[PEIRCE-L] semiotic theory applied to a real universe

[Stephen Jarosek]

List, after having been busy with some projects, one of them is finally 
accessible online:

https://www.amazon.com/Tyrants-Matriarchy-Feminism-Patriarchal-Oppression-ebook/dp/B09769C76D

 

This ebook is a very practical application of biosemiotics in synthesis with 
Peircean semiotics. Neural plasticity, mind-body problem, the categories 
(motivation, association, habituation) are all in it. However, because it is 
directed principally at a general (lay) audience, I try to steer away from deep 
theory. Nonetheless, you can rest assured that its foundation is pure semiotic.

 

While the above ebook is an application of semiotic thinking to gender 
politics, ultimately the same "practical interpretative" approach can be 
extended to most any other topic, whether it be economics, or pyschology, or 
business management, or alien life, or religion, etc, etc. For example, boring, 
dry economic theory cannot be understood in the absence of how humans attribute 
meaning (motivate, associate, habituate) to the choices that they make… 
economies are semiotic systems. As another example, the inevitability of life 
on other CHNOPS* planets, within habitable zones and conditions, is 
self-evident when we factor in our semiotic paradigm. And so on.

 

Regards

Stephen Jarosek

 

*CHNOPS - the elements essential to life are strewn throughout the cosmos

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 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.

[PEIRCE-L] Imitation, the neglected axiom

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

 

While we are in the spirit of announcing published articles, my own article
was also published last week, and is available for download at:

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/chk/2020/0027/0003/art
3

 

Some of us might remember my earlier posts, in this forum, on the topic.
Well, I decided to do something about it, and this article is the result.
Imitation is important because it relates to pragmatism, and how a living
entity defines the things that matter.

 

ABSTRACT

 

The concept of imitation has been around for a very long time, and many
conversations have been had about it, from Plato and Aristotle to Piaget and
Freud. Yet despite this pervasive acknowledgement of its relevance in areas
as diverse as memetics, culture, child development and language, there
exists little appreciation of its relevance as a fundamental principle in
the semiotic and life sciences. Reframing imitation in the context of
knowing how to be, within the framework of semiotic theory, can change this,
thus providing an interpretation of paradigmatic significance. However,
given the difficulty of establishing imitation as a fundamental principle
after all these centuries since Plato, I turn the question around and
approach it from a different angle. If imitation is to be incorporated into
semiotic theory and the Peircean categories as axiomatic, then what
pathologies manifest when imitation is disabled or compromised? I begin by
reviewing the reasons for regarding imitation as a fundamental principle. I
then review the evidence with respect to autism and schizophrenia as
imitation deficit. I am thus able to consolidate my position that imitation
and knowing how to be are integral to agency and pragmatism (semiotic
theory), and should be embraced within an axiomatic framework for the
semiotic and life sciences.

 

Stephen Jarosek

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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] imitation as fundamental principle even for matter

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

Some of us might recall my previous posts last year on the relationship
between imitation and pragmatism. I have further evidence in support of my
thesis regarding imitation as a fundamental principle that extends also to
the level of matter (atoms and molecules). Two recent references that would
seem to point in this direction:

1) My "DNA entanglement" thesis:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614688/a-natural-biomolecule-has-been-mea
sured-acting-in-a-quantum-wave-for-the-first-time/

2) My "identicality" thesis:
https://scitechdaily.com/quantum-entanglement-of-independent-particles-witho
ut-any-contact-ever/

I discuss DNA entanglement and identicality in my article:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
3
(link seems to be having problems. If interested, send me an email privately
and I'll forward a file attachment)

Entanglement is how atoms and molecules "imitate" one another, to know how
to behave. Rupert Sheldrake uses the term "morphic resonance", and I think
that he and I are on the same page. The life-essential properties of matter
(H,N,C,O, etc), distributed throughout the cosmos, would not be possible
without entanglement, I suggest. This is a living universe.

Entanglement is semiosis (assimitation) at the level of matter, and it is
how matter "knows" its properties.

Entanglement-as-assimitation is integral to solving the entropy problem.

Regards
Stephen Jarosek


FURTHER NOTES:

DEFINITION: Assimitation is my definition of imitation that factors in
semiosis and pragmatism. "Ass" relates to assume... an entity assumes what
reality is, and then "imitates" what it assumes to be real. We just assume
what is real and accept "reality's" terms and this is why we are unaware
that we are actually assuming and imitating. In the course of defining the
things that matter (pragmatism), assimitation is about as safe and reliable
a method of surviving as an entity can hope for.

IDENTICALITY: This is an important concept that we've ignored because the
reductionist paradigm has presumed that all the complex elements were
belched out from the furnace of the Big Bang, and then done with. But if, as
Peirce describes, matter is "mind hidebound with habit", then it is clumsy
to conclude the atoms and molecules of the universe to be "done with".
There's something else going on.


-
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] Heidegger's Dasein as "knowing how to be" (pragmatism)

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

Is anyone here conversant with the work of Martin Heidegger?

I'm researching Heidegger's Dasein in the context of "knowing how to be". My
thesis is that Dasein IS "knowing how to be". This has implications for
imitation-as-pragmatism, which relates directly to Peirce's pragmatism, and
how we define the things that matter.

In Being and Time, Heidegger comes excruciatingly close to my
interpretation, albeit rather verbosely, but he never quite nails it, at
least in succinct terms. But I'm not a Heidegger scholar at all, and so I
depend on search terms, in the pdf version of his book, like "Being in the
world" or "knowing" or "modes of being", to try to zero in on it... so far
with very limited success. Is anyone here sufficiently conversant with
Heidegger to point me in the right direction? Any tips would be appreciated.

I think that a synthesis of Heidegger with Peirce can yield fresh insights.

Regards,
sj


-
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: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisite

[Stephen Jarosek]

Mary, list

I am of the view that there is no such thing as patriarchal culture. The role 
of Culture is to process the relationship between the known and the unknown. 
Hence all cultures are comprised of the duality that is 
matriarchal-patriarchal. [This relates to my interest in the concept of 
"knowing how to be" (Dasein)].

The focus of the matriarchal role is the cultural known, and emphasis is on 
maintaining traditions, security, cohesion. It is the mother that introduces 
the child to the cultural known. It is from the mother that the child first 
learns to define the things that matter (pragmatism). The matriarchal role 
resists entropy.

The focus of the patriarchal role is the cultural unknown, and emphasis is on 
evolution, change, direction. It is the father that teaches the child about 
transcendence (or otherwise) beyond the cultural known. The patriarchal role 
confronts entropy, and tests the limits of the cultural known.

Another way of stating all of this. At the gates to the cultural known stands 
the mother. At the gates to the unknown beyond culture stands the father. THIS 
is why the spiritual role, throughout all of history's sustainable religions, 
has always been governed by the patriarchal dimension, and why the nurturing 
role, throughout all cultures, has been governed by the matriarchal dimension.

The tragedy of feminism is its trivialization of the all-important matriarchal 
dimension. Inequality is that which forces people into roles that they are not 
naturally predisposed to playing out. Only equal opportunity is fair and just. 
Equal outcome, by contrast, is bias. The inequality that today most urgently 
needs to be addressed is the forced inequality of equal outcome.

Regards
sj


From: Mary Libertin [mailto:mary.liber...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:52 AM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: Gary Richmond; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] 
Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisite

Edwina, Gary R, Gene, list,

The usage of the term *patriarchy* in our recent posts fascinates me. Gene and 
I state the fact that we live in a patriarchy. Saying that does not elevate us 
any more than do the excellent arguments of Edwina and Richard elevate 
themselves. 

Tone is a Peircean concept and one which could be well used. I don’t know how 
to do so effectively, (insert smiley face ) I would have hoped the tone in my 
comments early on would have led others to accept/be more aware of my feelings 
about my being more comfortable as a Peircean than a theological  trinitarian. 
I am working within the system to change it, as Gary eloquently and hopefully 
leads by example. My wife and I will be introduced as new 
members of our local episcopal church on Sunday. We are not only working within 
religion but also within patriarchy. 

I am cavalier with the word *patriarchy*, perhaps, but inequality needs to be 
addressed. Isn’t that either a Christian and/or a Peircean? I feel so much more 
hopeful and grounded because of your comments. I’ll not post again on this 
topic.

Cheers, Mary Libertin



Thanks for the
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:16 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Gary R, Gene, Mary, list
I don't think that the term 'patriarchy' merits the 'we are now superior to 
this idea' sneers and condescension one sometimes associates with the term. I 
think one should look at the system-of-patriarchy as a rational means of 
organizing a population of a particular size and a particular economic mode.
That is - hunting and gathering economies are SMALL - around 30 people in a 
band. Their economic mode is just that: hunting 'what is there' and gathering 
'what is there'. These people do not own the land or its goods. When they've 
'eaten their way out of a terrain', they must migrate. The metaphysical or 
religious ideology is animism - with multiple spirits and multiple gods. And, 
neither patriarch or matriarchy - because, again, this economic mode is not 
based on land or goods ownership or production. And it can only support SMALL 
populations. 
Horticulture and pastoral nomadism - emerges in biomes where the land enables 
SOME agriculture and SOME small scale ownership of animals. The populations 
remain small but are larger than the H - possibly in the hundreds and 
thousands. Patriarchy is found among pastoral nomadism. Why? Because the 
economy is based around the work-of-the-men. 
And that's the key. Any society must socially and politically privilege 
whichever gender or group provides the economic infrastructure of the group. 
So- a pastoral nomadic economy, which requires the men to herd and control the 
animals - will be patriarchal. It will also be patrilineal - for the, eg, 
cattle, must be passed on to the next generation 'as a whole', not split up 
into one cow here and one cow there. So, the eldest son will inherit the whole 
herd.
Religious? Multiple gods. Polytheism. 
The next larger societal mode will be settled 

RE: Re: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

[Stephen Jarosek]

EDWINA >"I'm only interested in a merit-based authority."

As it should be. This is equal opportunity. Equal outcome, on the other hand, 
is bias. Equal outcome requires equal opportunity to be denied. 

Equal outcome, for example, allocates victim credits to people based on skin 
color or racial background and/or gender, as what is happening in many 
university-admissions throughout the anglosphere, whilst weighting admissions 
against those who are considered more "gifted" in some way.

Regards
sj


From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:18 AM
To: Peirce-L; Gary Richmond
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, 
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

Gary R, list
First - enjoy your trip to Italy.
And second, as a woman - I am utterly indifferent to whether or not 'the ruler' 
is male or female. I'm not for 'gender equality' in committees  - or any type 
of visible 'equality' [eg, racial, religious, ethnic]. I'm only interested in a 
merit-based authority. I don't think women have any superior or inferior 
understanding to men and I don't see why some people 'insist' that women MUST 
be on such and such a committee. 
So- I wouldn't want a 'stable female-dominated power structure' - because I 
don't want power decided by gender, race, religion, ethnicity etc - but only by 
merit. And that's hard to do, since we seem to focus only on these more visible 
attributes as if they were also linked to mind/intellect/capacity to think.
Again - the power structure of societies has always been based on the economic 
mode - and which gender or clan or family provided the wealth-producing 
methods. We are now in an economic mode where the physical strength of the male 
isn't a necessary component of the economic mode - and so- we move into gender 
'equality'.
 But even so, the facts of biology [pregnancy, child rearing etc] affect the 
work -place. I think it's strange that as we moved into gender equality in the 
work place, the family structure weakened - with children put in the care of 
nurseries and day care - rather as the aristocrats did in the 19th century.
Edwina

 

On Thu 30/05/19 9:00 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
Edwina, List,

Just a word for now since, as I just wrote to Jon, I've run out of time before 
I set off for my trip abroad. You wrote: 

ET: I don't think that the term 'patriarchy' merits the 'we are now superior to 
this idea' sneers and condescension one sometimes associates with the term. I 
think one should look at the system-of-patriarchy as a rational means of 
organizing a population of a particular size and a particular economic mode.

I don't think the issue here is the origins of patriarchy, which I think you've 
nicely outlined in the remainder of your post. Rather, the concern is what 
patriarchy has wrought in our times. I obviously can't get into this now, but 
will offer for now this quote from a widely cited article on the topic. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/america-is-still-a-patriarchy/265428/


In fact—my interpretation of the facts—the United States, like every society in 
the world, remains a patriarchy: they are ruled by men. That is not just 
because every country (except Rwanda) has a majority-male national parliament, 
and it is despite the  handful of countries with women heads of state. It is a 
systemic characteristic that combines dynamics at the level of the family, the 
economy, the culture and the political arena.
Top  political and economic leaders are the low-hanging fruit of patriarchy 
statistics. But they probably are in the end the most important—the telling 
pattern is that the higher you look, the maler it gets. If a society really had 
a stable, female-dominated power structure for an extended period of time even 
I would eventually question whether it was really still a patriarchy.

Best,

Gary

Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York



On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:16 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Gary R, Gene, Mary, list
I don't think that the term 'patriarchy' merits the 'we are now superior to 
this idea' sneers and condescension one sometimes associates with the term. I 
think one should look at the system-of-patriarchy as a rational means of 
organizing a population of a particular size and a particular economic mode.
That is - hunting and gathering economies are SMALL - around 30 people in a 
band. Their economic mode is just that: hunting 'what is there' and gathering 
'what is there'. These people do not own the land or its goods. When they've 
'eaten their way out of a terrain', they must migrate. The metaphysical or 
religious ideology is animism - with multiple spirits and multiple gods. And, 
neither patriarch or matriarchy - because, again, this economic mode is not 
based on land or goods ownership or production. And it can only support SMALL 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina, THIS is about as close as a living organism gets to "blind mechanical 
copying":
https://youtu.be/jdzi8JFx0ys

But even here, I'm not sure that it's really all that blind. What is it about a 
child's laughter that inspired this critter to imitate? I wonder if it detects 
something joyful, something worth imitating? There was that time that I 
encountered an adult magpie and its distressed child in our back yard, and 
tossed bits of salami at the adult, which promptly picked up each piece and 
offered it to the squawking youngster. After having enjoyed their fill, the 
adult hopped down to me only a few feet from where I was standing, and sang to 
me. It was then that I realized the style of singing... the "language" as it 
were... expressing joy or gratitude. It's tempting for us rationalists to 
dismiss birdsong as arbitrary noise-making, but there is, in fact, considerable 
meaning being expressed. 

Not sure what to make of parrots that often so perfectly imitate human speech 
though... of course they don't understand our spoken words, but... maybe 
sometimes they might connect the dots, at a very basic level, through associate 
learning (2ns)?

sj



From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 2:10 PM
To: 'Peirce-L'; Auke van Breemen
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

Auke- I wasn't thinking of either; I was referring to Stephen's phrase of 
'blind mechanical copying'...which to me, simply means mimesis without 
mediative thought or input. Even an interaction in 2ns has some 'input' via the 
direct physical contact. So a pantogram would use 2ns in its interaction.
The only point I was trying to make is that the relation has no capacity to NOT 
carry out mimesis. Rather like a plague of insects!
Edwina



 

On Mon 25/02/19 5:14 AM , "Auke van Breemen" a.bree...@chello.nl sent:
Edwina,
 
Edwina,
 
I was wondering what meaning you attach to ‘blind copting’.
 
Are you thinking about pantographs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantograph) 
or mechanical key reproducers like: 
https://www.grainger.com/product/KABA-ILCO-Key-Duplicator-52HN52
 
Best,
 
Auke
 
 
Van: Edwina Taborsky 
Verzonden: zondag 24 februari 2019 14:53
Aan: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Helmut Raulien' ; Stephen Jarosek 
CC: 'Auke van Breemen' ; 'Peirce-L' 
Onderwerp: Re: RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution 
to entropy problem
 
That's why Peirce has the multiple types of categories. 
Blind copying is both 1-1 and 3-1. Mindful of a common identity involves both 
2ns and 3ns.
Edwina

 

On Sun 24/02/19 2:57 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
List

The more I think about it, the more I think we really need a new term to 
distinguish from blind, mechanical imitation/mimesis. One that incorporates 
pragmatism, knowing how to be (Dasein) and the assimilation of values into a 
logically consistent whole. I place my vote on the word assimitation.

sj
 
From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au ] 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:37 AM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Helmut Raulien'
Cc: 'Auke van Breemen'; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to 
entropy problem
 
I think we might be committing something of a category error here with regards 
to imitation and the categories. Both imitation and entropy relate to and 
depend on all three categories. But imitation and entropy have to do with 
integration and disintegration, respectively, and not specifically with the 
categories. Perhaps it might pay to return to the earlier reframing that I 
suggested, to synthesize the word imitation with assuming, to yield 
assimitation. We need to do this because imitation as I use it is not blind, 
dumb mechanical imitation, but semiotically informed pragmatism… the knowing 
how to be… the having to decide what values (signs) matter… the distinction 
between the known and the unknown.

The assuming prefix implies continuity and habituation. In order to be 
motivated to imitate, you need to assume what’s real and internalize it 
(firstness), before you can imitate and habituate the real (thirdness). This is 
Pragmatism 1:001. The assuming part is important, and relates to what Buddhism 
refers as “seeing the world from the observer’s level”. The reason that I don’t 
use the word assimitation in these forums is because it’s not a word that 
you’ll find in the dictionary. But it is definitely the nuance that I imply… 
when I use the word imitation I mean assimitation. So there’s important 
elements of firstness and thirdness right there.

But there is another important aspect, too. To achieve continuity across time, 
all participants in any colony, be it a culture of humans or a colony of cells 
or a swarm of insects, all participants need to come to a mutual agreement on 
what matters, so that each can assign themselves to their respective divisions 

RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

[Stephen Jarosek]

List

The more I think about it, the more I think we really need a new term to 
distinguish from blind, mechanical imitation/mimesis. One that incorporates 
pragmatism, knowing how to be (Dasein) and the assimilation of values into a 
logically consistent whole. I place my vote on the word assimitation.

sj

 

From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:37 AM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Helmut Raulien'
Cc: 'Auke van Breemen'; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to 
entropy problem

 

I think we might be committing something of a category error here with regards 
to imitation and the categories. Both imitation and entropy relate to and 
depend on all three categories. But imitation and entropy have to do with 
integration and disintegration, respectively, and not specifically with the 
categories. Perhaps it might pay to return to the earlier reframing that I 
suggested, to synthesize the word imitation with assuming, to yield 
assimitation. We need to do this because imitation as I use it is not blind, 
dumb mechanical imitation, but semiotically informed pragmatism… the knowing 
how to be… the having to decide what values (signs) matter… the distinction 
between the known and the unknown.

The assuming prefix implies continuity and habituation. In order to be 
motivated to imitate, you need to assume what’s real and internalize it 
(firstness), before you can imitate and habituate the real (thirdness). This is 
Pragmatism 1:001. The assuming part is important, and relates to what Buddhism 
refers as “seeing the world from the observer’s level”. The reason that I don’t 
use the word assimitation in these forums is because it’s not a word that 
you’ll find in the dictionary. But it is definitely the nuance that I imply… 
when I use the word imitation I mean assimitation. So there’s important 
elements of firstness and thirdness right there.

