[PEIRCE-L] The ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) as a universal principle applicable to physics, biology, cybernetics/informatics, and semiotics.
Hi, In my 08/20/2015 Peirce-L post titled “Amount and meaning of information as aspects of the Peircean sign: The Peircean Theory of Information” [10], I utilized the so-called ur-category [1] to analyze the possible relation between the constructor theory of information recently proposed by Deutsch [6] and Peircean semiotics [7]. The ur-category [1] can be viewed as a geometric (or *iconic*) representation of the ITR [2], which is its *symbolic* representation. The origin of the concept of ITR may be traced to Peirce's definitions of the sign, especially Definition #30 in [11]. The purpose of this post is: (1) to re-affirm the universality of ITR and ur-category (see the figure in Table 1), (2) to use these theoretical principles to clarify several ambiguities that often afflict the discussions on *information* and *communication* and their relation to *physicochemical interactions, *and (3) to suggest dividing information into meaningless (or Shannon) information and meaningful (or Peircean) information. (*1*) As evident in the figure in Table 1, the ur-category (and hence ITR) can be applied to various processes in both natural (see Layers 3, 4, 5, 6) and human sciences (see Layers 1, 2 and 3), layer 3 covering both natural and human sciences. It is surprising that the ur-category can be applied even to Einstein's general relativity theory of motion (see the legend to Layer 6). Thus, if we can treat each of these disciplines as a mathematical category, then ITR and the ur-category can be viewed as “functors” discussed in the category theory [8, 9]. (*2*) The ur-category has three steps or transformations, labelled f, g and h. Steps f and g can be associated with physicochemical interactions and hence with constructor-theoretic information or Shannon information, the latter being characterized by selection processes. In contrast, Step h does not involve any direct physicochemical interactions between the source and the receiver nor between Object and Interpretant. In other words, Steps f and g represent *interactions* while the combined effects of Steps of f, g and h constitutes *communication*. Steps f and g are *dyadic* in that they each implicate a 2-node network, i.e., two nodes connected by one arrow, whereas Steps f, g and h are parts of a *triadic* unit that cannot be reduced to any networks with less than three nodes connected with three arrows forming the so-called commutative triangle [8, 9]. To the extent that Steps f and g involve selection process, these steps can be assigned Shannon information (to be denoted by I_S) whose amount can be calculated, with some simplifying assumptions, based on the formula, I_S = log_2 (N/n), where N and n are the numbers of the possible choices available and the actual selection made, respectively. Please note that the *meaning* of the message is determined by a combined effect of the *triad* of Steps, f, g and h. (*3*) Just as the ur-category provided a useful visual tool to distinguish between interactions and communications in (*2*), so I claim that the ur-category can help us distinguish between *meaningful* and *meaningless informations *as first broached in [11]. According to the constructor theory of information (CTI), any desired transformation in physical systems requires information encoded in the constructor causing or 'catalyzing' the transformation [6]. Thus Steps f and g can be associated with information as defined by CTI. Also, since these steps are often (if not always) associated with selection, they can be associated with Shannon information. Steps f and g represent interactions and not communications as pointed out in (*2*). Hence it would be logical to conclude that the information associated with Steps f and g are meaningless. This contrasts with the information flow resulting from the combined effects of Steps f, g, and h, which is meaningful information by definition. It is my opinion that some of the confusions that plague many discussions involving information may be due to conflating these two types of information. So, in order to help facilitate coherent and logical discourses on information and related topics in science and philosophy (e.g., communication, interaction, entropy, etc.), I recommend that we recognize two kinds of information --(i) *meaningful* information and (ii) *meaningless* information -- and further that the former be referred to as the *Peircean information* (to acknowledge the fundamental role of Peirce's definition of the sign in defining meaning) and the latter as the *Shannon information *(to acknowledge Shannon's information theory that quantifies the amount of information, specifically excluding its meaning). *Table 1.* The ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) [1, 2] as a Universal Principle of physics (6, see the figure below) [3], biology (4, 5) [1, 4], cybernetics (5, 6) [4,5], and semiotics (2) [7]. * f g *
[PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf http://l.facebook.com/l/VAQGMDKVvAQGJ132n81efy1uUwZdfD1Jrw_TeQ0Vj6Gc8lA/www.uttv.ee/naita?id=22396 [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
Gary, list, There is a minor error in Slide 23: R should be associated with quali, sin, and legi, and O should be associated with icon, index and symbol. All the best. Sung On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote: List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf http://l.facebook.com/l/VAQGMDKVvAQGJ132n81efy1uUwZdfD1Jrw_TeQ0Vj6Gc8lA/www.uttv.ee/naita?id=22396 [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 718%20482-5690* - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
