Gary, List It’s OK to disagree!! I certainly stand by my view that the universe is a CAS and that Peirce’s categories are basic to the operation of a CAS.
And since I view all interactions - in the physics-chemical, biological and ‘human’ realms - as semiotic, and most certainly pragmatic [ ie, non-deterministic] - then, to me, the Peircean analytic framework is readily applicable to their analysis. And, of course, I also view these realms as operating within their own ‘mini-CAS systems. I dont’ see the analysis of the operation of a CAS as merely a model which makes it purely an intellectual construct- but as an explanation of how a particular system operates- whether it’s the universe or a plant species or a biome - within the triadic process of semiosis… But- disagreement is basic to interaction and analysis…so… Edwina > On Aug 30, 2024, at 7:37 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, List, > > This has always been a matter of considerable disagreement between us, > indeed, since a couple of decades ago when I was introduced to CAS by you, > Edwina. I believe your argument is, in a nutshell, that Peirce's categories > can be conceptualized isomorphic to CAS, that Peirce's categorial trichotomic > exhibits the essential features of CAS, such as dynamic interactions (2ns), > emergent patterns and adaptive evolution (3ns). You argue, I believe, that > the interplay between 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns can be interpreted as a > self-organizing process where the system evolves and adapts much like a CAS. > I'm not sure that you consider Peirce's to be a precursor to CAS, but it > would appear that you do see its principles as corresponding to those > underlying CAS. > > In my view, while Peirce's categories may share some superficial similarities > with the concepts of CAS, that is when dealing with certain interactions and > patterns, they are fundamentally different in purpose, structure, and > application. Peirce's philosophy -- including his semeiotic and trichotomic > theory -- is concerned essentially withl aspects of reality and thought seen > through the lens of semeiotics and pragmaticism. CAS, on the other hand, at > least as I understand it, is focused on the dynamics of complex systems. In > my view, the two frameworks operate on different levels of abstraction and > are not as easily reconcilable. > > Indeed, I have always thought that it was misleading to conceptualize > Peirce's ideas as an interpretation of the principles underlying CAS and that > framing Peirce's categories within the context of CAS risks reducing the > semeiotic depth of his ideas to fit that model. > > As I see them, Peirce's three universes and three categories are intended to > address questions about the nature of reality, thought, and semiotics. CAS > appears to me to be essentially a tool for modeling specific types of systems > and predicting their behavior. The goals and methodologies of these two > approaches are, in my view, quite different. > > Best, > > Gary R > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 4:36 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> And as an addendum - the operation of the three categories, which, as >> outlined in 1.412, emerged together, is ‘how’ a CAS operates. All three >> categories enable a CAS. And - no need for an external energy source - which >> again, would make a system complicated and mechanical, not complex. >> >> Edwina. >> >>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 3:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Gary R , List >>> Yet another disagreement! Yes, a CAS relies on “ the exchange of >>> energy/matter/information within its environment to function, adapt, >>> evolve…” and so the universe, which has no external environments - as a >>> system in itself, operates as a CAS, wherein its energy content is >>> constantly adapting, evolving moving from simple to complex organization. >>> >>> . ..There is no need for a CAS to require external energy input…which would >>> make it a mechanical and complicated system, which requires external energy >>> input - not a CAS. Again, a CAS does not require external energy input to >>> function; it is the way that it organizes its energy content in itself - >>> that defines it as a CAS. >>> >>> A CAS is not something that only exists when it is open to external energy! >>> Its energy content, in itself, operates in an operational format as a CAS. >>> >>> The universe, as a system without perimeters has no capacity to increase >>> [or decrease] its energy content…As you note - all the energy and matter >>> that exist are contained within the universe. The question then moves to >>> HOW is this energy/matter organized? The Answer - as a CAS - a complex >>> organized system. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 3:45 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Edwina, Jon, Helmut, List, >>>> >>>> I believe that the universe is generally considered a closed system in the >>>> context of thermodynamics because the universe, as a whole, does not >>>> exchange matter or energy with anything outside itself -- basically >>>> because there is no 'outside' of the universe as we understand it. All the >>>> energy and matter that exist are contained within the universe. >>>> Certainly it is true that within the universe that there are many open >>>> systems that can exchange energy and matter with their surroundings. I >>>> understand CAS as a framework for understanding complex, dynamic systems >>>> in a number of fields such as biology, sociology, economics, ecology, etc. >>>> (I think that the human brain might even be considered a CAS). And as >>>> Edwina has often noted, they demonstrate the importance of interactions, >>>> adaptation, and emergence in shaping the behavior of these systems over >>>> time. But, again, CAS concerns open systems because they rely on the >>>> exchange of energy, matter, and information with their environment to >>>> function, adapt, and evolve. >>>> >>>> So, I also agree with Helmut that, as Jon wrote: "the universe as a whole >>>> cannot be accurately characterized as a complex adaptive system." >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Gary R >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 1:42 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> List: >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Helmut. >>>>> >>>>> HR: 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. >>>>> >>>>> If the universe is a closed system, such that there is no external >>>>> environment to which it is constantly adapting itself, then by definition >>>>> it cannot be a complex adaptive system. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jon >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 12:35 PM Edwina Taborsky >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> JAS; list >>>>>> >>>>>> Who are you agreeing with in your sentence ' >>>>>>> I agree that technically, the universe as a whole cannot be accurately >>>>>>> characterized as a complex adaptive system >>>>>> My view is that the universe ‘as a whole IS a complex adaptive system - >>>>>> and as such there is no ‘environment external to it’. ..Therefore, the >>>>>> universe is most certainly not adapting itself to this non-existent >>>>>> ‘external environment’. >>>>>> >>>>>> Edwina >>>>>>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 1:25 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> List: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree that technically, the universe as a whole cannot be accurately >>>>>>> characterized as a complex adaptive system unless there is an >>>>>>> environment external to it, to which it is constantly adapting itself. >>>>>>> What could that be, and how would we ever know anything about it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gödel's incompleteness theorems tell us nothing whatsoever about God or >>>>>>> religious beliefs--they are purely logical demonstrations that certain >>>>>>> kinds of sentences are undecidable within any sufficiently powerful >>>>>>> formal system >>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems). >>>>>>> In fact, Gödel himself developed a modal ontological argument for the >>>>>>> existence/reality of God >>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof). As >>>>>>> stated in the linked article, "Gödel described his religion as >>>>>>> 'baptized Lutheran (but not member of any religious congregation). My >>>>>>> belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than >>>>>>> Spinoza.'" He also echoed Peirce by saying, "Religions are, for the >>>>>>> most part, bad--but religion is not." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>>>>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >>>>>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / >>>>>>> twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:03 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Supplement: That "the question, whether the universe is God´s tool, a >>>>>>>> part of God, or God Himself" cannot be answered by us, is proved by >>>>>>>> Goedel, with his incompleteness theorem. Meaning, argueing about >>>>>>>> religious belief is futile. >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> 29. August 2024 um 20:39 Uhr >>>>>>>> "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2024, at 2:05 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[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, Helmut >>>>>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. August 2024 um 13:57 Uhr >>>>>>>> Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>> An: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>> Cc: "Peirce-L" <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Anselm (was "A man could not have >>>>>>>> any idea that was not anthropomorphic") >>>>>>>> JAS, List >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But - 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 exist >>>>>>>> Therefore, 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 <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >>>>> https://www.cspeirce.com <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] <mailto:[email protected]> . >>>>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[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.