But there is another important aspect, too. To achieve continuity across time, 
all participants in any colony, be it a culture of humans or a colony of cells 
or a swarm of insects, all participants need to come to a mutual agreement on 
what matters, so that each can assign themselves to their respective divisions 
of labor. Without that mutual agreement, arrived at by assimitation, there 
would only be chaos.

The categories are still critically important, but assimitation and entropy 
emphasize different dynamics… unity versus disintegration. The categories are 
the filter that determines the signs that mind-bodies are motivated to 
assimitate. For example, humans with female mind-bodies assimitate women, 
humans with male mind-bodies assimitate men. Assimitation is integral to 
survival. But assimitation taken to extremes, motivated by fear, self-interest 
and the need to belong, however, is something very different. We recognize it 
in the word groupthink. Groupthink is the annihilator of diversity, not 
assimitation.

The matter of unity versus disintegration is important because it relates to 
the notion of self. To quote Peirce, “The man is the thought.” Similarly, I 
suggest that “The culture is the thought.” Neurons in a brain are to 
personality what people in a city are to culture. This would not be possible 
without assimitation.

So to summarize… all three categories are relevant to both assimitation and 
entropy. Assimitation incorporates all three categories without favor in the 
interest of unity… the motivations that collective values harness (firstness), 
the association of shared values to form a logical unity (secondness), and the 
habituation of assumptions (thirdness). Entropy as the tendency to disorder 
(reduction of assimitation) impacts on all three categories to dissemble unity… 
differentiated motivations, disintegration of shared values, and the 
atomization of assumptions. In other words, assimitation and entropy, while 
incorporating the categories, actually relate to something quite distinct to 
the categories… that is, unity vs disintegration.

Apologies if this has turned out more long-winded than expected. These are 
important issues that need to be explored. Thank you Edwina and Helmut for 
raising them.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:06 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; Helmut Raulien
Cc: 'Auke van Breemen'; 'Peirce-L'; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to 
entropy problem

 

Helmut - my point about the importance of 3ns in reducing entropy had nothing 
to do, I think [I may be wrong] with Autism in any of its forms [including 
Asperger's].

I can see, however, that 1sn, in the form of iconicity, reduces 'noise' [aka 
entropy] in communicative interactions - and perhaps those people with Autism 
are more sensitive to a wider spectrum of external data and can't filter it 
easily to isolate and demote the 'noise'. 

My point is only

RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

[Stephen Jarosek]

I think we might be committing something of a category error here with regards 
to imitation and the categories. Both imitation and entropy relate to and 
depend on all three categories. But imitation and entropy have to do with 
integration and disintegration, respectively, and not specifically with the 
categories. Perhaps it might pay to return to the earlier reframing that I 
suggested, to synthesize the word imitation with assuming, to yield 
assimitation. We need to do this because imitation as I use it is not blind, 
dumb mechanical imitation, but semiotically informed pragmatism… the knowing 
how to be… the having to decide what values (signs) matter… the distinction 
between the known and the unknown.

The assuming prefix implies continuity and habituation. In order to be 
motivated to imitate, you need to assume what’s real and internalize it 
(firstness), before you can imitate and habituate the real (thirdness). This is 
Pragmatism 1:001. The assuming part is important, and relates to what Buddhism 
refers as “seeing the world from the observer’s level”. The reason that I don’t 
use the word assimitation in these forums is because it’s not a word that 
you’ll find in the dictionary. But it is definitely the nuance that I imply… 
when I use the word imitation I mean assimitation. So there’s important 
elements of firstness and thirdness right there.

But there is another important aspect, too. To achieve continuity across time, 
all participants in any colony, be it a culture of humans or a colony of cells 
or a swarm of insects, all participants need to come to a mutual agreement on 
what matters, so that each can assign themselves to their respective divisions 
of labor. Without that mutual agreement, arrived at by assimitation, there 
would only be chaos.

The categories are still critically important, but assimitation and entropy 
emphasize different dynamics… unity versus disintegration. The categories are 
the filter that determines the signs that mind-bodies are motivated to 
assimitate. For example, humans with female mind-bodies assimitate women, 
humans with male mind-bodies assimitate men. Assimitation is integral to 
survival. But assimitation taken to extremes, motivated by fear, self-interest 
and the need to belong, however, is something very different. We recognize it 
in the word groupthink. Groupthink is the annihilator of diversity, not 
assimitation.

The matter of unity versus disintegration is important because it relates to 
the notion of self. To quote Peirce, “The man is the thought.” Similarly, I 
suggest that “The culture is the thought.” Neurons in a brain are to 
personality what people in a city are to culture. This would not be possible 
without assimitation.

So to summarize… all three categories are relevant to both assimitation and 
entropy. Assimitation incorporates all three categories without favor in the 
interest of unity… the motivations that collective values harness (firstness), 
the association of shared values to form a logical unity (secondness), and the 
habituation of assumptions (thirdness). Entropy as the tendency to disorder 
(reduction of assimitation) impacts on all three categories to dissemble unity… 
differentiated motivations, disintegration of shared values, and the 
atomization of assumptions. In other words, assimitation and entropy, while 
incorporating the categories, actually relate to something quite distinct to 
the categories… that is, unity vs disintegration.

Apologies if this has turned out more long-winded than expected. These are 
important issues that need to be explored. Thank you Edwina and Helmut for 
raising them.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:06 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; Helmut Raulien
Cc: 'Auke van Breemen'; 'Peirce-L'; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to 
entropy problem

 

Helmut - my point about the importance of 3ns in reducing entropy had nothing 
to do, I think [I may be wrong] with Autism in any of its forms [including 
Asperger's].

I can see, however, that 1sn, in the form of iconicity, reduces 'noise' [aka 
entropy] in communicative interactions - and perhaps those people with Autism 
are more sensitive to a wider spectrum of external data and can't filter it 
easily to isolate and demote the 'noise'. 

My point is only that both 1ns and 3ns have their roles, different roles, in 
reducing noise/entropy and strengthening information.

Edwina

 

On Thu 21/02/19 11:44 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Edwina, list,

 

To what you wrote (and with which I agree) I want to add in my own words:

Non-autists, in conversations, do a lot of imitation: Affirmation of relations, 
corrobating what others have said, small-talk, and so on, all that to stabilize 
the discourse setting, to team-build, maintain a comfortable situation.

Autists (Aspergers) don´t do that,

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

[Stephen Jarosek]

 Peirce read and thought more about Aristotle than about any other man, 
the Poetry, he knew nothing about.  
That is, Peirce was not Greek-minded.
 
He then turns to a discussion of representation or imitation (μίμησις).
 
Tragedy is, then, a representation of an action that is heroic and complete and 
of a certain magnitude.. And since tragedy represents action and is acted by 
living persons, who must of necessity have certain qualities of character and 
thought— for it is these which determine the quality of an action; 
indeed thought and character are the natural causes of any action and it is in 
virtue of these that all men succeed or fail— 
it follows then that it is the plot which represents the action.
 
By "plot" I mean here the arrangement of the incidents: "character" is that 
which determines the quality of the agents, and "thought" appears wherever in 
the dialogue they put forward an argument or deliver an opinion.
(~1450a, Poetics)
 
No doubt, Pragmaticism makes thought ultimately apply to action exclusively - 
to conceived action.
 
For instance, we all know what he meant by conceived action, here.
 
With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:24 AM Auke van Breemen  wrote:
Stephen, list,
 
An interesting question. And an even more interesting approach: But this time, 
applying reverse logic, I asked myself… what are the illnesses that manifest 
because of a patient’s failure to imitate properly? I followed a similar 
strategy and found it most profitable for getting at the finer details of the 
semiotic framework to ask how a-typical behavior and mistakes can be understood 
semiotically.
 
The text 
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf 
contains theoretical considerations based on research I did amongst children 
that fall out of the schoolsystem in the Netherlands. Since I started with 
stories from parents, in the majority of cases the blame was put on schools not 
being able to deal with complexities of the child, not on children showing some 
sort of criminal behavior.
 
Two labels were used most for the children that surfaced in the research: 
autism and highly gifted. With an autism - highly gifted ratio higher then 5 - 
1. But one has to take into account that the IQ tests of the majority of autism 
pupils were above average, most of the time with a score on some sub-tests 
considerably higher, then on some other. And that some parents that called 
their children highly gifted based themselves on the average result of the wisc 
test solely. Disregarding enormous discrepancies on sub-tests (on a scale 
length of 19 two lowest score of 5 and two highest of 18, the remainder, if I 
remember correctly above 12) and without recognition of the tri-partite demand 
for highly gifted performance: inborn qualities, character of the child and 
environment.
 
With autism the situation is even more complex regarding the feats that show 
themselves in different cases. Compare the child that does hardly communicate 
with the Asperger diagnosed student that follows multiple studies at the same 
time with good learning results or for that matter with the 18 years old who 
socially communicates on a level comparable in some respects to a 5 years old, 
but that at the same time mastered reading by himself before being 4 years old. 
 
The above is meant to underscore that I don’t profess to provide an answer, but 
only raise an alternative explanation.
 
So, if it is a failure in the ability to mimic (icon based), it is a failure in 
some not all domains. This points in the direction of a background problem with 
the direction of attention (index based). I regard it feasible that autism 
semiotically can be understood by recognizing that a strong reliance on 
legisigns (types) and their habitually associated symbols prevent exploration 
of the rhematic (combinatoric) possibilities of new input signs. The 
adaptability to circumstances is seriously hindered in this way. And indeed, as 
you state, it appears as an inability  to mimic social wished behavior. Until, 
that is, one succeeds in getting attention for the social problems, in that 
case a social scientist may be the result.
 
Best,
 
Auke van Breemen
 
 
 
 
Van: Stephen Jarosek  
Verzonden: woensdag 20 februari 2019 7:58
Aan: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Onderwerp: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem
 
Dear Members,

[This post carries on from our December thread “Systems theory, DNA 
entanglement, agents and semiosis”]

I've been trying to put an article together, on imitation, for Gatherings in 
Biosemiotics 2019 in Moscow. But I don’t think I can put together anything of 
substance, in a format that would interest the gathering. Nonetheless, I remain 
of the opinion that imitation as a fundamental principle would definitely have 
interested Peirce, especially from the perspective of pragmatism. Perhaps 
somethi

[PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

[Stephen Jarosek]

Dear Members,

[This post carries on from our December thread “Systems theory, DNA
entanglement, agents and semiosis”]

I've been trying to put an article together, on imitation, for Gatherings in
Biosemiotics 2019 in Moscow. But I don’t think I can put together anything
of substance, in a format that would interest the gathering. Nonetheless, I
remain of the opinion that imitation as a fundamental principle would
definitely have interested Peirce, especially from the perspective of
pragmatism. Perhaps something to explore at the Gathering?

Google brings up a great many references to imitation, but nothing on
imitation as a fundamental principle. But this time, applying reverse logic,
I asked myself… what are the illnesses that manifest because of a patient’s
failure to imitate properly? I’ve struck pay-dirt, particularly with
reference to autism. Is autism a disease directly attributable to imitation
deficit? Here are some links:

An examination of the imitation deficit in autism:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-02466-009

The Social Role of Imitation in Autism:

https://depts.washington.edu/isei/iyc/21.2_Ingersoll.pdf

Does Impaired Social Motivation Drive Imitation Deficits in Children with
Autism Spectrum Disorder?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-015-0054-9

A great many references exist on imitation generally, but nothing on
imitation as a principle... for example:
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/personality-traits-contagious-among-child
ren/

Here is a nice overview of imitation from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation


SUMMARY OF SOME CORE ISSUES RELATING TO IMITATION

Autism is not a faulty-wiring/dysfunctional genes problem. AUTISM IS AN
IMITATION-PRAGMATISM PROBLEM. It is not a disease, sickness or pathology in
the usual sense of the term, because it is a normal (if dysfunctional)
product of motivation, association and habituation (Peircean categories).

All these complex theories about psychology, schizophrenia and inheritance
of behavioral traits. What if we were wrong? What if it all amounts to
nothing other than imitation? Behavior inherited across generations not
through genes, but through… imitation.

Kalevi Kull has published some articles recently on the relationship between
semiosis and choice (e.g., Choosing and learning: Semiosis means choice).
Imitation is one of the ways that organisms make choices. People choose from
culture and culture is imitation.

Many references can be found on imitation, from Plato and Aristotle to
Piaget and Freud. But never as a fundamental principle. What are we missing?


Imitation (assimitation – defined below) should be explored as a fundamental
principle with respect to pragmatism and knowing how to be. Imitation is
integral to solving the entropy problem. Hebb’s rule suggests that neurons
imitate… “neurons that fire together wire together”. Heck, even atoms and
molecules imitate… we call it entanglement. If Peirce were alive today, he’d
eat this stuff up.

Imitation (assimitation) is an important topic not just from the perspective
of psychological health, but also from the perspective of politics, personal
well-being and the company we keep. Is it sensible for the European Union to
maintain an open borders policy, with an immigration policy that ignores the
implications of imitation and cultural identity?

Peirce’s categories are hugely important, but imitation is the overlay that
makes cultural complexity possible. Without imitation as a primal driver,
human culture as we know it, would be non-existent. Imitation is not an
incidental “add-on”. It is a primal foundation and first-cause. It is the
most important solution to the entropy problem, because without imitation,
there would be no colonies or culture. 

Peirce’s categories are the filter through which organisms decide what to
imitate. Humans with female mind-bodies will imitate women, not men. Humans
with male mind-bodies will imitate men, not women. Wolves in the wild will
imitate wolves. Dogs in cities will imitate humans (as far as their canine
mind-bodies predispose them to). Feral infants raised by wolves will imitate
wolves (as far as their human mind-bodies predispose them to). And so on and
on and on.

Imitation is so very important that even Neo-Darwinians have tried to
incorporate it into their framework. I refer to Richard Dawkins and his
memetic theory.

Could imitation be so important, that this is the reason why we don’t
recognize it? Something so pervasive, so everywhere. Heck, we can’t keep
imitation out of every single word that carries our accent. Asking a human
to tell us about imitation is like asking a fish to tell us about water. We
have no reference to what it would be like to live without imitation. We
just assume things, without realizing that the assuming is, at its core, a
product of imitation.

Regards,
Stephen Jarosek

 

 

From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2018 12:14 PM

RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina, Helmut

Edwina’s succinct summary nicely sums up along the lines of what I was
trying to say. But I’d like to emphasize a further perspective. Rather than
thinking of groupthink as a phenomenon separate and distinct from culture,
think of it as one end of a continuum. Groupthink is motivated primarily by
self-interest and self-preservation. As such, its emphasis tends to personal
needs and bodily predispositions. That is, groupthink tends to the animal in
us. We recognize groupthink in other species, such as when I saw a flock of
crows attack another crow that was singled out for some reason. We see rabid
groupthink in meerkats… hugging one another in a tight, collective ball of
adoring togetherness, but viciously singling one individual that did not
belong for some reason (e.g., David Attenborough’s meerkat documentary
<https://youtu.be/zGR0bAeP350?t=39> ).

Some cultures tend to the groupthink end of the continuum more than others.
These are the cultures obsessed with needs. You know, materialism,
popularity, social approval, hedonism. The prioritization of these kinds of
values tends to groupthink because, in the narrative of Buddhism, they
compel the human agent to see the world from their own level, instead of the
level of wider possibility. When you need social approval, for example, you
cannot free yourself from the opinions of others. Materialism becomes
increasingly important to you less for the purpose of meeting material needs
than for the purpose of social approval… others will categorize you
according to what you own. The most reliable method of ensuring social
approval is to become like everyone else… thoughtless imitation prevails
over pragmatic assimitation (knowing how to be). In this context, hedonism
and “fun” are less liberties than they are constraints… if you’re not having
fun, then there must be something wrong with you. Contemporary examples… the
internet and social media… safe-spaces in American universities to shield
politically sensitive students from being “triggered” by contrary opinions
that upset them.

The opposite end of the continuum, by contrast, defines the idealized
purpose of religions… i.e., the spiritual. That’s the pragmatic purpose that
Christianity served in the evolution of European civilization.

sj

 

From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2018 11:10 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: Stephen Jarosek; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: Re: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems
theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

 

Edwina, list,

 

I see. I think, there are two different meanings of "culture": First,
culture as a value, in contrast to groupthink, and second, culture as a
specification that distinguishes one culture from other cultures.

The first meaning of culture includes what you wrote (firstness chance and
secondness environment interactions), and so also the courageous individual
Stephen wrote about.

The second meaning (distinction) is the negative meaning I was using, and
culture criticism is about. A culture that distinguishes itself from other
cultures isolates itself from chance and environment, and comes close to
groupthink.

So culture is seemingly paradox, but for real just non-algebraic: It is the
more valuable, the more it is not itself. It distinguishes itself the more
from other cultures, the more it does not distinguish itself at all.

So, is culture something to which neither commonsense distinction-think
applies, neither Spencer-Brown, nor Peirces existential graphs? Is there a
calculus for culture (like a set that does not include itself)?

Best, Helmut 

08. Dezember 2018 um 15:31 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky"  wrote:

 

Helmut, list

There IS a difference between 'groupthink' and 'culture' though a cursory
glance will equate them. Both refer to habits of belief and behaviour, I.e.,
3ns. The difference, I think, is that 'groupthink' has removed itself from
interaction with both 1ns and 2ns and thus, is isolated from the effects of
spontaneity/freedom and from pragmatic interaction with its local
environment. Culture ought to be, as a robust semiosic 3ns, in touch with
both the chance interactions of 1ns and the hard effects of the 2ns of its
current environment.

Edwina.

 

On Sat 08/12/18 6:05 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Stephen,

you earlier wrote, that knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a
synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that
and NPCish groupthink:

Replication of behaviour to me seems exactly what you wrote about
groupthink: A degenerated firstness, just taking observed behaviour (former
thirdness) for firstness again, without regarding other firstness
influences. Association and habituation without something new that would
mediate.

Though (for culture, knowing how to be) a habit (replication of behaviour)
may also be the habit of 

RE: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Stephen Jarosek]

HELMUT >”… knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of
assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish
groupthink”

There is a difference. My reference to assimitating is in the context of
knowing how to be, which revolves around the question “what is the correct
way to be?” Groupthink revolves around the assertion “this is the correct
way of being because my friends are doing the same thing.” Reality is very
complex, and assimitation/imitation saves us the effort and expense of
having to reinvent the wheel. Knowing how to be is the reason that role
models are so important… which, as you suggest, revolves around curiosity
and “why” questions, not the assertion of “because” answers – the latter
characterizes groupthink. A behavior becomes groupthink when it is accepted
unconditionally, without questioning it, just because everyone else is going
along with it.

Or, to put all this another way… you might choose Jesus as a role model if
you are looking for a best answer to the question being, but you might
choose a movie star for a role model if you have decided that popularity is
the answer to the questioning of being. Both relate to
assimitation/imitation and knowing how to be, but we can clearly distinguish
the latter as groupthink, with its emphasis on personal need.

Regards, sj

 

From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2018 12:06 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory,
DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

 

Stephen,

you earlier wrote, that knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a
synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that
and NPCish groupthink:

Replication of behaviour to me seems exactly what you wrote about
groupthink: A degenerated firstness, just taking observed behaviour (former
thirdness) for firstness again, without regarding other firstness
influences. Association and habituation without something new that would
mediate.