Edwina, list, Just a few brief interleaved remarks. Gary, thanks for the link to Nadin's Powerpoint. You're welcome. I found the ppt show of considerable interest myself and may have more to say about parts of it at a later date. ET: Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean sign exists on its own; it's always networked. I myself don't have that much of a problem with this use of the triangle. For one thing, Peirce *does* use the triangle, notably in the famous Welby diagram, to show triadic relations in semiotics. Granted, these are analytically 'frozen' relations, so speak, but they are quite convenient in certain cases. Indeed they can, as in the Welby diagram, reveal information wjocj other diagrammatic techniques wouldn't show as well (for example, the central trikon which you have occasionally referred to in the Welby diagram; and there are other relations the Welby triangle reveals). But I agree with you that for many purposes the three-pronged figure is more iconic than the triangle. But, just to argue this a bit further, draw three lines from the vertices of an equilateral triangle to its center and you have the three-spoked figure. This is to say that the triangle implies the three-spokes, while a particular abstracted diagram may not require it. So, again, and in a word, I don't think one need insist on the three-spoked figure in all instances. But I would tend to agree with you that for many purposes (beyond certain analytical ones such as the classification of sign types) that the three-spoked figure is preferable for the reasons you gave. ET: And I have a problem with his definition of the sign as a 'unity' ...[no, that implies closure and the point of the semiosic sign is its openness]..of represented object (O), means of representation (R) and process (infinite) of interpretation (I). Again, I haven't as much a problem with this as you have, although Nadin might have found a better expression, perhaps consistency or integrity (rather than unity). See for example: Again, consciousness is sometimes used to signify the I think, or unity in thought; but the unity is nothing but consistency, or the recognition of it. Consistency belongs to every sign, so far as it is a sign; and therefore every sign, since it signifies primarily that it is a sign, signifies its own consistency. CP 5.314 ET: Just a small point but I don't think that the Representamen is the 'means of representation' but the action of mediative transformation. Perhaps that's what he means by the phrase 'means of representation'. Although Nadin's terminology here may seem a bit imprecise, still there is precedent for it in Peirce's own writings (where 'means' is made equivalent to '3ns'). See for example: . . . Now the word *means* is almost an exact synonym to the word third. It certainly involves Thirdness. Moreover, he who wills is conscious of doing so, in the sense of representing to himself that he does so. But representation is precisely genuine Thirdness.. . . CP 1.532 ET: His contrast of machines is nice, with their rejection of ambiguity (thank goodness - we don't need machines debating between Stop and Go)and life, which is necessarily open to interpretation. I like the contrast he makes between machines and life as well since it drives home the point in the clearest way possible. ET: The best conference, I think, on anticipation - within computers, AI, economics, biology and physics - remains Daniel Dubois CASYS (Computing Anticipatory Systems) in Liege, Belgium. I'll have to look into this. Thanks especially for your remarks on terminology as I think it is important to be as clear and precise as possible in this matter in all branches of science, semiotics, philosophy, etc. But it is sometimes difficult to do this, so that as important as terminology was for Peirce (and there would seem to be no doubt that it was), this was famously a problem for him as well. But having a shared terminology we all (that is, we within a given discipline) have agreed upon--that 'agreement' being another problem) is no doubt a scientific desideratum, while some sciences have done a better job than others, I think. Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 718%20482-5690* On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca wrote: Gary, thanks for the link to Nadin's Powerpoint. Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle is closed
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
Hmm - rather interesting...Actually- very, very nice. What I like about it is the networking. No sign, eg, the triad, exists 'per se' on its own; it's always networked with other signs, both near and far - and even - parts/nodes of other signs. And I like the nested complexity, with each part interacting, adding to..other parts. So, I like your Immediate. Object-connection to the Immediate Interpretant. BOTH are internal, and you've connected them...with the mediation of the Representamen in between. A kind of internal semiosic act. Then, you've expanded the network with the external realm - the Dynamic Object linked with the Dynamic Interpretant, again, with the mediation of the Representamen. An external semiosic act, with the internal nested within it. Very nice... And, your Final Interpretant linked with the Representamen...AND with the external Dynamic Object. Very nice... It's an active, complex and evolving interaction.Really- very well done. