Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8892] Re: The problem with

[Edwina Taborsky]

Helmut - I wasn't referring to Sung's triad (phaneron-body-mind) for I don't 
agree with it, or with almost all of his outlines. My comment to you was merely 
to remind you that the Peircean triad (not the same as Sung's triad) of 
Object-Representamen-Interpretant can have each of these 'nodes/Relations' 
organized in any one of the three categorical modes. 

I can't answer your other questions.

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Helmut Raulien 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; PEIRCE-L 
  Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 2:30 PM
  Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8892] Re: The problem with


  Edwina, Sung, lists, 
  Edwina, indeed, I had forgotten that Sungs triad (phaneron-body-mind) is a 
Sign. Maybe the difference is in the question, for whom it is a Sign: Is it a 
Sign for an outside observer, then the observer sees, what happens with the 
body. Therefore the body is the source of representamens. If it is a Sign for 
the person, whose body it is, then it is different: The phaneron is the source 
of representamens. The latter case would be a self-referential sign: Is this 
the same as "system"? 
  Best,
  Helmut
  19. September 2015 um 14:49 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky"  wrote:
   
  Helmut - ALL three aspects of the triadic Sign, the Object, Representamen and 
the Interpretant, can be in any of the three modal categories of: Firstness, 
Secondness and Thirdness. Check out the ten classes of Signs 2.256 - and you'll 
see this and see how the categories work together to function as the Sign.

  And 'first' is not the same as Firstness; 'second' is not the same as 
Secondness

  Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Helmut Raulien
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Cc: PEIRCE-L
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 8:15 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Aw: [biosemiotics:8892] Re: The problem with

Dear Sung, lists,
I like your diagram:
f   
   g
  Phaneron  -> Body  
-->Mind
  (Firstness)(Secondness)   
  (Thirdness)
[Object][Representamen] 
[Interpretant]
  | 
  ^ 
  | 
   |
  |__|
   h

But I am confused about the assignments of object and representamen. I see 
arguments for assigning them as you do, and I also see arguments for assigning 
them the other way around. For arguments for your version I see, that the 
phaneron in this case is environment or "Umwelt" (Uexküll), which contains the 
objects, and that the body produces reactions to these objects, which reactions 
are representamens. For arguments to do the assignment the other way I see: The 
body consists of permanent entities, and permanence is a trait of objects. From 
the phaneron there come events, that meet the senses, and are representamens. I 
am just as confused, as I have been when I first had read the Peirce quote: "A 
sign is a first", in which I have not understood until today, what Peirce 
means by "first" and "second". That was, why I later have made up my own 
interpretation, that representamens are events, and objects are entities. Is 
this wrong? If so, I will delete and rewrite my blog again.

Very best,
Helmut

"Sungchul Ji"  wrote:
 
Kristina, Stephen, Helmut, Edwina, list members,  

The heated debate between Edwina and Kristina reminds me of the Republican 
debate we saw  on TV last night.  Let us not fight against each other but focus 
on defeating the Democrats of the challenging problems in contemporary science 
and philosophy.

One possible way to resolve the perennial mind-body problem in philosophy 
may be to utilize the principles of supplementarity and complementarity 
introduced into philosophy by Niels Bohr in the first decades of the last 
century [1]: 

   
" . . . Within the scope of classical physics, all characteristic 
properties of a given object can in principle be ascertained by
a single experimental arrangement, although in practice various
arrangements are often convenient for the study of different aspects
of the phenomenon. In fact, data obtained in such a way simply
supplement each other and can be combined into a consistent picture
of the behavior of the object under investigation. In quantum
mechanics, however, evidence about atomic objects obtained by
different experimental arrangements exhibits a novel kind of

[PEIRCE-L] posts invoking Peirce on www.languagelore.net

[Michael Shapiro]

List,Gary Richmond has suggested that in future I cross-post whatever appears on my blog, www.languagelore.net, that invokes Peircean ideas, and I plan to follow Gary's suggestion. However, for those who wish to read what already exists in this vein can simply enter the word "Peirce" in the search engine at the upper right-hand of the blog's home page for a complete list by title and abbreviated contents of such posts.Comments are always welcome.M.