Though (for culture, knowing how to be) a habit (replication of behaviour)
may also be the habit of revising habits. But for me the root of this
critical behaviour does not originate from culture, but from precultural
references, like human nature, possible to be observed at any child from any
culture (curiosity, inquiring "why"-questions...).

Best, Helmut

  

 08. Dezember 2018 um 07:54 Uhr
"Stephen Jarosek" 
wrote:

HELMUT >”groupthink is quite identical with culture”

This is a category error. The characteristics that govern groupthink need to
be distinguished from the principles that govern culture. Culture relates to
pragmatism, knowing how to be, Heideggers Dasein. Groupthink describes
something different. Some cultures are more predisposed to groupthink than
others, and NO culture is exempt. My own humble estimation is that the
problem of groupthink revolves around some kind of failure of firstness, in
the mediation of secondness and thirdness. Reflexive and automaton-like
behavior can take place with emphasis on secondness and thirdness
(association and habituation) and the muting or degeneration of firstness,
perhaps as a product of fear and the need to belong. Both the Left and the
Right in politics are capable of groupthink.

Paul Joseph Watson nails the groupthink of the left in his video on
NPC-bots:
https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg
And we are all too familiar with the iconic groupthink of the right:
https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-naz
i-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242


sj
 

From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:10 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA
entanglement, agents and semiosis

 

Stephen,

As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural
references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think, like
wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly), organism-think-and
reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of handling organism-specific
problems like having to eat), and universal reactions like the constraints
that the natural laws provide. Noncultural references have their roots in
precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated into
contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing cultures,
it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning pre-cultural reference.
E.g., that parents dont eat their children, Id say, is a mammal-trait, and
also a bird-trait, not an animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their
children, as I vaguely recall. Problem solving of mimetic desire may be a
universal value: The Pauli-principle. Values are means to solve
problem-patterns, or to avoid their expressions. I think it is 

RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Stephen Jarosek]

HELMUT >”groupthink is quite identical with culture”

This is a category error. The characteristics that govern groupthink need to
be distinguished from the principles that govern culture. Culture relates to
pragmatism, knowing how to be, Heideggers Dasein. Groupthink describes
something different. Some cultures are more predisposed to groupthink than
others, and NO culture is exempt. My own humble estimation is that the
problem of groupthink revolves around some kind of failure of firstness, in
the mediation of secondness and thirdness. Reflexive and automaton-like
behavior can take place with emphasis on secondness and thirdness
(association and habituation) and the muting or degeneration of firstness,
perhaps as a product of fear and the need to belong. Both the Left and the
Right in politics are capable of groupthink.

Paul Joseph Watson nails the groupthink of the left in his video on
NPC-bots:
https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg
And we are all too familiar with the iconic groupthink of the right:
https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-naz
i-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242


sj



From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:10 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA
entanglement, agents and semiosis

 

Stephen,

As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural
references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think, like
wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly), organism-think-and
reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of handling organism-specific
problems like having to eat), and universal reactions like the constraints
that the natural laws provide. Noncultural references have their roots in
precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated into
contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing cultures,
it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning pre-cultural reference.
E.g., that parents dont eat their children, Id say, is a mammal-trait, and
also a bird-trait, not an animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their
children, as I vaguely recall. Problem solving of mimetic desire may be a
universal value: The Pauli-principle. Values are means to solve
problem-patterns, or to avoid their expressions. I think it is valuable to
analyse values regarding from which time scale aka taxonomical node they
origin. My suspicion is, that many values are being assigned to one or the
other culture, but for real stem from much earlier, much more general
origins. This is the point of my opposition against culturalism/
overestimation of culture. Intention is to help deescalate culture clashes.

Best, Helmut

  

06. Dezember 2018 um 11:20 Uhr
"Stephen Jarosek" 
 

HELMUT >”"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore
rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits,
universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to
emphasize these noncultural references.”

Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logic’s illusion of
objectivity? Today’s pure reason of “universal logic” relies on
materialistic comforts to be realized. A fix for every disease, a relief for
every inconvenience. Pressures for survival are absent, and therefore
courage is not required. The question is, is this “comfortable” state of
mind sustainable? Can a cultural narrative that successfully averts the
challenges of survival really apprehend the limits that test the self?
Previous eras were dumbed down by their superstitions and prejudices, but
they never had the opportunity to indulge in today’s scale of lazy,
indulgent groupthink, because ultimately their superstitions and prejudices
had to be tested against the realities of survival.

So despite all this complexity in the “pure reason” of this information age,
why is our groupthink dumbing us down? How can a people know so much, yet be
so ignorant? It is because we are having everything defined for us. We are
having our thinking served up for us on a platter. We are being told what to
believe. Fake news and social media do our thinking for us. We don't have to
think for ourselves, we have no need for courage or individualism. Ours is a
smug, sanctimonious morality that judges harshly those that do not conform
to our narrow, cognitively dissonant boundaries… diversity is good, but
diverse opinion that is politically incorrect is bad. Compare this with
before the 20th century or the industrial revolution. People may once have
led simpler lives, but there comes a point in their less materialistic
lives, closer to the coalface, where they have to confront their limitations
and access their courage and individualism, in order to survive.
Witchburnings have limited currency when famines or floods hit. But in this
hi-tech e

RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Stephen Jarosek]

HELMUT >”"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore
rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits,
universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to
emphasize these noncultural references.”

Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logic’s illusion of
objectivity? Today’s pure reason of “universal logic” relies on
materialistic comforts to be realized. A fix for every disease, a relief for
every inconvenience. Pressures for survival are absent, and therefore
courage is not required. The question is, is this “comfortable” state of
mind sustainable? Can a cultural narrative that successfully averts the
challenges of survival really apprehend the limits that test the self?
Previous eras were dumbed down by their superstitions and prejudices, but
they never had the opportunity to indulge in today’s scale of lazy,
indulgent groupthink, because ultimately their superstitions and prejudices
had to be tested against the realities of survival.

So despite all this complexity in the “pure reason” of this information age,
why is our groupthink dumbing us down? How can a people know so much, yet be
so ignorant? It is because we are having everything defined for us. We are
having our thinking served up for us on a platter. We are being told what to
believe. Fake news and social media do our thinking for us. We don't have to
think for ourselves, we have no need for courage or individualism. Ours is a
smug, sanctimonious morality that judges harshly those that do not conform
to our narrow, cognitively dissonant boundaries… diversity is good, but
diverse opinion that is politically incorrect is bad. Compare this with
before the 20th century or the industrial revolution. People may once have
led simpler lives, but there comes a point in their less materialistic
lives, closer to the coalface, where they have to confront their limitations
and access their courage and individualism, in order to survive.
Witchburnings have limited currency when famines or floods hit. But in this
hi-tech era with solutions to every problem, we are exempt from being
tested, and our unchallenged groupthink is making our cultures stupider than
hatfulls of bricks.

BOTTOM LINE - This indulgent groupthink of contemporary culture, with its
logos masquerading as objectivity, is not sustainable. And people don’t see
it, because they are governed by their subjective assumptions. Today’s “pure
reason of universal logic” is a lazy indulgence that exempts us from being
tested at the boundaries, and thus it has failed to overcome its fat,
well-fed illusions governed by subjectivity. If one believes in
reincarnation, then a straight line to hell is the most likely trajectory of
this cultural narrative. Today’s neck-beard playing computer games may
reappear elsewhere digging for yams in a desert, eking out their existence
as a hunter-gatherer.

Regards,
sj

 

From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:17 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA
entanglement, agents and semiosis

 

Stephen, list,

I see your points, and agree that culture, knowing how to be, and imitation
are important. But I think, that for knowing how to be threre are other
references besides culture too. Cultural evolution, historically, takes
place in a certain, relatively small time scale. Human traits also come from
much more ancient evolutional achievements like humans, mammals,
vertebrates, nervous animals, organisms, universal natural laws. I dont
think that we disagree out of principle, we just emphasize differently: My
point is, that somebody who feels that the culture s*he lives in sucks, and
wants to get out of it, can do that, like you said, press the restart-button
"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on
noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal
logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize
these noncultural references. But I think, what you wrote about niches and
subcultures is very helpful. E.g. in Albania on one hand there is the blood
revenge culture, but on the other hand there also is the "Besa", which
moderates it, and has saved many Jews from the Germans during the
Nazi-Regime in WW2. I think, the "Besa" is somehow scaffolding on non-, or
precultural habits or laws. So i think, the scaffold-metaphor "one thing is
put on the former" is too simple, because there are these different time
scales.

Best, helmut

  

 02. Dezember 2018 um 12:13 Uhr
 "Stephen Jarosek" 
wrote:

I agree with you, Helmut, that the concept of culture is extremely
important. More important than the vast, overwhelming majority of people can
hope to understand. I was blessed with having to gr

RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Stephen Jarosek]

nstream from assimitation
(pragmatism). Assimitation, knowing how to be, is where all the problems
begin, because that’s where all choices begin.

Regards, sj
no woo

 

From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 8:07 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA
entanglement, agents and semiosis

 

  

  

Supplement:  I think there is so much more to discuss, esp. about the
concept of culture: Is culture merely tradition and a homeostatic system of
unquestioned habits, or may it also be a culture of culture criticism and
innovation, like a culture of habit-revising and habit-breaking? Or would
this not be "culture" anymore, but something else, an emancipation from
culture? And so on. Anyway, "culture" is merely the produce of an
observation, just secondness, but not something containing thirdness
essentialities such as values or laws. Btw, evolution has not stopped with
the evolution of nervous systems. Causa efficiens is like proto-symbolic
(force, laws... . To say natural laws are conventional, would suggest a
polytheistic idea of gods having had a meeting, haha. So proto). Needs are
indexical, id say, and wishes iconical. Simple nervous animals iconize. In
their evolution there comes indexicality (like pheromons smelling, pointing,
yelling) and symbolicity (like language) again. So I see individuation
(evolution of individuals out of the universe) like a wave: symbolic(1),
indexical(1), iconical(1), indexical(2), symbolical(2), and so on.
Indexical(3) and symbolical(3) would mean, that individuality is handed over
to a supersystem (like the internet), that integrates us, strips our
individuality from us, and organizes us (makes us organs and
no-more-organisms). In our own human interest, we must avoid this. It would
be natural, but not good for us. In our civilized convenience-swing we have
forgotten, that "natural" does not automatically mean "good", but may and
often does mean "hostile". Nature in ancient times was justifiedly regarded
as mostly hostile (sabre-teeth-tigers, snakes, locusts, diseases,
famines...). Now, as nature appears in the form of technology, we dont
recognize it as nature, but it is, and it is pure nature untamed, though
phenomenologically completely different from the common-conceptual (green)
nature we know and have tamed.

Stephen, Edwina, list,

I agree, that the term "operationally closed" is too much suggesting an
objectivity, because "operation" sounds like something objective: An
operation is mostly the same operation, seen from any perspective.

So, with my own terms, i rather say "causally closed", and therefore,
additionally to effect causation and final causation, I propose a secular
kind of example cause (causa exemplaris).

Causa efficiens I see as force reason, as effect causes are forced by
natural laws. Regarding causa efficiens, no system is causally closed.

Causa finalis I see as need reason, applying to organisms. Organisms have
needs, and the system border for them and this causally closedness is the
skin or the cell membrane of an organism.

Causa exemplaris (secular) I see as wish reason or volation reason, applying
to organisms with a nervous system, and any wish is causally contained
within the nervous system, so there is causal closedness too.

 

With social systems, I think, it is so, that they have an intention of
becoming organism-like, or even human-like. Luhmann speaks of intentional
systems. This intention, I think, is the reason life has emerged and
evolved, as it more or less applies to any CAS, the more complex it is, the
more, and the more complex (like humans) the agents it relies on are, the
more too.

So the emergence of fundamentalist religions, rigid ideologies, mafias, and
so on, is a natural thing, and the goal of systems theory imho would be to
show this danger, and so to help prevent it.

So, politically I see value in the dogma, that a social system should be
kept as trivial (non-complex) and transparent as possible, for not being
able to develop causal closedness (systems´ own needs and wishes). This
dogma is in accord with democratic achievements like separation of powers,
civil and human rights, freedom of speech, press, religion..., mobility
(travel, work, and habitation freedom...). This dogma stands in opposition
against right-wing people-think (volkskoerper), compulsory communism, and
excessive (intransparent) dataism.

Best, Helmut

29. November 2018 um 22:02 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" 
 

EDWINA >"Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of
fundamentalism in religion."

Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed" perspective
seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm. Fundamentalist
religion, man-

[PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:9289] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Stephen Jarosek]

DIPTI >"What was the very first instance of semiosis and why, where and how did 
it occur? What preceded it, and what triggered it?"

The quantum void? The fleeting virtual particles of the quantum void that have 
to "learn how to be" before they can become the matter particles, hidebound in 
habit, that can persist across time? The quantum void always was, it was always 
pregnant with possibility. Maybe there never really was a beginning.

sj

From: biosemiotics-requ...@lists.ut.ee 
[mailto:biosemiotics-requ...@lists.ut.ee] On Behalf Of Dipti Kotwal
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:29 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [biosemiotics:9289] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and 
semiosis

Hello all,

In response to narrative 1, anything being 'operationally closed' is 
fundamentally an impossibility because everything ultimately exists as 
spacetime+gravity.
What we humans identify as a system is a delineated -- but never truly isolated 
-- set of matter energy transformations and interactions, or the cognizable 
part of its trajectory in phase space.

As for agency (in which are naturally subsumed 'conciousness' and 'cognition') 
perhaps it can be considered a special case of entropy.

Which brings me back to the questions: What was the very first instance of 
semiosis and why, where and how did it occur? What preceded it, and what 
triggered it?

Best,

Dipti.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, 14:50 Stephen Jarosek,  wrote:
Dear members,

In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with
others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and
autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing
out:

1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: 

The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally
caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as
"... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from
their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems'
operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for
communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however,
that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic
theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of
communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as
operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human
communicators."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann

Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed
culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently
of the humans engaging it.

2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT:

This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and
the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards
an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents
making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably
as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role.
In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that
pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt,
Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent.
Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration.

DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS

What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over
to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including
agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the
potential of the semiotic paradigm.

The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by
incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement
addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this
regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to
focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised
of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices
from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement
deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an
outline:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
3

By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling
position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first
cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its
experiences into its being, its unity.

WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR?

There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement,
and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations
betw

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Stephen Jarosek]

EDWINA >"Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of 
fundamentalism in religion."

Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed" perspective 
seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm. Fundamentalist religion, 
man-made-in-god's-image, Darwinism, human exceptionalism, etc, all make 
assumptions about objective truth where reality plays out independently of the 
observer, and I think that this is the same trap that Luhmann's interpretation 
falls into. Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' memetics theory.

This is a perspective where human behavior is regarded merely as an impartial 
medium for the transmission of cultural communications... a very odd position I 
must say. They're failing to recognize a most important point... the 
relationship between human behavior and culture... the "knowing how to be", 
imitation and pragmatism.

sj

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:55 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, 
agents and semiosis

I think this is an important distinction. 
Do societies function by ideology or by interactional relations with their 
environment and others? 
Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in 
religion. This is where " the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, 
independently of the humans engaging it" that Stephen refers to.
Cultural anthropology believes in the determinism of the cultural narrative.
However, I think that a society, as a CAS [complex adaptive system] operates as 
an interactional system - and that includes its operating narrative. Granted - 
it can take generations for a cultural narrative to change - but - it does.
Edwina



 

On Thu 29/11/18 4:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
Dear members, 

In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with 
others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and 
autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing 
out: 

1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: 

The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally 
caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as 
"... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from 
their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' 
operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for 
communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however, 
that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic 
theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of 
communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as 
operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to 
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human 
communicators." 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann 

Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed 
culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently 
of the humans engaging it. 

2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT: 

This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and 
the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards 
an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents 
making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably 
as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role. 
In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that 
pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt, 
Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent. 
Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration. 

DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS 

What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over 
to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including 
agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the 
potential of the semiotic paradigm. 

The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by 
incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement 
addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this 
regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to 
focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised 
of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices 
from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement 
deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an 
outline: 
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonloc

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Stephen Jarosek]

HELMUT >"because he speaks of "structural coupling""

I'm no expert on Luhmann's work, but that was also what I vaguely recall of his 
work from a good 2 decades ago. But my take on Luhmann's position is that while 
structural coupling does take place, what really matters, from his perspective, 
is the understanding (reality) implied in the body of the communication, and 
not what the observer (psychic system) makes of that communication. This seems 
to be some kind of objectivist position where reality is assumed to play out 
independently of the observer.

sj

From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 5:36 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

Stephen, list,
I dont think, that "Luhmann (according to
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human
communicators.", because he speaks of "structural coupling", which, I guess, 
may also mean presupposition. I interpret it like people are not parts of a 
social system, because a social system does not depend on any single person´s 
participation, and a person can quit one system and join another, without much 
harm or benefit done to both systems and the person. (Lest the system is a 
mafia that says you quit only with your feet first, but this is an asocial 
system :-o :-)
Best, Helmut 
29. November 2018 um 10:19 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" 
 
Dear members,

In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with
others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and
autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing
out:

1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED:

The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally
caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as
"... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from
their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems'
operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for
communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however,
that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic
theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of
communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as
operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human
communicators."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann

Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed
culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently
of the humans engaging it.

2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT:

This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and
the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards
an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents
making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably
as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role.
In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that
pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt,
Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent.
Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration.

DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS

What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over
to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including
agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the
potential of the semiotic paradigm.

The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by
incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement
addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this
regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to
focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised
of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices
from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement
deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an
outline:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
3

By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling
position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first
cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its
experiences into its being, its unity.

WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR?

There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement,
and more and more researchers are increa

[PEIRCE-L] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis

[Stephen Jarosek]

Dear members,

In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with
others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and
autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing
out:

1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: 

The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally
caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as
"... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from
their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems'
operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for
communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however,
that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic
theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of
communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as
operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human
communicators."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann

Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed
culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently
of the humans engaging it.

2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT:

This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and
the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards
an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents
making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably
as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role.
In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that
pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt,
Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent.
Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration.

DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS

What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over
to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including
agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the
potential of the semiotic paradigm.

The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by
incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement
addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this
regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to
focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised
of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices
from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement
deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an
outline:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
3

By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling
position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first
cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its
experiences into its being, its unity.

WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR?

There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement,
and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations
between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only
one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA entanglement.

So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo. Professionals
terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't dare
utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is unfortunate that
in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being unpersoned
for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into silence. As
I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so I'm so
I'm going to say it loud and proud:

DNA entanglement. It's a thing.