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Gary Richmond ; tabor...@primus.ca Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:53 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization Gary, Edwina, List: Since the subject came up ... Last week, while wrestling with the three interpretants and their proper order of determination, I was playing around with some speculative diagrams--not of the Peircean triad, but of the ten trichotomies. I ended up with this as a rough first pass. The correlates are points, the dyadic relations are lines, and the triadic relations are planes; except that the bottom of the tetrahedron consists entirely of signs, all of which are in the same causal relation to the dynamic object as described by Hulswit--formal (necessary condition) for icons, efficient for indexes, or final for symbols. The immediate object and interpretant are closely bound to the sign itself. The dynamic interpretant tends toward the final interpretant. Thoughts? Please be gentle ... Jon On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote: ET: Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean sign exists on its own; it's always networked. I myself don't have that much of a problem with this use of the triangle. For one thing, Peirce does use the triangle, notably in the famous Welby diagram, to show triadic relations in semiotics. Granted, these are analytically 'frozen' relations, so speak, but they are quite convenient in certain cases. Indeed they can, as in the Welby diagram, reveal information wjocj other diagrammatic techniques wouldn't show as well (for example, the central trikon which you have occasionally referred to in the Welby diagram; and there are other relations the Welby triangle reveals). But I agree with you that for many purposes the three-pronged figure is more iconic than the triangle. But, just to argue this a bit further, draw three lines from the vertices of an equilateral triangle to its center and you have the three-spoked figure. This is to say that the triangle implies the three-spokes, while a particular abstracted diagram may not require it. So, again, and in a word, I don't think one need insist on the three-spoked figure in all instances. But I would tend to agree with you that for many purposes (beyond certain analytical ones such as the classification of sign types) that the three-spoked figure is preferable for the reasons you gave. -- - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
Gary, thanks for the link to Nadin's Powerpoint. Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean sign exists on its own; it's always networked. And I have a problem with his definition of the sign as a 'unity' ...[no, that implies closure and the point of the semiosic sign is its openness]..of represented object (O), means of representation (R) and process (infinite) of interpretation (I). Just a small point but I don't think that the Representamen is the 'means of representation' but the action of mediative transformation. Perhaps that's what he means by the phrase 'means of representation'. His contrast of machines is nice, with their rejection of ambiguity (thank goodness - we don't need machines debating between Stop and Go)and life, which is necessarily open to interpretation. The best conference, I think, on anticipation - within computers, AI, economics, biology and physics - remains Daniel Dubois CASYS (Computing Anticipatory Systems) in Liege, Belgium. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:21 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482-5690 -- - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
Sung, list, Yes, the slide titled The coherence of semiotics should be corrected in the way you stated. I know from putting together slide shows for presentations that errors like this can happen easily enough, and no doubt that's the case for this slide of Nadin's ppt presentation. Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote: Gary, list, There is a minor error in Slide 23: R should be associated with quali, sin, and legi, and O should be associated with icon, index and symbol. All the best. Sung On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote: List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf http://l.facebook.com/l/VAQGMDKVvAQGJ132n81efy1uUwZdfD1Jrw_TeQ0Vj6Gc8lA/www.uttv.ee/naita?id=22396 [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 718%20482-5690* - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
[PEIRCE-L] Semeiotic Visualization
Gary, Edwina, List: Since the subject came up ... Last week, while wrestling with the three interpretants and their proper order of determination, I was playing around with some speculative diagrams--not of the Peircean triad, but of the ten trichotomies. I ended up with this as a rough first pass. [image: Inline image 1] The correlates are points, the dyadic relations are lines, and the triadic relations are planes; except that the bottom of the tetrahedron consists entirely of signs, all of which are in the same causal relation to the dynamic object as described by Hulswit--formal (necessary condition) for icons, efficient for indexes, or final for symbols. The immediate object and interpretant are closely bound to the sign itself. The dynamic interpretant tends toward the final interpretant. Thoughts? Please be gentle ... Jon On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote: ET: Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean sign exists on its own; it's always networked. I myself don't have that much of a problem with this use of the triangle. For one