-
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] Aw: [biosemiotics:8892] Re: The problem with

[Helmut Raulien]

Dear Sung, lists,

I like your diagram:

                                                        f                              g

                              Phaneron  -> Body  -->    Mind
                              (Firstness)            (Secondness)             (Thirdness)
                                [Object]            [Representamen]         [Interpretant]

                                      |                                                                   ^ 
                                      |                                                                    |
                                      |__|
                                                                       h

 


But I am confused about the assignments of object and representamen. I see arguments for assigning them as you do, and I also see arguments for assigning them the other way around. For arguments for your version I see, that the phaneron in this case is environment or "Umwelt" (Uexküll), which contains the objects, and that the body produces reactions to these objects, which reactions are representamens. For arguments to do the assignment the other way I see: The body consists of permanent entities, and permanence is a trait of objects. From the phaneron there come events, that meet the senses, and are representamens. I am just as confused, as I have been when I first had read the Peirce quote: "A sign is a first", in which I have not understood until today, what Peirce means by "first" and "second". That was, why I later have made up my own interpretation, that representamens are events, and objects are entities. Is this wrong? If so, I will delete and rewrite my blog again.

 

Very best,

Helmut



"Sungchul Ji"  wrote:
 


Kristina, Stephen, Helmut, Edwina, list members, 
 

The heated debate between Edwina and Kristina reminds me of the Republican debate we saw  on TV last night.  Let us not fight against each other but focus on defeating the Democrats of the challenging problems in contemporary science and philosophy.

 

One possible way to resolve the perennial mind-body problem in philosophy may be to utilize the principles of supplementarity and complementarity introduced into philosophy by Niels Bohr in the first decades of the last century [1]: 

 

   


" . . . Within the scope of classical physics, all characteristic 
properties of a given object can in principle be ascertained by
a single experimental arrangement, although in practice various
arrangements are often convenient for the study of different aspects
of the phenomenon. In fact, data obtained in such a way simply
supplement each other and can be combined into a consistent picture
of the behavior of the object under investigation. In quantum
mechanics, however, evidence about atomic objects obtained by
different experimental arrangements exhibits a novel kind of
complementary relationship.
   Indeed, it must be recognized that such evidence which appears 

contradictory when combination into a single picture is attempted, 

exhausts all conceivable knowledge about the object. Far from 

restricting our efforts to put questions to nature in the form of 

experiments, the notion of complementarity simply characterizes 

the answers we can receive by such inquiry, whenever the interaction 

between the measuring instruments and the objects forms an integral 

part of the phenomenon. . . . (my italics) [2]"
 

In 2012 [3], I proposed a possible solution to the mind-body conundrum based on the principles of supplementarity and complementarity defined above and two more ingredients -- (i) the so-called the Structure-Information-Matter-Energy (SIME) Square of Burgin [4] (see below) and (ii) the modeling relation of Rosen [5].  First, SIME Square:

 

 

". . .  information is not of the same kind as knowledge and data, which are structures.  
Actually, if we take that matter is the name for all substances as opposed to energy 

and the vacuum, we have  the relation that is represented by the following diagram called
the Structure-Information-Matter-Energy (SIME) Square:

 

 

                                                       similar

                                       Energy       ~           Information
                                            ^                                   ^
                                            |                                    |
                           contains    |                                    |  contains
                                            |                                    |
                                            |                                    |
                                       Matter           ~          Structures (also called Knowledge [4, p. 116])

 

          Figure 1.  The Structure-Information-Matter-Energy (SIME) Square.  Reproduced from [3].