Regards,
Stephen Jarosek
no woo

REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT:

Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of
Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between Neuronal
(Human SK-N-SH Neuroblastoma) Cells by Using a Novel Bioelectric Biosensor
(JCS Volume 25, Numbers 9-10, 2018, pp. 62-74(13))
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/0025/f0020009/art
2

Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA replication, and
it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com:
https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected

Greentechnique. (2011, January 15). Cleve Backster - Primary Perception
(beginning at 344 seconds):
https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s

Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Ves

RE: Aw: RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Stephen Jarosek]

in a first-world-country, you may feel 
excluded from the discourse- but this only may seem so, I think. It is not so. 
If there are "left" circles in which it too is so, then the distinction between 
"left" and "right" has become blurred. This may be the case. Personally, I do 
not (in Germany) elect the left party anymore, but the green party again. The 
left party has gotten too right-winged (nationalistic and popularistic), I 
think. In Greece they (popularistic left and right parties) even work together.
 
That what is called "political correctness" is mainly not (cultural) 
groupthink, but logos, like the Kantian categorical imperative.
 
To save people who are in existential danger (refugees) is a basic civil and 
humanist value. Right-wingers who see it differently have fallen out of 
humanism. If somebody is thinking about electing a popularistic 
right-wing-party, she/he should be aware, that he/she may make her/himself 
culpable of the death of people. In Italy they do not let refugees-saving ships 
into the harbours. I guess that people have drowned because of that.
 
Best,
Helmut
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 31. Oktober 2018 um 14:38 Uhr
michael...@waitrose.com wrote:
 
All,

It's not just us that adapt to prevailing or partly prevailing thinking,
"ideally" they will get used to our thinking freshly, as many societies
have done many times fortunately.

In practice logical interconnectedness doesn't necessarily happen.
Tolerant societies recognise that our thinking is no more a threat than
anyone else's (unless it is of course!)

Personally I'm not a package dealer so all the tribes can count me out.

Thanks Stephen for the primers. I'll try & throw in well-worn phrases
as much as I can!

Michael

On 2018-10-31 11:53, Stephen Jarosek wrote:

>> "And more tribal, but with groupthink this sweeping, the tribes are
>> currently confined principally to two... Left versus Right."
>
> Lest there be any ambiguity, perhaps I should add... we should think
> about this. Think about the things that we assume as given, that we
> accept at face value. That are completely in error. The political
> correctness that projects its own sexism, its own racism, its own
> bigotries while masquerading its moral superiority. Groupthink on
> steroids, and it ain't pretty. We just assume it to be true and that
> becomes the end of the discussion. We are in it, and we can't see it,
> like a fish that will never understand water.
>
> An objective, valueless logos? Far from it, not even close.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 11:36 AM
> To: 'Helmut Raulien'
> Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce List'
> Subject: RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe
> and everything?
>
> Helmut, I think the distinction that you are making is alluded to in
> the distinction between mythos and logos.
>
> I do not accept that a "factual culture" (logos) is favorably inclined
> to objectivity.
>
> You raise an interesting point regarding cultural narratives and the
> freedom to believe or not believe. The problem, though, is a variation
> on what Jesper Hoffmeyer describes as scaffolding. The freedom to
> believe or not believe will be interconnected with other narratives in
> the culture, and will have to be logically consistent with all
> interconnected narratives, assuming that said believer is sane
> (schizophrenia is about not being fully connected with cultural
> narratives). Sane disagreement with one narrative, for example, will
> be disagreement IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOW THAT CULTURE ASSUMES REALITY TO
> HOLD TRUE.
>
> The world of logical facts is not actually value-free. Gary's post
> that he posted just before yours was nicely timed (Disinformation,
> dystopia and post-reality in social media: A semiotic-cognitive
> perspective). Godlessness, absence of belief, creates different kinds
> of pressures for knowing how to be. What we are witnessing with the
> rise of social media is increasing groupthink. NOT QUESTIONING our
> culture, not connecting with its mythos, masquerades as objectivity
> and absence of belief... but when we don't question our culture, we
> accept its groupthink and we become slaves to groupthink's values...
> social approval, popularity. Contemporary groupthink seems safely
> sterile... everyone has access to goods, medical care, etc, everyone
> is friendly with everyone, and so on. But as safe and as comfortable
> and friendly as it all appears, behind it all is a kind of groupthink
> and a compulsion to belong to it.
>
> The baby-boomer collective that we see in contemporary materialism,
> labels and appearances, huge shopping complexes, architectures that
> all look the same, and 

RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Stephen Jarosek]

>"And more tribal, but with groupthink this sweeping, the tribes are currently 
>confined principally to two... Left versus Right."

Lest there be any ambiguity, perhaps I should add... we should think about 
this. Think about the things that we assume as given, that we accept at face 
value. That are completely in error. The political correctness that projects 
its own sexism, its own racism, its own bigotries while masquerading its moral 
superiority. Groupthink on steroids, and it ain't pretty. We just assume it to 
be true and that becomes the end of the discussion. We are in it, and we can't 
see it, like a fish that will never understand water.

An objective, valueless logos? Far from it, not even close.


-Original Message-----
From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 11:36 AM
To: 'Helmut Raulien'
Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce List'
Subject: RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and 
everything?

Helmut, I think the distinction that you are making is alluded to in the 
distinction between mythos and logos.

I do not accept that a "factual culture" (logos) is favorably inclined to 
objectivity.

You raise an interesting point regarding cultural narratives and the freedom to 
believe or not believe. The problem, though, is a variation on what Jesper 
Hoffmeyer describes as scaffolding. The freedom to believe or not believe will 
be interconnected with other narratives in the culture, and will have to be 
logically consistent with all interconnected narratives, assuming that said 
believer is sane (schizophrenia is about not being fully connected with 
cultural narratives). Sane disagreement with one narrative, for example, will 
be disagreement IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOW THAT CULTURE ASSUMES REALITY TO HOLD 
TRUE.

The world of logical facts is not actually value-free. Gary's post that he 
posted just before yours was nicely timed (Disinformation, dystopia and 
post-reality in social media: A semiotic-cognitive perspective). Godlessness, 
absence of belief, creates different kinds of pressures for knowing how to be. 
What we are witnessing with the rise of social media is increasing groupthink. 
NOT QUESTIONING our culture, not connecting with its mythos, masquerades as 
objectivity and absence of belief... but when we don't question our culture, we 
accept its groupthink and we become slaves to groupthink's values... social 
approval, popularity. Contemporary groupthink seems safely sterile... everyone 
has access to goods, medical care, etc, everyone is friendly with everyone, and 
so on. But as safe and as comfortable and friendly as it all appears, behind it 
all is a kind of groupthink and a compulsion to belong to it.

The baby-boomer collective that we see in contemporary materialism, labels and 
appearances, huge shopping complexes, architectures that all look the same, and 
the relentless media/marketing that reminds us of our "needs". Hoffmeyer's 
scaffolding. Seems harmless and value-free. The reflexive, immediate rewards of 
social approval inspire more conformity/groupthink... the increase in 
habituation (thirdness) confines people to assumptions (narratives) that are 
difficult to break out of. Hence the hostilities on social media.

Our logos creates the illusion that our culture is value-free. It's not. The 
need for connection is still there, and a meaningless culture will seek meaning 
through other avenues... more compulsive, more reflexive, more habitual, more 
rigid, less questioning and less free. And more tribal, but with groupthink 
this sweeping, the tribes are currently confined principally to two... Left 
versus Right.

Gary's link relates:
https://content.iospress.com/articles/education-for-information/efi180209?fbclid=IwAR1f_XKsqHnHA_3C9eFYUxxmtXBDpV5H0fliXLqqXKEZ1ZjBvjL9N43Y_uI

sj



From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 9:27 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce List'
Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and 
everything?

Stephen, Edwina, list,
I think that there is a distinction between culture and civilization:
Culture is the way of life by a population, or of a, how ever, delimited group 
of organisms: Either, tautologically, delimited by some certain aspect of way 
of life, or by other boundaries such as nation (whatever nation might mean).
In any case, "culture" is the result of an observation: Something being.
According to Hume, you cannot conclude from something being to what should be 
(from is to ought).
So, culture being ontological, not deontological, it is impossible (or at least 
false) to extract values out of culture.
Of course, an essential part of culture is its narratives. But narratives are 
merely something told, but not something automatically creating habits. One is 
free to believe or not in what is told.
One especially is capable o

RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Stephen Jarosek]

s are able to reason themselves out 
of their culture. And I think, that DNA, and unchangeable brain-wiring has not 
to do so much with culture, but rather with civilization and its basic values.
Best,
Helmut
 
 
"Kultur" bedeutet die Lebensweise einer Bevölkerung, oder einer wie auch immer 
abgegrenzten Gruppe von Lebewesen: Entweder, tautologisch, durch eben einen 
bestimmten Aspekt von Lebensweise abgegrenzt, oder durch andere Grenzen, 
beispielsweise die einer "Nation", was immer das sein mag (hat was mit "Geburt" 
zu tun). Auf jeden Fall ist "Kultur" das Ergebnis einer Beobachtung: Etwas 
seiendes.
  
 30. Oktober 2018 um 11:16 Uhr
 "Stephen Jarosek"  wrote:
 
EDWINA >"Yes - I do suggest that, since we have the capacity-to-reason 
[Peirce's reference is the Scientific Method]"

This is a juicy topic. It is controversial because people are confined in their 
assumptions about what constitutes "reality". Capacity-to-reason is typically 
framed in the context of known "facts". But facts are always apprehended 
subjectively. For example, that simplest most obvious of "facts"... the empty 
three-dimensional space in front of our faces... we have trouble wrapping our 
brains around that, too. The problem is "initial conditions" (analogous to the 
initial conditions of chaos theory) and scaffolding, and the learning that 
begins at conception, through infancy and into adulthood. Learning is built on 
former learning, and it is not easy to undo that habituated prior learning.

Your doggedness on this capacity-to-reason theme (the notion that "objective" 
reality can be understood by those with the determination to do so) proves my 
point :)

While I'm here... you raised an objection (your 7th objection) with regards to 
my 11th point, and after having a closer look at it, I think that it can be 
cleaned up a bit. The following sentence confuses the issue: "Incorrect 
imitation is the source of all problems, not desire." There are TWO strains of 
problem... there is the culture problem, with its flawed narratives, and there 
is the personal problem of conforming to those flawed cultural narratives. The 
latter relates to the pathologies such as schizophrenia, neurosis, psychosis, 
criminality, etc. So my point still holds true, that imitation-as-pragmatism 
(knowing how to be) is always primary, but there are two nuances... the 
cultural and the personal.

sj


From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:40 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce List'; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

By my saying that 'individuals are equal ' - I mean politically and legally. I 
don't mean that individuals are identical; someone who is genetically, a 
mathematical genius is quite different from someone who is not. And I don't 
consider that cultures are equal - a totalitarian ideology is not as socially 
functional as an open ideology.
Yes - I do suggest that, since we have the capacity-to-reason [Peirce's 
reference is the Scientific Method] - we can reason about what is valid or not 
valid within a set of social beliefs. Many people arrive at their beliefs via 
Peirce's 'other methods': by tenacity, authority, peer pressure, emotional 
comfort...and don't bother examining the facts and the analysis. This capacity 
to reason enables us to change our cultures - to move from believing that 
disease was caused by our own evil nature or by the witch on the hill - to the 
belief that it is caused by germs or other physiological causes.
Edwina





On Mon 29/10/18 5:06 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
Edwina:

>"1] I consider that entropy is Firstness and is therefore vital and necessary. 
>Why do you see it as a problem?"

Entropy is not a problem for us. It is a problem for Darwinism;

>"2] Non-locality is Peircean Thirdness, which is general knowledge as 
>differentiated from particular of local knowledge."

This merits further exploration;

>"3] I agree with the concept that the full hereditary system [DNA-RNA etc] has 
>the capacity to learn; that is, I reject the simple neo-Darwinian concept of 
>accidental or random knowledge development."

We are on the same page :)

>"4] I don't agree that people have different brain wiring; that is - I 
>consider that individuals are equal but cultures are different - and - an 
>individual can reason themselves out of their culture."

We've tried to cross this bridge before and it didn't work out. To refresh your 
memory... BOB (bucket of bugs), no such thing as a DNA blueprint to specify the 
functional specializations in the brain, etc, etc, etc. I don't see it working 
this time, either.

You consider that individuals are equal (but that cultures are different). 

RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Stephen Jarosek]

EDWINA >"Yes - I do suggest that, since we have the capacity-to-reason 
[Peirce's reference is the Scientific Method]"

This is a juicy topic. It is controversial because people are confined in their 
assumptions about what constitutes "reality". Capacity-to-reason is typically 
framed in the context of known "facts". But facts are always apprehended 
subjectively. For example, that simplest most obvious of "facts"... the empty 
three-dimensional space in front of our faces... we have trouble wrapping our 
brains around that, too. The problem is "initial conditions" (analogous to the 
initial conditions of chaos theory) and scaffolding, and the learning that 
begins at conception, through infancy and into adulthood. Learning is built on 
former learning, and it is not easy to undo that habituated prior learning.

Your doggedness on this capacity-to-reason theme (the notion that "objective" 
reality can be understood by those with the determination to do so) proves my 
point :)

While I'm here... you raised an objection (your 7th objection) with regards to 
my 11th point, and after having a closer look at it, I think that it can be 
cleaned up a bit. The following sentence confuses the issue: "Incorrect 
imitation is the source of all problems, not desire." There are TWO strains of 
problem... there is the culture problem, with its flawed narratives, and there 
is the personal problem of conforming to those flawed cultural narratives. The 
latter relates to the pathologies such as schizophrenia, neurosis, psychosis, 
criminality, etc. So my point still holds true, that imitation-as-pragmatism 
(knowing how to be) is always primary, but there are two nuances... the 
cultural and the personal.

sj


From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:40 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce List'; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

By my saying that 'individuals are equal ' - I mean politically and legally. I 
don't mean that individuals are identical; someone who is genetically, a 
mathematical genius is quite different from someone who is not. And I don't 
consider that cultures are equal - a totalitarian ideology is not as socially 
functional as an open ideology. 
Yes - I do suggest that, since we have the capacity-to-reason [Peirce's 
reference is the Scientific Method] - we can reason about what is valid or not 
valid within a set of social beliefs. Many people arrive at their beliefs via 
Peirce's 'other methods': by tenacity, authority, peer pressure, emotional 
comfort...and don't bother examining the facts and the analysis. This capacity 
to reason enables us to change our cultures - to move from believing that 
disease was caused by our own evil nature or by the witch on the hill - to the 
belief that it is caused by germs or other physiological causes.
Edwina



 

On Mon 29/10/18 5:06 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
Edwina: 

>"1] I consider that entropy is Firstness and is therefore vital and necessary. 
>Why do you see it as a problem?" 

Entropy is not a problem for us. It is a problem for Darwinism; 

>"2] Non-locality is Peircean Thirdness, which is general knowledge as 
>differentiated from particular of local knowledge." 

This merits further exploration; 

>"3] I agree with the concept that the full hereditary system [DNA-RNA etc] has 
>the capacity to learn; that is, I reject the simple neo-Darwinian concept of 
>accidental or random knowledge development." 

We are on the same page :) 

>"4] I don't agree that people have different brain wiring; that is - I 
>consider that individuals are equal but cultures are different - and - an 
>individual can reason themselves out of their culture." 

We've tried to cross this bridge before and it didn't work out. To refresh your 
memory... BOB (bucket of bugs), no such thing as a DNA blueprint to specify the 
functional specializations in the brain, etc, etc, etc. I don't see it working 
this time, either. 

You consider that individuals are equal (but that cultures are different). What 
do you mean by "individuals are equal"? That within a culture they all have the 
same wiring (same functional specializations)? How so? While there is such a 
thing as shared cultural identity, there are so many experiences, stories, joys 
and tragedies within a culture, that to say that everyone within it is wired 
identically cannot possibly hold true. Why? Because experience wires the 
neuroplastic brain. 

Your suggestion that "an individual can reason themselves out of their culture" 
is a fascinating topic. It relates to Peirce's "fixation of belief", and it's a 
big topic. And I am living it, as I now call central Europe home. 

Some people might believe that

RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina:

>"1] I consider that entropy is Firstness and is therefore vital and necessary. 
>Why do you see it as a problem?"

Entropy is not a problem for us. It is a problem for Darwinism;

>"2] Non-locality is Peircean Thirdness, which is general knowledge as 
>differentiated from particular of local knowledge."

This merits further exploration;

>"3] I agree with the concept that the full hereditary system [DNA-RNA etc] has 
>the capacity to learn; that is, I reject the simple neo-Darwinian concept of 
>accidental or random knowledge development."

We are on the same page :)

>"4] I don't agree that people have different brain wiring; that is - I 
>consider that individuals are equal but cultures are different - and - an 
>individual can reason themselves out of their culture."

We've tried to cross this bridge before and it didn't work out. To refresh your 
memory... BOB (bucket of bugs), no such thing as a DNA blueprint to specify the 
functional specializations in the brain, etc, etc, etc. I don't see it working 
this time, either.

You consider that individuals are equal (but that cultures are different). What 
do you mean by "individuals are equal"? That within a culture they all have the 
same wiring (same functional specializations)? How so? While there is such a 
thing as shared cultural identity, there are so many experiences, stories, joys 
and tragedies within a culture, that to say that everyone within it is wired 
identically cannot possibly hold true. Why? Because experience wires the 
neuroplastic brain.

Your suggestion that "an individual can reason themselves out of their culture" 
is a fascinating topic. It relates to Peirce's "fixation of belief", and it's a 
big topic. And I am living it, as I now call central Europe home. 

Some people might believe that they've reasoned themselves out of their 
culture, but all they've likely done is re-contextualize their existing 
cultural narratives. An American who goes to Japan or Germany might believe 
that they've become Japanesed or Germanized, but all they've done is 
re-contextualize their inner American cultural narratives with Japanese/German 
labels. So reasoning oneself out of one's culture? Nope, disagree, it's 
exceptionally difficult to do. They'll map their habituated American 
assumptions onto their Japanese/German encounters.

>"6] I don't agree that Mind precedes Matter; I consider them inseparable."

Fair comment, one that I don't actually care to quibble over. My argument, 
though, is that nascent mind is the precursor to the precipitation of 
polarities/differences... the difference between the fleeting existence of 
virtual particles in a quantum void that don't know how to be, versus the 
persistence of matter across time, once said virtual particles "learn" what the 
rules are, and "behave" (habituate/associate) accordingly. Or to put it another 
way... before I go to fix my broken computer, to precipitate the changes that 
make it work, my mind has to decide that there is a problem that requires 
fixing.

>"7] You suggest that incorrect imitation is the source of all problems? I 
>don't agree with utopia and Perfect Forms."

You've completely misread my point. By "correct" imitation, I mean imitation 
that resonates perfectly with the specific norms of the culture that one 
inhabits. No matter what culture we are talking about, if one misreads its cues 
(imitating incorrectly), the culture's antibodies (its groupthink narratives) 
will kick in to expel the invading organism (which is you, if you misread the 
cues). Some cultures are less dominated by groupthink than others, though, and 
they are easier to adapt to. Groupthink antibodies are hard work.