thing, Peirce *does* use the triangle, notably in the famous Welby diagram, to show triadic relations in semiotics. Granted, these are analytically 'frozen' relations, so speak, but they are quite convenient in certain cases. Indeed they can, as in the Welby diagram, reveal information wjocj other diagrammatic techniques wouldn't show as well (for example, the central trikon which you have occasionally referred to in the Welby diagram; and there are other relations the Welby triangle reveals). But I agree with you that for many purposes the three-pronged figure is more iconic than the triangle. But, just to argue this a bit further, draw three lines from the vertices of an equilateral triangle to its center and you have the three-spoked figure. This is to say that the triangle implies the three-spokes, while a particular abstracted diagram may not require it. So, again, and in a word, I don't think one need insist on the three-spoked figure in all instances. But I would tend to agree with you that for many purposes (beyond certain analytical ones such as the classification of sign types) that the three-spoked figure is preferable for the reasons you gave. - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8830] Re: Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
Hi Gary S, Gary R, lists, I agree that certain aspects (e.g., qualia) of Peircean semiosis cannot be reduced to mechanical terms, because life is more COMPLEX than physics or chemistry. But I believe that no semiosis is possible without physics and chemistry either, since, although the beauty of Mona Lisa is beyond the chemical reductionism, no Mona Lisa can exist without colored dye molecules having the right atomic organizations. So the challenging question may be: When does beauty begin and chemistry end in Mona Lisa? One possible answer that comes to mind would be: Mona Lisa is the complementary union of anesthetics and physics. All the best. Sung On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Gary Shank garysh...@comcast.net wrote: Is this in addition to your ongoing errors of trying to portray Peircean semiotics in reductionist and mechanical terms? All the best, Gary Sent from my iPad On Aug 24, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote: Gary, list, There is a minor error in Slide 23: R should be associated with quali, sin, and legi, and O should be associated with icon, index and symbol. All the best. Sung On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote: List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf http://l.facebook.com/l/VAQGMDKVvAQGJ132n81efy1uUwZdfD1Jrw_TeQ0Vj6Gc8lA/www.uttv.ee/naita?id=22396 [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 718%20482-5690* - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8831] Re: Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot
Hi Gary S, Gary R, lists, A thought just occurred to me that there may be a connection between the beauty of Mona Lisa (holism) and the various chemical pigments (reductionism) that constitute it -- namely, the organization of matter at two distinct scales, one at the macroscopic scale and the other at the microscopic. That is, what makes Mona Lisa beautiful is the way macroscopic pigment particles are ORGANIZED on its canvas, while what makes the pigment particles look colorful in Mona Lisa is the way microscopic particles known as atoms are ORGANIZED inside each pigment molecule. If this analysis is right, the concept of ORGANIZATION may be of fundamental significance at all physical scales and the consequence (or function or meaning) of organization may depend on the physical scales involved. In the case of Mona Lisa, the pigment ORGANIZATION on the canvas results in beautiful visual sensations while the atomic ORGANIZATIONs in pigment molecules result in desirable colors of individual pigments. Hence, I am tempted to conclude that Organization is the FUNCTOR connecting the beautiful aesthetics of Mona Lisa on the macrolevel and the colorful chemistry underlying it on the microlevel. All the best. Sung On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote: Hi Gary S, Gary R, lists, I agree that certain aspects (e.g., qualia) of Peircean semiosis cannot be reduced to mechanical terms, because life is more COMPLEX than physics or chemistry. But I believe that no semiosis is possible without physics and chemistry either, since, although the beauty of Mona Lisa is beyond the chemical reductionism, no Mona Lisa can exist without colored dye molecules having the right atomic organizations. So the challenging question may be: When does beauty begin and chemistry end in Mona Lisa? One possible answer that comes to mind would be: Mona Lisa is the complementary union of anesthetics and physics. All the best. Sung On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Gary Shank garysh...@comcast.net wrote: Is this in addition to your ongoing errors of trying to portray Peircean semiotics in reductionist and mechanical terms? All the best, Gary Sent from my iPad On Aug 24, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote: Gary, list, There is a minor error in Slide 23: R should be associated with quali, sin, and legi, and O should be associated with icon, index and symbol. All the best. Sung On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote: List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf http://l.facebook.com/l/VAQGMDKVvAQGJ132n81efy1uUwZdfD1Jrw_TeQ0Vj6Gc8lA/www.uttv.ee/naita?id=22396 [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 718%20482-5690* - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
