of these beliefs - and this mightn’t be warranted.Edwina
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