SJ


From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 4:47 PM
To: 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

My brief comments are:
1] I consider that entropy is Firstness and is therefore vital and necessary. 
Why do you see it as a problem?
2] Non-locality is Peircean Thirdness, which is general knowledge as 
differentiated from particular of local knowledge.
3] I agree with the concept that the full hereditary system [DNA-RNA etc] has 
the capacity to learn; that is, I reject the simple neo-Darwinian concept of 
accidental or random knowledge development.
4] I don't agree that people have different brain wiring; that is - I consider 
that individuals are equal but cultures are different - and - an individual can 
reason themselves out of their culture.
5] I agree with autopoiesis and the self-organization of matter.
6] I don't agree that Mind precedes Matter; I consider them inseparable.
7] You suggest that incorrect imitation is the source of all problems? I don't 
agree with utopia a

[PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Stephen Jarosek]

ons quite impressively. Though I suggest that Peirce has something to
contribute to the Buddhist narrative, with respect to pragmatism. According
to Buddhism, desire (Tanha) is the source of all problems. But desire
relates to motivation (firstness), which relates to pragmatism and "knowing
how to be". Let us designate "imitation" as shorthand for this "knowing how
to be". Tanha is secondary to imitation. It is imitation (pragmatism), in
the sense of “knowing how to be”, that first establishes the things that
matter... the things that one should desire and fear. Incorrect imitation is
the source of all problems, not desire. Tanha is downstream from imitation.
It is through imitation (in the more nuanced sense of knowing how to be)
that we learn what to desire;
12) Structure and order, imitation and entropy... has relevance to
everything political, from blindly imitated groupthink and tyranny, to
courageously fought-for freedom and democracy;
13) We now know that the same dumb dirt that makes The Inner Life of the
Cell possible is the same dumb dirt that exists elsewhere throughout the
cosmos. The Inner Life of the Cell would not be possible were dumb dirt not
so smart;
14) We now know that the number of galaxies in the universe is of the
order of trillions (2 trillion guesstimated at last count, though I suggest
that the number might be closer to infinite). With billions of stars per
galaxy, that's a lot of possibilities for a nonlocal self to be reincarnated
into, and there will be no shortage of possible configurations to
accommodate;
15) On the assumption that the self is nonlocal, it follows that each
and every one of us will enter our next culture with the same innocence that
we entered into this one. We will be wholly dependent on our primary
nurturer to introduce us to the basic assumptions governing our new home. We
won't remember our current existence nor our current sex. Both the law of
entropy and the no-communication theorem prohibit the transfer of
information. Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin have been reborn as helpless
innocents, whether male or female. An innocent child is an innocent child,
but in their new homes, they have new cultural unknowns to contend with. And
that's a scary thought. Good luck Adolf and Josef, you'll both need it...
but at least your mothers might love you;
16) My article, Quantum Semiotics, explores some of the most salient
issues as they apply in this outline:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
3
17) The initial motivation for my paper, Quantum Semiotics, was the
topic of DNA entanglement. And on the basis of evidence to date, we can
confirm that entanglement applies not just to the smallest subatomic
particles, but also to the largest of molecules. And therefore to DNA. The
following reference on DNA replication, with video, is particularly
interesting, because it challenges mainstream (deterministic)
interpretations on how replication proceeds (Crew, B. 2018, citing the work
of Graham et al 2017):
https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected

Sure, I have made some unfalsifiable conjectures here. But this is my
condensed, all-inclusive picture, how I see things. And at least I frame
this unfalsifiable conjecture within the context of a solid axiomatic
framework. Is DNA the key to understanding the relationship between culture,
personality, reincarnation, karma and heaven and hell? No matter how we look
at it, there's something strange going on, and nobody gets it. How little we
know. So much to wrap our heads around. So much paradigm to shift. This is
my feeble stab at it.

Stephen Jarosek


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atzil S., Gao W., Fradkin I. and Feldman Barrett L. (2018). Growing a Social
Brain. Nature Human Behaviour volume 2, pages 624–636.

Beisner, E. Calvin (1987). Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for
Macro-evolution. Retrieved October 29, 2018, from
https://www.icr.org/article/270

Byles, R. H. (1972, March). Limiting Conditions for the Operation of the
Probable Mutation Effect. Social Biology, 19:1 29-34. Retrieved April 10,
2016, from 
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19485565.1972.9987962?journalCode
=hsbi19

Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA replication, and
it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com. Retrieved 29 October, 2018,
from 
https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected

Graham J.E., Marians K.J., Kowalczykowski S.C. (2017). Independent and
Stochastic Action of DNA Polymerases in the Replisome. Cell, 169/7, pp
1201-1213.

Ibelle, B. (2018). What If People From Different Cultures And Economic
Backgrounds Have Different Brain Wiring. News@Northeastern. Retrieved
October 29, 2018 from
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/

Jarosek, S. (2017). Quantum Semiotics. J. Nonlocality: Special Is

RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Jarosek]

The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used to 
identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and the 
liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip reminds me of 
the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time J):
https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag

So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you believe in to 
apologize to you… or walk away.

sj

 

From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

 

Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you give of 
fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering post-modernist 
French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are nonviolent, oppose 
war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if they are rabidly opposed 
to their opponents. They can embrace a democratic-socialist all the way to a 
necessarily blue dog type. I am not sure where the animus behind your words 
comes from but I am tempted to apologize. Cheers, S




amazon.com/author/stephenrose

 

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:

HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than 
two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid 
anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, 
none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to 
them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of 
two labels is rigid.”

The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a 
problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they 
respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative” 
definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal at 
all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda.

HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal 
culture.”

Many of us observing proceedings taking place in America would disagree. It is 
the Left in America that is agitating for war. They want to deny the Right 
their freedom of speech. They call anyone that they disagree with nazis. They 
want to deny a president that was democratically elected. Their fascism 
masquerading as antifascism is laughably transparent, and the violence of their 
Antifa reveals the mindboggling extent of their hypocrisy. History is 
repeating, and it is the Left that is at the center of it, fascism red in 
hammer and sickle.

sj

 

From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:32 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Daniel L Everett; Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

 

Edwina, Daniel, Stephen, List,

I agree with Edwina. I think there are social and altruistic instincts, but 
they may be destroyed by a rigid culture, and replaced with other instincts, 
which are "if-then"- routines, such as egocentric, tribal, and warrior 
instincts.

I think, that the nature of humans is usually good, in a liberal and 
equality-supporting culture. But there are also sleeping bad predispositions, 
which may be awakened in a bad environment, for the purpose of surviving there 
too. But of course, a human always has choices.

The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two 
genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid 
anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, 
none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to 
them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of 
two labels is rigid.

A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal culture. In a 
war situation, bad instincts are awakened, up to making psychopaths out of 
people. A psychiatrist visiting a continuous war zone in Congo has said, the 
psychopaths ratio in the population was 70%. The other 30% remain, because 
people still have brains and choices.

All this may have to do with "brain wiring", ok, but not with cultural 
relativity, as "rigid", "liberal", "equality-supporting", and so on are 
universal terms.

Best,

Helmut

08. August 2018 um 14:41 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
wrote:

Interesting - but - if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of 'black 
slate' so to speak - then, how do you explain the fact that the infant has to 
be socialized; i.e., our species is not born with innate knowledge and requires 
a long nurturance period.  And our type of socialization requires language. So- 
how do you get away from the notion t

RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Jarosek]

HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than 
two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid 
anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, 
none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to 
them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of 
two labels is rigid.”

The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a 
problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they 
respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative” 
definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal at 
all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda.

HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal 
culture.”

Many of us observing proceedings taking place in America would disagree. It is 
the Left in America that is agitating for war. They want to deny the Right 
their freedom of speech. They call anyone that they disagree with nazis. They 
want to deny a president that was democratically elected. Their fascism 
masquerading as antifascism is laughably transparent, and the violence of their 
Antifa reveals the mindboggling extent of their hypocrisy. History is 
repeating, and it is the Left that is at the center of it, fascism red in 
hammer and sickle.

sj

 

From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:32 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Daniel L Everett; Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

 

Edwina, Daniel, Stephen, List,

I agree with Edwina. I think there are social and altruistic instincts, but 
they may be destroyed by a rigid culture, and replaced with other instincts, 
which are "if-then"- routines, such as egocentric, tribal, and warrior 
instincts.

I think, that the nature of humans is usually good, in a liberal and 
equality-supporting culture. But there are also sleeping bad predispositions, 
which may be awakened in a bad environment, for the purpose of surviving there 
too. But of course, a human always has choices.

The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two 
genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid 
anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, 
none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to 
them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of 
two labels is rigid.

A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal culture. In a 
war situation, bad instincts are awakened, up to making psychopaths out of 
people. A psychiatrist visiting a continuous war zone in Congo has said, the 
psychopaths ratio in the population was 70%. The other 30% remain, because 
people still have brains and choices.

All this may have to do with "brain wiring", ok, but not with cultural 
relativity, as "rigid", "liberal", "equality-supporting", and so on are 
universal terms.

Best,

Helmut

08. August 2018 um 14:41 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
wrote:

Interesting - but - if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of 'black 
slate' so to speak - then, how do you explain the fact that the infant has to 
be socialized; i.e., our species is not born with innate knowledge and requires 
a long nurturance period.  And our type of socialization requires language. So- 
how do you get away from the notion that the requirement for language is innate?

Edwina

 

On Wed 08/08/18 5:14 AM , Daniel L Everett danleveret...@gmail.com sent:


https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo16611802.html 

 

https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004132

 

Here are two recent works of mind on culture and cognition. I will be exploring 
these further in a specifically Peircean context in a book coming out next year 
from OUP. 

 

Dan Everett

  

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 8, 2018, at 06:12, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
 

List, here's an interesting article that resonates with ideas that I've
touched on in this forum (culture, neural plasticity, scaffolding,
bucket-of-bugs... no such thing as instinct, no such thing as a "blueprint"
that wires the brain). I'm not sure whether the author would take it as far
as I do, but definitely of direct semiotic/biosemiotic relevance:
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/

Barrett's paper also got me thinking about a point that I've been mulling
over recently... the importance of initial conditions (scaffolding in the
context of chaos theory)... the idea that experiences can never occur in
isolation (objec

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nurture and imitation as pragmatism

[Stephen Jarosek]

>” There is neither a reference to imitation nor mimesis in CP. I am a bit 
>relieved.”

Stephen, I regard Peirce as the Isaac Newton of mind science (that’s a 
compliment). However… to really test one’s theory of Mind, one needs to test 
their firstness. And to do this, one needs to immerse themselves into 
culturally alien contexts, and then observe how their motivations change with 
said re-immersion. I mean, a lifestyle change. Up and relocate, maybe speak a 
new language. And that means incorporating the assumptions of your new locale, 
tune into the narratives of your new surroundings… i.e., imitation. You need to 
become the people that you want to understand. You need to imitate them. It’s 
the difference between theory and practice. That’s why an academic focus on 
theory alone is never enough. You need to become amazed at how your motivations 
have changed with your re-immersions. That’s why the importance of imitation 
can never be appreciated when confined to within a single academic or cultural 
context alone… it is perceived as “real” because its core narratives are never 
questioned, even when you think you are questioning them… how can you question 
a narrative while using the very narrative that you are questioning? You can’t 
question your culture’s assumptions from an armchair. You will never be amazed 
seated in an armchair.

sj

 

From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 1:05 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nurture and imitation as pragmatism

 

There is neither a reference to imitation nor mimesis in CP. I am a bit 
relieved. Harold Blom is salient on the subject but it is not, I think, any 
more lasting that some of his other ideas. Borderline gossip. As to the subject 
as worth delving into, I delved for years in the fields of Rene Girard and 
finally emerged with this valedictory sonnet:

 

Mimesis Jesus can this compass truth

As Oedipus and chums and geigenwelt

Once seemed a way of parsing in my youth

Before Girardian influence was felt

What minds so compass all reality

All things to stated causes they reduce

What story can compel us just to see

A single vision our mimetic noose

I'll take the Bard to be our still-best guide

And Jesus as our best iconoclast

And never more behind a theory hide

Or seek on earth a premise that will last

I'm free at last for I have finally found

There's nothing I can wrap my mind around

 

From WINNING THE WAR WITHIN

 

 

 




amazon.com/author/stephenrose

 

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:

List, following on from our thread on "Culture wires the brain", I want to
look more closely at imitation (mimesis, knowing how to be) as a basic form
of pragmatism.

It now surprises me that something as fundamental and sweeping as imitation
goes under everyone's noses, throughout academia, barely noticed. This bears
testimony to the power of a pre-existing narrative blinding us to the
obvious. We are so immersed within the "because genes" mythology that we
fail to see the imitation that precedes it... the imitation that led to its
acceptance and subsequent popularization. "But what about the genes?" we
reflexively ask. The idea of imitation as a genetically determined adaptive
trait (natural selection) has it seriously the wrong way around.

Forget the genes. They are clearly very important, certainly with respect to
biology and inheritance of physical traits. They certainly impact on our
predispositions. But I suggest that genes/DNA are better understood in the
context of momentum (habituation), predisposition, and resistance to
change... it is a fundamental mistake to conflate their correlation with
causation.

But it's obvious when you think it through. Role models (as cultural
attractors), the company we keep. Gender roles depend on imitation within
the context of mind-body predispositions. We imitate accents, whether we
like them or not, even when they make us cringe. Jesus told his followers to
imitate him. Social insects, like ants, perish rapidly when kept in
isolation, without any fellow ants to imitate. The domestication of animals
relies on their imitation of human civility. Feral children (children raised
by wild animals) imitate their "adoptive parents" to become impossible to
assimilate into "normal" society later... the video of Oxana Malaya
(neglected but not strictly feral), available online, provides compelling
insight into the power of imitation, with respect to the dogs that nurtured
her. Imitation is so fundamental, so comprehensive, so sweeping, but we
don't see it because we are swayed by the very illusions that are derived
from it. We assume these illusions to be "just reality as it is, what is
there to question?"

Of course for some critters, imitation does not seem to be that crucial...
turtles that hatch and make a dash for the open ocean... tur

[PEIRCE-L] Nurture and imitation as pragmatism

[Stephen Jarosek]

List, following on from our thread on "Culture wires the brain", I want to
look more closely at imitation (mimesis, knowing how to be) as a basic form
of pragmatism.

It now surprises me that something as fundamental and sweeping as imitation
goes under everyone's noses, throughout academia, barely noticed. This bears
testimony to the power of a pre-existing narrative blinding us to the
obvious. We are so immersed within the "because genes" mythology that we
fail to see the imitation that precedes it... the imitation that led to its
acceptance and subsequent popularization. "But what about the genes?" we
reflexively ask. The idea of imitation as a genetically determined adaptive
trait (natural selection) has it seriously the wrong way around.

Forget the genes. They are clearly very important, certainly with respect to
biology and inheritance of physical traits. They certainly impact on our
predispositions. But I suggest that genes/DNA are better understood in the
context of momentum (habituation), predisposition, and resistance to
change... it is a fundamental mistake to conflate their correlation with
causation.

But it's obvious when you think it through. Role models (as cultural
attractors), the company we keep. Gender roles depend on imitation within
the context of mind-body predispositions. We imitate accents, whether we
like them or not, even when they make us cringe. Jesus told his followers to
imitate him. Social insects, like ants, perish rapidly when kept in
isolation, without any fellow ants to imitate. The domestication of animals
relies on their imitation of human civility. Feral children (children raised
by wild animals) imitate their "adoptive parents" to become impossible to
assimilate into "normal" society later... the video of Oxana Malaya
(neglected but not strictly feral), available online, provides compelling
insight into the power of imitation, with respect to the dogs that nurtured
her. Imitation is so fundamental, so comprehensive, so sweeping, but we
don't see it because we are swayed by the very illusions that are derived
from it. We assume these illusions to be "just reality as it is, what is
there to question?"

Of course for some critters, imitation does not seem to be that crucial...
turtles that hatch and make a dash for the open ocean... turtles safely
cocooned in a thick shell don't need to imitate anyone, they survive just
fine. What about other non-social animals and insects? What price do they
pay for not having models to imitate? Might mimesis (mimicry) be a
substitute for some of them, like insects that look like leaves?

Richard Dawkins correctly reminds us of the arbitrariness of religion. If
one were born into Islam, they would be Muslim. If one were born into
Christianity, they become Christians. And both have been known to fight to
the death for their arbitrary truth that derives from imitation. He's right.
And of course, the precious irony... Dawkins himself fails to see the
imitation that accounts for his faith in the selfish gene... despite the
selfish gene's obvious violation of the entropy problem. The onus of proof
of the Neo-Darwinists remains outstanding, because they've not taken
seriously the entropy problem (e.g., Shannon entropy).

Do primitive cultures have a better understanding of entropy than we do? Not
in theory. But maybe intuitively. That's why they invented their gods, and
why they will continue to invent their gods to explain all this amazing
complexity that they cannot accept happened by dumb luck. Neo-Darwinists,
however, are perfectly happy with their dumb-luck hypothesis, smugly secure
that they have the One True answer, and they don't even think that there's a
problem. Islam, meet Darwin.

Nature/nurture? The evidence supporting "nature" as first-cause is lacking.
There is no "because genes". I'm going to stick with "nurture" (knowing how
to be) as primary cause.

Peirce explored the Fixation of Belief. It might pay to review his topic in
the context of this discussion. I wonder what Peirce would say about
imitation-as-pragmatism, were he alive today.

sj


-
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] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Jarosek]

> I don't think that the nature/nurture question will ever be resolved!

I think that imitation-as-pragmatism would go some ways towards supporting the 
nurture/blankslate hypothesis. Cats and dogs imitate the things that matter 
from their human masters to become very different, much more sociable, compared 
to their more feral predispositions... and they don't even share their masters' 
genes! Of course by imitation, I mean much more than blind copying... more like 
the sharing of assumptions (habits)... rather, imitation in the context of 
knowing how to be (Heidegger's Dasein). You don't need to have language 
"programmed" into your genetic profile... you merely need the bodily tools 
(hands, vocal chords) to predispose you to imitating your parents, and your 
neural plasticity does the rest automatically (Peirce's categories apply also 
at the cellular/neural level).

Also, how are we to interpret the role of DNA? The notion of DNA nonlocality 
(entanglement) still appeals to my gut instinct, despite the notion having been 
drummed out of "reputable" academic circles. If it's ever proven, it would 
solve a lot of concerns, for example, the binding problem.

And incidentally, both DNA nonlocality and imitation-as-pragmatism would solve 
also the entropy problem. By contrast, the notion of "instinct" (as an adaptive 
trait) does not.

Let us not underestimate imitation-as-pragmatism. Even Richard Dawkins 
appreciated the importance of imitation in his memetic theory... though the 
notion of imitation as an "adaptive trait" is certainly not what I have in 
mind. Imitation (knowing how to be) is integral to order that persists across 
time. People do it. Cats and dogs do it. Bees and ants do it. Neurons do it. 
And maybe even DNA molecules do it, too, when they entangle.

sj

-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 9:58 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

On 8/8/2018 2:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> I'd say this: the symbolic aspect and the agent/interaction aspect is 
> required.

Yes.  And as Peirce would emphasize, there is a continuum.