 

 

I presented a 

[PEIRCE-L] The First Law of Quantitative Semiotics: Information = Changes in Shannon Entropy, or I = dH

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi,

(*1*) I think semiotics can be divided into two branches --the *qualitative*
 and *quantitative  *semiotics, i.e., the study of *qualitative signs (*e.g.,
words) and *quantitative signs *(e.g., numbers), respectively. Examples of
the former would include classical philosophy, linguistics, literature,
arts, molecular biology, and those of the latter include *number-based
*sciences
and engineering such as physics, chemistry, quantitative biology, computer
science and engineering, and mathematics.

(*2*) Most of the discussions in the semiotics literature, including those
seen on these lists, are almost exclusively concerned with what I would
define as *qualitative semiotics, *since rarely do *numbers *and
associated *mathematical
equations *occur in them.

(*3*) Two of the most important 'quantitative signs' (i.e., the signs that
can be quantified) are *H* and *I*, the former standing for the well
known *Shannon
entropy* and the latter *Shannon information. *  Because both of these
signs are often defined by the same mathematical equation known as the *Shannon
formula*, (091915-1), *H* and *I *are viewed as synonymous, which has
caused great confusions in the field of informatics (the scientific study
of information):

Sum(from i = 1 to i = n) pi log pi
  (091915-1)

where pi is the probability of the i^th event (or symbol in a message)
occurring, n is the number of possible events (or symbols) under
consideration, and log is the binary logarithm, i.e., y = log x means that
x = 2^y, or that y is the exponent to the base 2  leading to x.

(*4*) Strictly speaking, Eq. (091915-1) applies to H, and not to I:


 H =  Sum(from i = 1 to i = n) pi log pi
  (091915-2)


(*5*) In contrast, the Shannon information I involves the difference
between two H values::

I  = H (final) - H(initial) = Sum(from i=1
to i=n) dPi log dPi  (091915-3)

where H(final) and H(initial) are the Shannon entropy of the semiotic
system under consideration in the final state (i.e, after receiving I) and
in the initial state (i.e., before receiving I), respectively, and dpi is
the change in the probability of the i^th event (or symbol) occurring that
is induced by receiving I, or the I-induced changes in the probability of
the i^th event (or symbol).

(*6*)  Since dH = H(final) - H(initial) in Eq. (091915-3) can be  positive,
zero, or negative, the information (or organization) of the system under
consideration can be increased, unchanged or decreased when it receives
information.  In other words, Eq. (091915-3) states that information I is
equal to the change in the Shannon entropy induced by the reception of I:

 I = dH

 (091915-4)

where d indicates "change in".  I suggest that Eq. (091915-4) be referred
to as the *First Law of Quantitative Semiotics *(FLQS), because violating
it inevitably leads to a paradox as explained in (*7*).

(*7*)  As indicated in (*3*), many investigators equate I and H:

   I = H

(091915-5)

Eq. (091915-5) is invalid because H *maximizes* and I *minimizes* when the
system under consideration becomes completely disordered or randomized,
thus violating the equality sign. Formally speaking, Eq. (091915-5) is
invalid because it conflates H (absolute value, either positive or
negative) and dH (a difference).

(*8*)  A similar error appears to have been committed by Schroedinger when
he conflated - S and dS and claimed that, since thermodynamic entropy, S,
represents disorder, its negative counterpart, i.e., -S, must represent
order [1]:

 S = disorder   (correct)
  (091915-6)

   - S = order   (wrong)
   (091915-7)

   dS = S(final) - S(initial) = order if <
0 & disorder if > 0(correct)  (091915-8)

Eq. (091915-7) is wrong because there cannot be any "negative entropy"
according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics [1].

(*9*) If FLQS given in Eq. (091915-4) is right, information I can be
positive (information gained or uncertainty reduced), zero (no changes in
information or uncertainty) or negative (information lost or uncertainty
increased), whereas Shannon entropy H is always positive.

Any questions or comments would be welcome.

Sung

-
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


References:
   [1] Ji, S. (2012). The Third Law of Thermodynamics and “Schroedinger’s
Paradox”