That's the point of the vrmind slides:
http://jfsowa.com/talks/vrmind.pdf

> I don't think that the nature/nurture question will ever be resolved!

That is a scientific question about a continuum.  And as Peirce would say, 
there is a simple answer about which we can be
certain:  "Both are required to some extent."

But a more precise answer depends on a never ending search.
Science progresses by discovering more detail about the kinds and a more 
quantitative answer about the extent.

And along the way we can expect many surprising new insights.
Note, for example, the infants that were bilingual  in both a spoken and a 
signed language.  It's surprising that they learned both in exactly the same 
stages at the same time and with exactly the same expressive ability.

That indicates that any language of thought must be independent of speech or 
gestures  --  or perhaps equally dependent on both.
Maybe, as Peirce said, the LoT is existential graphs.

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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

[PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Jarosek]

List, here's an interesting article that resonates with ideas that I've
touched on in this forum (culture, neural plasticity, scaffolding,
bucket-of-bugs... no such thing as instinct, no such thing as a "blueprint"
that wires the brain). I'm not sure whether the author would take it as far
as I do, but definitely of direct semiotic/biosemiotic relevance:
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/

Barrett's paper also got me thinking about a point that I've been mulling
over recently... the importance of initial conditions (scaffolding in the
context of chaos theory)... the idea that experiences can never occur in
isolation (objectivity), but must build on prior experiences (subjectivity):

"This leads to another significant implication-that childrearing and
early childhood experiences are more important than we thought. Not only do
early experiences shape our personality and values, they also create the
wiring that will govern our perception of the world far into adulthood."

Initial conditions are particularly important in the cultural relativism
debate, for example, where the Left entertains nonsense about more than two
genders. Initial conditions based on childhood AND the body that you inhabit
lock you into a fairly narrow trajectory, with the implication that you
cannot just wake up one morning to decide that you're a special snowflake in
the wrong body, and that you need to change genders.

sj


-
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] Dreams and the nonlocal self

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

Maybe this is off-topic. But I see that it has relevance to Peirce for a
number of reasons, so I thought I’d run it past our forum.

CONJECTURE: Could it be that dreams are what we experience when our sleeping
self connects with another mind-body located elsewhere? 

My reasons for taking this conjecture seriously:



1)  The body is disabled during sleep. Therefore, the usual mind-body
relationship is switched off, and the Peircean categories linking mind with
body have to find an alternative reference point;

2)  As far as we know, every creature sleeps. It therefore follows that
every creature’s mind-body connection is also switched off during sleep;

3)  Consciousness is always seeking to anchor itself to a definition or
experience. But if the body is disabled during sleep, then consciousness,
hungry for a connection, is “motivated” to look elsewhere for that anchor.
That seems to be the dynamic of what is taking place during dreaming (imho);

4)  Dreams are usually understood in the context of symbolism within a
personal context. Being chased by a bear, falling, or dreaming of
friends/relatives, that kind of thing. But what if this is just an illusion,
generated by the personal self, trying to make sense of a context that they
are not equipped to make sense of? Most people don’t know about Peirce or
the QM of nonlocality. So they are not equipped to properly and objectively
interrogate the nature of dreaming, and that’s why they get caught up in
these personal, subjective interpretations;

5)  When we walk around a bustling city, our habituated self does not
pay attention to billboards, advertisements, street signs etc, unless
something specifically draws our attention to the written word. Therefore
language is irrelevant to the habituated self. Just like in dreams. To the
habituated self, the details become invisible, unless otherwise directed to
pay attention. Just like in dreams. In dreams I experience the CONTEXT but
not the specifics. I encounter people talking, but I don’t see their mouths
move. I know what they mean, but I am obviously not speaking their language
(I doubt that English is spoken elsewhere in the universe). There are signs
and shop-fronts, but I only encounter the CONTEXTS and not the details.
People wear clothes, but I am not conscious of the fashion details.
Emphasis, in these kinds of dreams, seems to be on the habituated context,
and not the detail of directed, focused attention. In other words, this is
much the same as what seems to take place during habituated, normal, lived
every-day experience… that is, until I consciously choose to direct my focus
TO the details, or unless I am looking for specific details, like a street
name, or an item to purchase;

6)  The moment we try to focus our attention on detail, during a dream,
the dream gets disrupted. Maybe we wake up, or the dream changes to another
entirely different context. We are not equipped to capture the details that
our transposed self is intercepting;

7)  Contexts are sometimes amazing… contexts that I’ve never had
anything to do with, and never experienced before… did my mind create them,
or are they, as conjectured here, another person’s experience?

8)  Déjà vu is interesting. There is something dream-like about Déjà vu,
with its emphasis on context. Could it be that a déjà vu moment is when
another self, from another part of the universe, is seeing MY contexts
through MY eyes? And when I am dreaming one of my contextual dreams (seeing
through someone else’s eyes), I am giving someone else, in another part of
the universe, the déjà vu heebie-jeebies;

9)  For the most part, in my dreams, I am encountering fairly mundane
contexts of everyday experience… though on the odd occasion, I have
intercepted contexts beyond routine, such as being shot at during a war, or
being pursued by hostiles;

10)   If space is an illusion (my justification for this… my article,
Pragmatism, neural plasticity and mind-body unity), it follows then that the
distinction between “here” and “over there” is also an illusion, and the
question of nonlocality of self becomes even more compelling,


What is the relevance of Peirce and the categories, to the nature dreaming?
For example, in the context of pragmatism, and “the things that matter”?

I just now googled “how does dreaming change with unusual experience”.
Interesting that disabled people (blind, deaf, amputees, etc) dream as if
their bodies were intact. Don’t quote me on this… I’m interested in taking a
closer when I find time. But if this is substantiated, then it adds further
weight to my conjecture.

Much in this conjecture seems to tie in with Carl Jung, archetypes and the
collective unconscious. And my notion of culture as a thought… which is
analogous to Peirce’s “The man is the thought”.

Gentle reminder… we now know with some certainty that there are trillions of
galaxies, and trillions of billions of planets throughout the 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

[Stephen Jarosek]

>” but would have focused instead on the fruits of their thinking.”

Exactly my point. Relates to the cultural narratives that trickle down 
throughout culture.

 

From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:31 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Clark Goble; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

 

The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses on the 
practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated aesthetics and 
ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core understanding of 
things. This suggests he would have had little interest in parsing the merits 
of groups and religions but would have focused instead on the fruits of their 
thinking. 

 

Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a blind 
spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have vanished. 
And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of the degree to 
which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be measured. It is not 
beyond the province of science which is also universal.




amazon.com/author/stephenrose

 

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:

> "Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different 
> movement less tied to Christianity? Probably."

I say probably not. And certainly not Islam.

> "I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all 
> they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism."

This occurred to me as I made my point, but in the interests of brevity, I 
thought I'd leave it till someone asked. You asked. Yes, communism and other 
religions do indeed talk about a higher purpose. As do other aggregations of 
society. Social obligation is fairly standard in almost any culture. But it 
generally expresses itself in the context of groupthink and the need to belong. 
Christianity is different, because it synthesizes a kind of individualism with 
higher purpose. The notion of Christian love enters the narrative. The courage 
to sacrifice for what you believe in. Does Hinduism do this? Maybe. But its 
historical context is different. Buddhism? Buddhism is more secular, less 
individualistic, and constrained by filial piety, though they still are 
inspired by love of truth. Could Hinduism (or even Buddhism) rise up as a 
religion of an advanced future? Maybe. Watch this space. Islam not. The 
European renaissance was inspired by something different. If some 
Middle-Eastern cultures have shown signs of advancement, as they have on 
occasion, that's because they've piggybacked on Christian-European influences.

Bottom line... this all revolves around the problem of groupthink. Yes, other 
systems talk of higher purpose and social obligation. But Christianity 
synthesizes its higher purpose with individualism and the love of truth. I 
think that this is the distinction between Christianity/Hinduism and the rest. 
The individualism that has within it the cure for groupthink. Groupthink is the 
disease you get when imitation (knowing how to be) turns pathological. 
Christianity's individualistic Jesus introduced a very different template for 
knowing how to be. Ultimately, this relates to the distinction between the 
cowardice of groupthink and the courage of higher purpose.

Groupthink is a very real problem. A large part of what we are witnessing in 
the messy politics of today is the battle between the groupthink of gullible 
liberalism versus the conservatism that has only recently begun to see through 
liberalism's masquerade of moral superiority. Groupthink needs an antidote, and 
for renaissance Europe, Christianity met that need.

sj

-Original Message-
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:48 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...



> On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
> 
> Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why?

Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different movement 
less tied to Christianity? Probably. If there was a tie I suspect it was 
primarily due to the place of Rome in Italy where the Renaissance started. But 
say, to pose a hypothetical counterfactual, refugees from Constantinople 
primarily went to the Germaic area which had for different reasons a stronger 
economy than Italy. We’d have expected a very different sort of “renaissance.” 
So while the form the renaissance took was very Christian, I tend to see that 
as tied to historic accident. For that matter had Islam not arisen and 
Constantinople fallen, would we talk about a Renaissance? Probably not although 
likely many similar developments in the technique of art or thought may well 
have happened. Or perhaps they wouldn’t have happened at all and 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

[Stephen Jarosek]

> "Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different 
> movement less tied to Christianity? Probably."

I say probably not. And certainly not Islam.

> "I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all 
> they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism."

This occurred to me as I made my point, but in the interests of brevity, I 
thought I'd leave it till someone asked. You asked. Yes, communism and other 
religions do indeed talk about a higher purpose. As do other aggregations of 
society. Social obligation is fairly standard in almost any culture. But it 
generally expresses itself in the context of groupthink and the need to belong. 
Christianity is different, because it synthesizes a kind of individualism with 
higher purpose. The notion of Christian love enters the narrative. The courage 
to sacrifice for what you believe in. Does Hinduism do this? Maybe. But its 
historical context is different. Buddhism? Buddhism is more secular, less 
individualistic, and constrained by filial piety, though they still are 
inspired by love of truth. Could Hinduism (or even Buddhism) rise up as a 
religion of an advanced future? Maybe. Watch this space. Islam not. The 
European renaissance was inspired by something different. If some 
Middle-Eastern cultures have shown signs of advancement, as they have on 
occasion, that's because they've piggybacked on Christian-European influences.

Bottom line... this all revolves around the problem of groupthink. Yes, other 
systems talk of higher purpose and social obligation. But Christianity 
synthesizes its higher purpose with individualism and the love of truth. I 
think that this is the distinction between Christianity/Hinduism and the rest. 
The individualism that has within it the cure for groupthink. Groupthink is the 
disease you get when imitation (knowing how to be) turns pathological. 
Christianity's individualistic Jesus introduced a very different template for 
knowing how to be. Ultimately, this relates to the distinction between the 
cowardice of groupthink and the courage of higher purpose.

Groupthink is a very real problem. A large part of what we are witnessing in 
the messy politics of today is the battle between the groupthink of gullible 
liberalism versus the conservatism that has only recently begun to see through 
liberalism's masquerade of moral superiority. Groupthink needs an antidote, and 
for renaissance Europe, Christianity met that need.

sj

-Original Message-
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:48 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...



> On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
> 
> Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why?

Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different movement 
less tied to Christianity? Probably. If there was a tie I suspect it was 
primarily due to the place of Rome in Italy where the Renaissance started. But 
say, to pose a hypothetical counterfactual, refugees from Constantinople 
primarily went to the Germaic area which had for different reasons a stronger 
economy than Italy. We’d have expected a very different sort of “renaissance.” 
So while the form the renaissance took was very Christian, I tend to see that 
as tied to historic accident. For that matter had Islam not arisen and 
Constantinople fallen, would we talk about a Renaissance? Probably not although 
likely many similar developments in the technique of art or thought may well 
have happened. Or perhaps they wouldn’t have happened at all and Europe would 
have been stuck in a situation more akin to the prior thousand years.

If we talk evolution I think we have to recognize the place of chance in all of 
this. There may well be potential forms that are very useful that would be 
incentivized to arise. Yet the broader issues seem much more arbitrary.

> But Christianity introduces another dimension that is alien to the secular 
> Left or the atheist Right (and the vast majority of religions)... commitment 
> to a higher purpose, regardless of the earthly benefits that may or may not 
> accrue. Is there something in that, at least as a fundamental cultural 
> principle?

I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all 
they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism. Now you 
could argue that Marxism can arise only because Christianity already sets the 
stage. However I think this is biasing things too much to a Eurocentric view of 
civilization. 

> Burkean conservatism and its attendant social practices has its place, but 
> the "higher purpose" is absent. Clinical. Behaviorist. A utilitarian morality 
> that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Darwinism speaks 
> the s

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

[Stephen Jarosek]

Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why? How 
has Christianity impacted on the phenomenology/ontology that enables positive 
cultural evolution? Both the Left and the Right have different ways of 
prioritizing self-interest. But Christianity introduces another dimension that 
is alien to the secular Left or the atheist Right (and the vast majority of 
religions)... commitment to a higher purpose, regardless of the earthly 
benefits that may or may not accrue. Is there something in that, at least as a 
fundamental cultural principle?

Burkean conservatism and its attendant social practices has its place, but the 
"higher purpose" is absent. Clinical. Behaviorist. A utilitarian morality that 
maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Darwinism speaks the 
same language, and it looks like its shelf-life will be limited. Their fates 
are determined by the entropy of self-interest.

Of the trillions of billions of planets that exist, at least a tiny proportion 
must surely contain advanced cultures that do not follow the history template 
that we are familiar with. Expect the unexpected. The only constant is 
semiotics... what are the possibilities bound within semiotic constraints? And 
this brings us back to this notion of commitment to a higher purpose.

-Original Message-
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 9:18 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

It’s worth noting that most evolutionary views of religion see much of it 
evolving intertwined with the evolution of government. To the point that it’s 
hard to separate the two. It’s true that particularly in evolutionary 
psychology religion has some key differences such as focus on the cognition of 
agency detection and so forth. Yet as a practical social organization the 
separation between government and religion is fairly recent. And arguably still 
incomplete (if it’s even possible to really separate the two)

>From a Peircean view with its emphasis on common sense as heavily tested 
>practices in a somewhat narrow environment it’s worth considering how these 
>social practices would evolve. And perhaps offer some more Burkean like 
>conservative reasons for worrying about the widespread abandonment of many 
>tested social practices.

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 7:53 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
>> Groupthink is the problem...
>> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers.
> 
> All the religions of the world began at the village level, usually as 
> a social group with a guru or medicine-man as the social-religious 
> leader who shares power with the military leader.
> 
> Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain social power 
> by persuasion.  That means an emphasis on normative values:  
> aesthetics by stories and ceremonies; ethics by morality and justice; 
> and truth by knowledge of history, medicine, and good counsel.
> 
> But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power.
> It's important to keep the guru poor and honest.
> 
> 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 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] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

[Stephen Jarosek]

You are also right. Groupthink is the problem. Corporatism (e.g., Nazism)
creates its own groupthink. Groupthink is dumb imitation without questioning
what one is imitating. Pragmatism, and the need to "know how to be." The
question is, is there a way of controlling for groupthink? How might one
reconcile individualism with "knowing how to be?" I believe that
Christianity might provide some pointers.

-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 3:03 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

On 6/19/2018 5:18 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven, 
> corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the efficiencies 
> to which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed. Not 
> to mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the peer-review 
> process as identified by the likes of...

Fundamental principle:  There is no difference in the kinds of people who go
into business, government, academia, and religious orgs.  They
come from the same backgrounds and go to the same schools.   Their
ethics, morals, and political acumen are similar -- for better or worse.

Big orgs of any kind -- governments, industries, academics, and religions
have power -- for good or evil.  The amount of power is proportional to the
amount of money they have to throw around
*and* to the their political connections to other orgs.

The biggest businesses are more powerful than all but a few of the
governments in the world.  In the US, only the federal gov't is bigger than
the biggest, and only 3 or 4 states can stand up to them.

In recent years, the oligarchs, whose wealth and power has been increasing
exponentially since the 1980s, are wielding enormous power with their own
wealth and the wealth of the businesses they control.  They can buy
politicians and collude with other oligarchs to dictate policies to the
politicians they bought.

The cry for "states rights" is loudest from the oligarchs, because state
politicians are cheaper than federal politicians.
If they buy up enough state gov'ts, they can control the feds.

If you look at history, starting with the Sumerians, democracies are
fragile.  Only the smallest gov'ts, starting at the village level are true
democracies.  Larger city-states (Athens for
example) could have democracies controlled by the non-slave populations.
But eventually, oligarchs (AKA dukes, counts, or
billionaires) set up a feudal system to control their city-states.
Eventually one of the oligarchs gains enough power to become monarch.

Natural progression:  Democracy -> Oligarchy -> Monarchy -> Revolution ->
Reign of Terror -> Repeat at one of the previous steps.

Question:  Democracy in the US is in peril.  Can it survive?
If democracy in the US collapses, what happens to the world?

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 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] The real environmental problems are less scientific and more ethical

[Stephen Jarosek]

Gary, I certainly concur with the points being raised here. The selfishness,
in particular, inspires every manner of unfalsifiable conjecture to be
spouted, by average scientists trying to be first with a great idea. There's
a lot of rubbish swilling around, and this has the effect of dumbing down
the rest of science, so that the really good ideas are lost in the swill.
Unfalsifiable and untestable Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, the future
impacting on the past (quantum eraser experiment), etc, etc, and on it
rolls, the conjectures spew from all over, they don't end. Some might have
merit. Most do not.

I do not disagree that environmental problems need to be taken seriously.
However. and this is non-trivial. the onus is on climate change proponents,
for example, to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven,
corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the efficiencies to
which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed. Not to
mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the peer-review process
as identified by the likes of Richard Horton (2015) and Matt Binswanger
(2014). The climate-change fashion is not to be trusted because of this.

And then there is my favorite bug-bear, entropy. It continues to amaze me
that Neo-Darwinists, especially, so easily turn a blind eye to the entropy
problem. or perhaps this should not amaze me, maybe we are not all that
different to our pagan-god-worshipping ancestors. With this kind of leap in
judgment, Neo-Darwinism is a belief system, no different to any kind of
religion. Absent is any kind of axiomatic framework to bring it all
together. 

Thinking within the context of an axiomatic framework is essential. Isaac
Newton is my favorite example because his axiomatic thinking is quite
explicit. CS Peirce is another good example, but his axiomatic thinking is
implied. I don't think he spelled out what it was that structured his
reasoning. Peirce's implied axiomatic framework (in the context of
biosemiotics), I anticipate, will play an essential part in making sense of
quantum mechanics. Central is the question of pragmatism. how does any
entity (including subatomic and atomic particles) "define" the things that
matter? In what manner is "space" experienced by different mind-bodies
(holons)?

Think of everything that we now have out our fingertips. the science, the
physics, the telescopes, the realization of what a galaxy is and that there
are trillions of them, and trillions of billions of planets. Then think
about the primitive degeneracy that western culture is rapidly sliding into.
If one accepts the notion of reincarnation (as I do - the question of
nonlocality of self has serious merit), then the odds, for most of us, of
returning to a culture that knows what we know about the moon, the sun and
the stars will be pretty slim. Dark prospects await most of us, and it will
be back to dying from simple diseases, worshipping our local star-god,
drinking stagnant smelly water and not knowing why it makes you sick, child
sacrifice, and wondering whether the little old lady across the road track
is a wicked witch who's cast a spell on your family.

In conclusion, a Peircean-biosemiotic based paradigm understands the
relevance of imitation (in the deeper sense of knowing how to be) to
pragmatism. It understands the relationship between personality and culture,
and therefore the nature of groupthink, corruption, and what makes cultures
healthy or sick. Where Peirce says "the man is the thought", I say "the
culture is the thought," and this opens up the narrative to thinking about
what heaven and hell might be. Fixing climate change? The problem lies
elsewhere and band-aid fixes by even the most well-intentioned will fail to
address them properly. it's just pissing into the wind. maybe delay the
inevitable, or maybe make it worse, depending on how fake the science is.
For the most part, the climate-change fashion just gives virtue-signaling
hypocrites the opportunity to masquerade their moral superiority, and shame
those that don't accept their fake science.

Regards

 

From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:45 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] The real environmental problems are less scientific and
more ethical

 

List,

 

Today I received a Facebook post which included this quotation:

 

"I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss,
ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good
science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental
problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a
cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don't know how to
do that." Gus Spaeth, a US adviser on climate change

I wonder (1) whether list members agree that the top environmental problems
aren't "biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change" but,
rather, "selfishness, greed and 

RE: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

[Stephen Jarosek]

Gary, list

I find the certainty with which positions are taken here, and asserted, rather 
disconcerting. I am not an expert on Peirce at all, so I cannot comment on the 
verity of what he had said or intended.

My own position on the nature of God? I keep out of that conversation. I can no 
more know God than I can know the “true” nature of empty space. It does not 
interest me to conjecture about gods, for my mind-body is not equipped to 
apprehend such an entity… any more than a neuron is equipped to understand me.

Here is a poem that I wrote around 2005. People can read into this pretty much 
whatever they want. Is God implied? Merely a metaphor? Or is he real? Maybe a 
personal god who affects us directly? Take your pick… though I should add that 
I find the idea of a personal god especially troublesome, nay self-indulgent, 
as per my views on human exceptionalism… in a universe comprised of trillions 
of billions of planets (by current conservative guesstimates), as if each and 
every one of us could be so important.




I AM CULTURE

Sociologists studied the behaviors of crowds, and never saw my essence.
Psychologists analyzed the behaviors of individuals, and never saw my 
form.
Others - also with their own personal problems and private lives - have 
categorized, labeled and pigeonholed me.
They call me “Culture”.

But you don’t know me.
Indeed, very few people can even guess how I might affect their lives.
Yet I am responsible for the way that you and all your brothers and 
sisters live and interact.
I am responsible for the successes and failures of each and every one 
of your kind.
I am more powerful than you could ever have imagined.
Yet whole lives can be lived without ever knowing - or caring - that I 
exist.

Everyone sees and responds to the consequences of my power.
Each and every thought, each and every action is a direct result of 
interactions with my power.
Even if one of your kind knew me - even if he could know my power and 
would choose to rebel against it, he would be powerless.
For he is but one against. the world?
And I would cast him out. For I AM his world. And he knows no other.

For I have taught him how to interpret all he experiences.
And how to respond to all he experiences.
I have taught his parents and their parents before them.
For I am the source of his knowledge of Being.
I am his reality.

I reside within him and he, within me.
My form - his reality - is duplicated in his mind.
In isolation, he is like a piece removed from a hologram - for he 
contains most of the information required to duplicate my form.
Should he turn against me, he would only be turning against himself.
For I am all he knows.
This would be his demise.
For me, his demise is without consequence.
For my form lives on, in the minds of each and every one of you.
And I will continue to be, long after you have been survived by your 
children.
And I would banish him to beyond the fringes of the all the world’s 
mythos’.
I would leave him to wander in a penumbral limbo - left to stumble in 
the quagmire of his own insanity.

And for me, nothing changes.

I am history.
I am the present.
I am the words in your language.
I am the collective consciousness of all of you.
I change only when you all change, together.
I am you, the self is the other.
I am your reality.

You think you are superior to nature’s beasts, yet you are governed by 
the same laws.
For all life, all logics of every organism that has ever been are 
governed by the laws of habit, association, choice and desire.
You think that you are so independent,
Yet everything you know, you’ve imitated from me.
Can you really believe yourself to be beyond beast?
You, the beast with human body,
You, the beast with tongue with which to speak and hands with which to 
work, I give of myself that you might be.
For without me you can only ever revert to the beast whence you came,
The beast you deny, the beast that lurks in the shadows of your 
subconscious mind.

You, the beast of human form.
You perceive the illusion of the power that you have over your own life.
With obligations to no-one but those you know.
Trapped by the illusion of your ego.

You perceive the illusion because you can choose that which you desire.
But it is I that shapes your desires.
It is I and I alone, that delivers the options from which you must 
choose.
For in reality, your own life - everything you have been and will 
become - is intertwined with the lives of others.
A complex web of action, interaction and reaction.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] The failure of Intelligent Design

[Stephen Jarosek]

JAS, list

JAS >”I have no desire (and no time these days) to engage in a debate here, but 
...”

Given that it is beneath you to engage in debate, JAS, then we conclude that 
you are trolling, and not really interested in an answer. So my following reply 
is not directed at you, but to those who might be curious as to what my reply 
would be.

JAS >”Peirce's answer was the Reality of God as Ens necessarium.”

I’m not sure where JAS thinks that there is a contradiction. From my reply to 
Colin: “It would make more sense for God’s emergence to be bootstrapped with 
the emergence of the universe as a unity […] God and the universe as one. Or 
maybe a systems-theory view of nested hierarchies, where autopoiesis 
(self-organisation) can be considered a form of creation/design.” This 
recognition on my part is not inconsistent, for indeed, God boostrapped to the 
big bang, or God within a systems-theoretical context does allow for the 
possibility of God as Ens necessarium. JAS asks why is there existence at all? 
Why is there something, rather than nothing? Many of us have posed these 
questions in trying to arrive at answers. I don’t know what JAS is getting at. 
I don’t know if he knows what he’s getting at. But hey, isn’t that the nature 
of trolling?

JAS >” These kinds of questions reveal a profound misunderstanding, or perhaps 
willful ignorance, of what classical theists actually believe about the nature 
of God.”

Strawman fallacy. Which group of people is JAS defining as “classical theists”? 
And indeed, what do “classical theists” believe? This empty reply requires 
further input from JAS for specifics, but given that he is a drive-by troll who 
has no time to engage in debate, I’m sure that no reply will be forthcoming.

JAS >”Your faith in human reason is impressive, but sadly misplaced.  Why would 
anyone expect an infinite God, if Real, to be entirely comprehensible to finite 
beings like us?”

I am making a prediction in anticipation of requiring a theoretical framework 
to make sense. What mystery am I dishonoring in requiring a framework of 
assumptions to make sense? Do I detect a hint of Creationist arrogance on the 
part of JAS?

Regards

 

From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 7:40 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Cc: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] The failure of Intelligent Design

 

Stephen J., List:

 

I have no desire (and no time these days) to engage in a debate here, but ...

 

SJ:  I don’t understand what insights a creator/designer provides as to the 
nature of existence.

 

Why is there existence at all?  Why is there something, rather than nothing?  
Peirce's answer was the Reality of God as Ens necessarium.

 

SJ:  What phenomenology explains His motivation to be? Why should He care to 
create life? Where is His workshop? What tools does He use? Does He have hands 
with which to wield a hammer or use a soldering iron? Does he have eyes with 
which to read a blueprint? ... I’m not big fan of Richard Dawkins, but he does 
have a point when he asks, sarcastically, who created god? A god-god? Then who 
created god-god? A god-god-god? God as a creator makes no sense and explains 
nothing.

 

These kinds of questions reveal a profound misunderstanding, or perhaps willful 
ignorance, of what classical theists actually believe about the nature of God.

 

SJ:  Here’s my prediction… whatever the right theory is, it MUST make sense… 
and we will know it when we see it. A godly designer does not make sense.

 

Your faith in human reason is impressive, but sadly misplaced.  Why would 
anyone expect an infinite God, if Real, to be entirely comprehensible to finite 
beings like us?

 

Regards,




Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

 

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Hi Colin, 

I don’t understand what insights a creator/designer provides as to the nature 
of existence. What phenomenology explains His motivation to be? Why should He 
care to create life? Where is His workshop? What tools does He use? Does He 
have hands with which to wield a hammer or use a soldering iron? Does he have 
eyes with which to read a blueprint?

Many of us might be receptive to a God as a unity, as Kashyap suggests, in the 
laws of nature around us. It would make more sense for God’s emergence to be 
bootstrapped with the emergence of the universe as a unity, not as a meddler in 
a workshop working to a blueprint. God and the universe as one. Or maybe a 
systems-theory view of nested hierarchies, where autopoiesis 
(self-organisation) can be considered a form of creation/design. But not god as 
a visitor in some kind of workspace.

I’m not big fan of Richard Dawkins, but he does have a 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Transcribing Peirce

[Stephen Jarosek]

Thanks Mike, Jeff… we appreciate your efforts

 

From: Mike Bergman [mailto:m...@mkbergman.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 2:01 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Transcribing Peirce

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Good to hear contributions are growing. Of course I will be happy to put the 
opportunity more front-and-center. I have not checked since I last left a 
message on the project, but a short Intro 101 to what you expect from the 
transcriptions would be really helpful to new recruits.

 

I'd be happy to do a dedicated blog post on it as well. Are there some notable 
quotables about benefits/usefulness that I could reference? Also, is there a 
Robins listing or such for what goodies might remain in the untranscribed 
archives?

 

Best, Mike

 

On 3/14/2018 12:08 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:

Hello Mike, List,

 

I was searching online for some information about the Peirce manuscripts and 
came across your website with information about how those who are new to the 
scene might get started reading Peirce. At one point, you describe an ongoing 
transcription project that is using crowdsourcing, and I am supposing that you 
are referring to the SPIN project. As you probably know from the Peirce-L 
discussions, I am directing that effort with Terry Moore. 

 

In a footnote, you say the following:  "I could post the links here, but the 
editors in charge of these transcription efforts are naturally desirous to 
maintain quality and keep participation manageable. However, if you are 
seriously into Peirce, it is quite informative to contribute to the process. If 
you think you’d like to contribute, do some searching on transcribe and Peirce 
to find these projects on your own, or contact me directly for sources."

 

In fact, the SPIN project is now up and running in what might be called "phase 
one of implementation," and we'd like to encourage any and all who might be 
interested to join the transcription efforts.  As such, we'd appreciate it if 
you (and others) would share links to the SPIN project through your webpage and 
any other contacts you might have. Having tried to recruit volunteers via the 
Peirce-L , conference presentations, and other online resources, the project 
has grown from a handful of participants to more than 45. Some volunteers have 
taken on the task of transcribing entire lectures or drafts of essays, and we 
are especially appreciative of their heroic efforts. Having said that, we'd 
love to have hundreds of volunteers joining in the efforts--even if some only 
transcribe a page or two. As they say, many hands make for light work.

 

In order to get started, volunteers can read the transcription guidelines and 
then watch the short video that explains how to make transcriptions. The 
process is pretty simply for transcribing text, and there are more detailed 
instructions for those willing to take on the challenge of encoding logical 
formulas and diagrams. See the links in opening remarks for the SPIN collection 
on FromThePage:

 

https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts


  C. S. Peirce 
Manuscripts | FromThePage

fromthepage.com

C. S. Peirce Manuscripts - collection overview. The goal of the Scalable Peirce 
Interpretation Network (SPIN) is to develop a model environment for distributed 
collaboration that can support an international network of researchers, 
students, and citizen scholars in cooperative efforts to encode and interpret 
handwritten manuscripts, including those of high complexity. As our testbed, we 
plan to use the "Logic Notebook" that Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of 
Pragmatism, kept as the seedbed and greenhouse for his ideas together with 
related sets of manuscripts in logic and semiotics. We are treating the pages 
in the MS 145 folder as a sandbox. Take the platform for a test run and play 
with the toolset. The enhanced set of LaTeX tools for encoding the algebraic 
formulas and graphical diagrams have been added, and a set of guidelines for 
making the encodings is ready to go. Here are links to Transcription Guidelines 
on the SPIN Project website, digital images of the Ma


In the future, when we have sufficient support and funding, we plan to create 
an instance on Zooniverse. The directors of that large and ongoing project have 
agreed to let us use a project instance to recruit volunteers to the SPIN site. 
Given the fact that Zooniverse has over a million volunteers engaged in citizen 
science and scholarship, we see this as a significant opportunity to grow our 
volunteer base.

 

We have partnered with a number of groups, including the PEP and the 
Transkribus/READ projects. As such, we are exploring innovative ways to support 
the transcription efforts of a large community of volunteers and are also 
looking at downstream uses of the transcriptions for the sake of assisting the 
editors of the PEP with their aims of creating a 30 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Scientific inquiry does not involve matters

[Stephen Jarosek]

>"As for myself, I have never agreed with anyone else's paraphrase of my 
>opinions.  I always ask people to quote my exact words and not attribute their 
>interpretations to me.  I would give Peirce the same benefit of the doubt."

Excellent. As it should be.

I cannot comment on the truth or otherwise of Eugene’s defamations of Peirce. 
But one thing has to be made absolutely clear... this is the sort of thing that 
extremists in America are resorting to now. They’re getting desperate. They 
deliberately take things out of context, they lie and they fabricate. They 
defame their opposition, and now it looks like they’re even defaming historical 
figures.

If one is to take a defamer seriously, then they need to check the claims 
made... don’t take them as given. What people with an agenda typically do... 
they take things out of context, making unsubstantiated assertions, relying on 
the assumption that they won’t be checked. If anyone is going to follow through 
on this, then please do it properly. Did Peirce say mean things once? Maybe. So 
have I. So have most of you. Did he change later? Maybe. So have I. So have 
most of you. But someone with an agenda is unlikely to admit to inconvenient 
truths... they'll omit inconvenient words, or sentences, or paragraphs, or 
later reports, or updates. The safest assumption... it’s just what they do.

Regards


-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:02 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Scientific inquiry does not involve matters

Gene, Edwina, and Stephen,

I have been traveling and working on some tight deadlines.  So I have not been 
able to read, much less comment on, most of the discussions.

But I am reluctant to make long chains of questionable inferences from Peirce's 
writings and get into heated arguments about the different interpretations.

I'd just like to make one observation about Thomas Gradgrind, whom Peirce 
mentioned in a remark that Gene quoted (March 12):

> The Reign of Terror was very bad; but now the Gradgrind banner has 
> been this century long flaunting in the face of heaven, with an 
> insolence to provoke the very skies to scowl and rumble. Soon a flash 
> and quick peal will shake economists quite out of their complacency, 
> too late. The twentieth century, in its latter half, shall surely see 
> the deluge-tempest burst upon the social order
> -- to clear upon a world as deep in ruin as that greed-philosophy has 
> long plunged it into guilt. No post-thermidorian high jinks then!”
> (Evolutionary Love, 1893, 6.292). 
In Dickens' novel _Hard Times_, Gradgrind was, among other things, a teacher 
who summarized his educational philosophy in one phrase:
"To fill the little pitchers full of facts".

For Peirce, that slogan is extreme nominalism, which was at least as evil as 
the gospel of greed.  But in the novel, Gradgrind was a more complex character 
who had redeeming qualities and a change of heart and life at the end.

For a brief summary of Gradgrind's portrayal by Dickens, see 
https://www.shmoop.com/hard-times-dickens/thomas-gradgrind.html

Since Gradgrind is a complex character and Peirce is even more complex, I have 
serious doubts about any attempt to make stronger inferences about Peirce's 
character or opinions than he stated explicitly.

As for myself, I have never agreed with anyone else's paraphrase of my 
opinions.  I always ask people to quote my exact words and not attribute their 
interpretations to me.  I would give Peirce the same benefit of the doubt.

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 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] Scientific inquiry does not involve matters

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina, Eugene looks to me like an SJW red flag. What’s an SJW? Social Justice 
Warrior. They often team up with the likes of Antifa, and will go out of their 
way to cause grief with any wrong-think that they don’t agree with. 
Right-vs-Left politics in America is getting ugly. And the far-Left is throwing 
its weight around in Academia. They’re getting desperate. I think that’s what 
we’re seeing here. These SJW/Antifa types… you need to watch them… they dox 
people that they don’t like, and try to get them fired. History repeats, and 
all that.

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 7:57 PM
To: Peirce List
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Scientific inquiry does not involve matters

 

Gene, list: 

See my comments below: Overall - I think that your personal antipathy towards 
industrialism and capitalism [an antipathy that I do not share] means that you 
reject any thinker - even if they are focused on issues that have nothing to do 
with these issues - who does not share your personal views. 

 

On Tue 13/03/18 2:10 PM , Eugene Halton eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu sent:

Dear Gary R., 

Sorry that I misconstrued your criticism earlier, that it was not 
about potential catastrophe but about whether “greed, power, and especially 
crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals” are features of actually 
existing science and technology rather than external to them. Yes, we do 
disagree and probably will continue to, though I am grateful for your 
criticism. 

1] When scientists such as Julian Huxley, grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” T. H. 
Huxley and noted for coining the term “the new synthesis” in mid-20th century 
genetics called for “the lower strata” to be denied “too easy access” to 
hospitals to reduce reproduction, and stated that “long unemployment should be 
a ground for sterilization,” it was the voice of actually existing science 
speaking, just as it was when noted ethologist and Nazi Konrad Lorenz made 
similar statements in 1941, after Nazi “medical murders” under the aegis of 
eugenics had begun. Admitting ways in which wrongheaded and potentially evil 
ideas can operate in the practices of science and technology is, to my way of 
thinking, a means of acknowledging the fallibility and potentials of these 
practices for self-correction. 

EDWINA: I consider that you making the critical thinking errors of 
generalization as well as 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. Because SOME individuals 
involved in science had certain opinions about non-scientific topics, does not 
mean that ALL scientists feel that way nor does it mean that science CAUSES 
these beliefs. These beliefs remain individual and psychological; i.e., 
specific to the individual and have absolutely  nothing to do with science.

---

  2]   You also say, “You will have to offer much more evidence if I’m 
to believe that Peirce’s character and Carnegie's were ‘similar,’ that Peirce 
was ‘hypocritical’ in his condemnation of the Gospel of Greed. And you draw 
some extraordinarily conclusions from a few facts and a single comment to Lady 
Welby by Peirce, while your question as to what side of the civil war Peirce 
would place himself based on his father's views is bogus.” 

Fair enough. I admire Peirce’s criticism of the gospel of greed. I 
simply wanted to indicate that his aristocratic outlook struck me at odds with 
that criticism. I did not compare his character with Carnegie’s, only that 
other comments Peirce made later seemed similar to what Carnegie expressed.  

EDWINA: Could you explain what you mean by 'his aristocratic outlook'? 
Obviously you have a description of 'aristocratic outlook' - and are hostile to 
it. 



 

  3]   Here below is a fuller version of Peirce’s 1908 letter to Lady 
Welby, where he says “The people ought to be enslaved,” that universal suffrage 
is “ruinous,” that labor-organizations are “clamouring today for the ‘right’ to 
persecute and kill people as they please,” that the “lowest class” “insists on 
enslaving the upper class.” 

Peirce is clearly anti-worker, anti-union, anti-lower class, pro-upper-class in 
these statements, with zero empathy for the plight of workers in the face of 
rabid industrial capitalism in America. Consider, Upton Sinclair published his 
novel The Jungle, two years earlier, depicting the sordid conditions of 
slaughterhouse workers in Chicago. Consider that pragmatists John Dewey and 
George Herbert Mead were already actively involved with settlement houses in 
Chicago, with lower class immigrants and workers, seeking a critical 
understanding of democracy in the grip of industrial capitalism.  

EDWINA: What evidence do you have for your description above? The fact that 
books were published by others about work situations has nothing to do with 
Peirce.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction

[Stephen Jarosek]

Irrespective of the semiotic-relational aspects of a silicon atom with other 
atoms, molecules and crystals within a rock, a rock is not a holon (mind-body) 
to which the principles of semiotics and pragmatism can apply. The notion is 
credible within localized contexts, such as crystal formation, chemical bonds, 
or other structural interfacing reactions (such as your reference to 
diamond-hydrogen bonding). It is also credible within a QM context. But a 
rock... from a grain of sand to a massive boulder... is not a holon, and talk 
of consciousness in rocks (as opposed to the localized structures that might 
constitute them) is a category error for this reason. There is no context in 
which a rock makes choices and infers meaning. Exactly the same with a chair or 
a hat... there might be localized relational aspects (glues, organic molecules, 
micro-crystals, etc), but no chair or hat... or rock... is a holon to which 
choices matter. Hatness does not aid a hat's survival. Chairness does not aid a 
chair's survival. Rockness does not aid a rock's survival. Rocks are not 
conscious. How could this even be in question? 

-Original Message-
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 12:36 AM
To: Peirce List
Cc: John F Sowa; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction

List, John, Stephen:

A few technical comment from a chemist may be helpful here because the 
semiotics of chemical sciences developed a forma logic for relationships among 
all chemical elements. The logical formalism is virtually complete but minor 
enhancements are necessary from time to time as the fruits of inquiry into the 
nature of matter continue to generate exact knowledge  about the nature of 
quantum chemistry, chemistry, and biochemistry.
> On Feb 18, 2018, at 9:24 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> 
> On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
>> As far as the silicon molecule is concerned, the stone has no context that 
>> is relevant to it. The silicon molecule receives no cue from the stone as to 
>> what its properties should be.

This sentence is not true.  Any stone that contains the element silicon with 
have the property that chemical and mass spectral analysis will show the 
presence of the element of silicon. This is positive evidence, far greater than 
merely a clue.


> 
> That is not true.  A silicon atom behaves in very different ways in 
> different molecules.

This sentence is also not exactly true.  But very nearly so.
A molecule that contains the element silicon must also contain relations 
between the parts of the molecule - chemical relations that conjoin the parts 
into a whole, such that a formal name exists for the whole. 
> In minerals, it is in some molecule, such as silicon dioxide.  But 
> SiO2 may combine in more complex molecules, such as aluminum silicate.  
> And those molecules are affected by the crystals, glasses, and surface 
> interactions that affect the rock as a whole.  Heat, pressure, 
> tension, torsion, and chemical processes are transmitted to, from, and 
> through every molecule in the rock.
> 
>> The stone is not a system, but an agglomeration of disconnected minerals.

The word “system” can be interpreted in many, many ways.
At one extreme, a stone may be a very loose collection of many mineral of 
similar composite or diverse composition. At the other extreme, a stone may be 
a crystal composed from two elements, such as a diamond. (Before anyone sends 
me a email saying that diamond in pure carbon, I would point out the the 
diamond-iod structural surface includes hydrogen bonded to the exterior carbon 
atoms.)
> 
> For organic matter, the processes are even complex and organized than 
> any human can conceive.

I think this is a bit of an rhetorical exaggeration.
More than 100,000,000 organic compounds have been indexed by the American 
Chemical Society.

> 
> And there is a continuum:
This phrase is rather misleading in its meaning in this context.

Each chemical nuclei is an individual mass and electrical unit. It is a 
discrete count that associates a specific member of the table of elements with 
its logical predicates - its physical properties.  The concept of a continuum, 
both in Peircian terms and traditional mathematics) is a mathematical term that 
relates to certain predicates of atoms with geometric lines but not to the 
names of the atoms themselves.  

>  Some inorganic processes somehow evolved into those organic 
> processes.

The genesis of organic matter as molecules from inorganic matter as atoms is 
very well known in chemistry and molecular biology. This usage is confusing to 
me.
The central issues to be explained are the spontaneity of the dynamics of life 
and the spontaneity of reproduction.
These two issues necessary involve both quantum chemist

RE: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction

[Stephen Jarosek]

John, Edwina

Even though I am not a chemist, I chose my words very carefully! My choice of 
the two words "silicon molecule" specifically precludes the word "atom". What 
you are saying, with regards to how a silicon atom combines with other atoms 
into molecules is fine.

And then there is the question of the role of silicon-based molecules in 
forming into crystals... or glass (which strictly speaking is a liquid)… or 
mica. Looked at in this way, I definitely see your point. For example, 
silicon-based crystals forming in a lump of granite. I just find talk of 
consciousness in rocks kinda cringey, prone to category errors, and am inclined 
to keep my distance from it.

As for other complex systems, like weather patterns, tornadoes and such... 
little evidence of holon behavior... a tornado is not a holon (mind-body) 
making choices from its Umwelt, and so the Peircean categories cannot apply. 
They can only apply to the individual molecules that comprise the tornado.

If I read you correctly, I interpret what you’re saying in the context of 
emergence theory (along the lines of complex adaptive systems, mathematical 
order from material chaos). It's a materialist position that I am no longer 
comfortable with. At issue for me, wrt emergence theory, is the apparent 
absence of holonic (mind-body) behavior, choice-making and Umwelts that can be 
expressed in a semiotic narrative.

Regards

 

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 4:32 PM
To: Peirce-L; John F Sowa
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction

 


John - exactly, I fully agree - and nicely said. AND in addition, all these 
processes are semiosic and involve Mind.

Edwina
 

On Sun 18/02/18 10:24 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:

On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: 
> As far as the silicon molecule is concerned, the stone has no context 
> that is relevant to it. The silicon molecule receives no cue from the 
> stone as to what its properties should be. 

That is not true. A silicon atom behaves in very different ways in 
different molecules. In minerals, it is in some molecule, such as 
silicon dioxide. But SiO2 may combine in more complex molecules, 
such as aluminum silicate. And those molecules are affected by the 
crystals, glasses, and surface interactions that affect the rock as 
a whole. Heat, pressure, tension, torsion, and chemical processes 
are transmitted to, from, and through every molecule in the rock. 

> The stone is not a system, but an agglomeration of disconnected minerals. 

No!!! The concept of a system is just an abstraction from artifacts 
that humans design. For inorganic matter, even a single rock is a 
complex system. Weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stars, galaxies, 
supernovas, black holes, and the Big Bang are far more complex. 
For organic matter, the processes are even complex and organized than 
any human can conceive. 

And there is a continuum: Some inorganic processes somehow evolved 
into those organic processes. The inorganic processes that generate 
the earth's weather are extremely complex. And the weather affects 
and is affected by all the organic processes on earth. And the earth 
is just one insignificant rocky planet in a run-of-the-mill galaxy 
in one corner of an immensely complex cosmos. 

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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina, yes we do indeed disagree... but not on everything!

>”1] You seem to be separating Mind and Body and indeed, seem to privilege the 
>Body as having some kind of 'memory' of its nature [predisposition to run, 
>predisposition to fly]and seem to see the Brain as merely the repository 
>of memories of current experience.”

No, the very opposite. My perspective unites Mind and Body in a way that no 
genocentric or information-deterministic perspective ever can.

>”I'd like to know where/how the cells and organs of the Body store their 
>knowledge.”

They store knowledge in the same way that culture stores knowledge… e.g., 
recursion of habits as individuals go about their daily lives, making choices. 
There is no memory storage unit, in living systems, like what you find in a 
computer hard drive. But by the same token… I would like to know how your 
interpretation “processes” information. Where’s the computer? Where is said 
information stored? How does the genetic blueprint master-plan get implemented 
to define the brain’s functional specializations? This kind of centralized, 
top-down control, analogous to Russian centralized control, is not how nature 
works. Again… the entropy problem. The notion of a DNA blueprint that defines 
the brain’s functional specializations is complete nonsense, it’s not how 
nature works.

>”My point is that even a cell 'has a brain' in the sense that it has 
>Thirdness/Mind within its matter.”

On this, we seem to agree 100%. I discuss habituation and associative learning 
in neurons, at some length, in my 2001 Semiotica article.

>”… but the heart, the lungs and so on - all 'know' what to do.”

Hmmm… I don’t know what you mean. What about the medulla oblongata?

>”2] No- there is absolutely no way that the ancient Egyptians, Inca, Aztec 
>were ever in contact with each other. The similarities in belief and behaviour 
>were due, in my view, not to your suggestion of diffusion [which relies on a 
>single origin of a belief/behaviour] but on similarities of economic mode.”

I can’t comment, as I don’t know enough about the history. But then, what you 
are suggesting seems to be unfalsifiable conjecture. Similarities in economic 
mode? What does that mean? That’s open to a number of interpretations. 

>”3] I don't accept the tales of feral children.”

Reports of people raised in extreme circumstances, such as being raised in 
extreme isolation, are often well-documented. Other cases of people raised from 
infancy, by animals, are controversial and there is good reason to be 
skeptical… but some reports, like Jean Itard’s Wild boy of Aveyron, are 
credible. Other examples are not strictly "feral" but their extreme 
circumstances in upbringing merit a closer look... for example, Genie, Oxana 
Malaya, Kaspar Hauser. The video I’ve seen on Oxana Malay – not strictly 
meeting the definition of “feral” – does nonetheless raise compelling questions 
about imitation and the extent to which she incorporated doglike behavior. This 
is fascinating stuff. You dismiss it to your disadvantage.

>”4] I continue to support the view that the human species is primarily THE 
>species of symbolic thinking and imagination. No other species can do this - 
>and the result is that humans have the capacity to change their interactive 
>methods with the envt by technology rather than physiology.”

This is human exceptionalism on steroids… which I reject outright. Human 
exceptionalism is the source of a lot of problems. Christianity’s “man made in 
god’s image”. Man at the centre of the universe. Intelligent Design was onto 
something until it got into human exceptionalism… they even proclaim it on 
their website (last time I checked)! So disappointed to see ID take this route. 
It is in human exceptionalism that the notion of god as sky-daddy materializes. 
Christian crusades and all that.

>”5] I think that CAS and far-from-equilibrium systems do account for the 
>emergence of life. The more complex the organism, the less dissipation of 
>matter and energy.”

Unfalsifiable conjecture.

Regards



From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:19 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; 'Mike 
Bergman'; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

 

Stephen, list:

I'll try to respond here to some of your points.

1] You seem to be separating Mind and Body and indeed, seem to privilege the 
Body as having some kind of 'memory' of its nature [predisposition to run, 
predisposition to fly]and seem to see the Brain as merely the repository of 
memories of current experience. I'd like to know where/how the cells and organs 
of the Body store their knowledge. 

My point is that even a cell 'has a brain' in the sense that it has 
Thirdness/Mind within its matter. The human brain is a highly specialized organ 
for 

RE: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

[Stephen Jarosek]

Jerry, my outline does not deny the role of chance (tychism). For example, 
discovery or invention… such as the discovery of America by Columbus or the 
invention of penicillin by Fleming. Discovery, whether accidental or planned, 
can have huge implications for cultural evolution. But one must distinguish 
between the chance events of tychism versus the principles and axioms that 
provide the foundations for one’s axiomatic framework… Information determinism, 
as a general principle or axiom, does not address entropy properly.

 

From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 9:46 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Edwina Taborsky; Gary Fuhrman; Peirce-L; Mike Bergman
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

 

What’s so palpable about this ironic situation is that a claim is made by ones 
who claim Peirce, that the ‘self’ emerges by experience, while at the same 
time, denying accident in life.  Does not tychism also belong to the river of 
pragmatism?

 

That is, what does it matter what woman is for man when the purpose is always 
the child?

 

Predispositions?  I forget predispositions!

 

It is long ago that I experienced the reasons for mine opinions. Should I not 
have to be a cask of memory, if I also wanted to have my reasons with me?

 

Best,
Jerry Rhee

 

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear list:

 

“List, in the interests of the universality of semiosis, it would be helpful, I 
believe, to do away entirely with the notion of instinct. “

 

“A fish behaves exactly as I would behave if my body were that of a fish. Or, 
putting it another way… a man behaves as a woman would behave if her body were 
that of a man.”

 

__

 

"Such is the language of all fish," saidst thou; "what they do not fathom is 
unfathomable.”

 

“There is a strong tendency in us all to be sceptical about there being any 
real meaning or law in things.  This scepticism is strongest in the most 
masculine thinkers.”

 

Hth,

Jerry Rhee

 

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

>” You say 'how a living entity, as a self, defines the things that matter'. 
>But how does the 'self' emerge? Exist? How does it KNOW the 'things that 
>matter'. After all - does a bird have to, via its own self, learn which 
>insects are food and which are poisonous, or is there an innate stored 
>knowledge base that provides such information to the collective, of which that 
>single bird is merely one example?”

My position on this is that imitation plays just as vital a role for birds. 
Furthermore, I am also receptive to Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance 
theory, because it is consistent with the DNA nonlocality that I discuss in my 
article, Quantum Semiotics 
<http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63> 
. The idea that knowledge of which insects are food and which are poisonous is 
somehow stored in the genetic code, in the sense of information determinism, is 
conjectural. The question of morphic resonance (and DNA nonlocality) introduces 
another subconscious level of choice-making, as an alternative to instinct in 
the sense of information determinism. And what do you mean by “How does the 
‘self’ emerge?” It emerges by experience, and experience wires the neuroplastic 
brain (Norman Doidge, The Brain that Changes Itself).

>”But this didn't explain how different isolated populations developed the same 
>technology or mode of behaviour/belief.”

Examples? I can’t really comment without specifics. HOW different are these 
different, isolated examples? For example, communities that were once connected 
but later become isolated from one another, will share the same predispositions 
in cultural logic, to go on to create the parallel technologies and beliefs. 
Predispositions are as relevant to cultures as they are to mind-bodies. A human 
mind-body (hands, vocal-cords) is predisposed to self-evident inventions like 
fire and the wheel, or even mud huts and tree huts and even pottery, across 
most cultures, even when they are isolated from one another.

>”that the FORM of matter, i.e., a particular body-shape predisposes the 
>organism as to its behaviour.”

The late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically parallels my own, when he 
attributes an ape’s inability to speak to the absence of vocal chords:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html

>”So - the wings of a bird will predispose it to fly - but that's not an 
>analysis in my view.”

What do you mean that it’s not an analysis? It’s a self-evident observation… 
like an axiom. Experience wires the neuroplastic brain (Norman Doidge), and a 
winged animal is predisposed to wiring its brain to fly. Furthermore, in many 
species of birds, young birds learn to fly from their parents. That is, they 
lear

RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

[Stephen Jarosek]

 experiences of culture. 
Imitation, in other words.
An example of smart crows: 
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/scientists-investigate-why-crows-are-so-playful/
Feral children (children raised by wild animals): Insofar as we can 
accept rare evidence at face value, feral children do not appear to possess a 
superior human intelligence that enables them rise above and beyond the 
creatures that raised them.


4) EDWINA;  An observation [induction] is not an analysis; it is simply an 
observation. I also disagree that the bird learns to fly from its parents. It 
has an instinctive capacity-to-fly. It doesn't need to watch some other bird in 
order to figure out that a wing can enable flight; that wing, on its own, 
enables flight. The brain is already 'wired to fly'. The bird doesn't fly and 
then, 'wire its brain'.

STEPHEN: No, the brain is not wired to fly… not at all. The body is predisposed 
to fly, and it is that predisposition that plays the most important part in 
wiring the brain:
http://blogs.bu.edu/bioaerial2012/2012/10/09/nature-vs-nurture-how-do-baby-birds-learn-how-to-fly/

Are not 'winged predispositions' the same as instinct? No, the 
predispositions relate to physiology. If an entity has the tools, it will be 
motivated to use them. This is how living entities define the things that 
matter (pragmatism). And it is the usage of them that wires the brain.


5) EDWINA; So- where is Thirdness in your line of thinking? You seem to define 
Firstness as Will. Is that the case - that you define Firstness as Will? But 
genuine Firstness has no predisposition. It is independent. And therefore - 
where is Reason or Mind in your theory?

STEPHEN: I take your point. However, I think that there are some primal 
motivators that relate to all creatures. The known versus the unknown, for 
example. And that primal “fear of the unknown” provides the impetus for a lot 
of decision-making… and hence, the importance of imitation. The “desire to be” 
is another primal motivator… another dimension of the “fear of the unknown”.


6) EDWINA: I see. But isn't the individual self networked to the collective? 
Indeed - an articulation of the collective?

STEPHEN: Yes, I agree. In my paper The law of association of habits, I refer to 
Peirce’s “The man is the thought” and extend this to “The culture is the 
thought”. I’m not sure that we have all that much to disagree with here (but 
I’m waiting on you to find something J).


7) EDWINA;  I agree with you that life is/was inevitable - and functions to 
prevent entropic dissipation of energy. I don't agree that stored information 
is inconsistent with the reality of entropy. After all, entropy operates along 
with 'far-from-equilibrium complex systems that 'fight' entropy. The two work 
together. I also reject the NeoDarwinian theory of evolution, for I reject that 
randomness [a mechanical action] can function as a successful method of 
adaptation. 

EDWINA; I would argue that it is not only the persistence of complexity but the 
increased complexity of systems [CAS, complex adaptive systems] that supports a 
universe based around information DYNAMICS. That is - I am seeing the universe 
as a complex information system, which operates semiosically.  This is NOT 
information determinism which does indeed suggest mechanical rigidity , but 
information dynamics, where stability-of-type is maintained within stored 
information - and adaptation and change of type.. is enabled by interactive 
dynamic freedom to generate novel information. 

STEPHEN: I was a fan of CAS for a while. Indeed, chaos theory, systems theory, 
etc, are still relevant to my way of thinking. But because of the entropy 
problem, I’ve revised my thinking along these lines, and semiosis has some 
considerable part to play. I no longer accept that purely materialistic CAS can 
adequately account for life and evolution.

The problem of entropy is the problem of degrees of freedom. Of all the 
“optional routes” that an entity (atom, molecule, cell, animal, etc, etc) can 
finish up taking, why should it take the route most favorable to life?





From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:09 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; 'Mike 
Bergman'; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

 

Stephen, list: Thanks for your comments - See my replies below:



On Sun 10/12/17 2:35 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:

1] EDWINA>” You say 'how a living entity, as a self, defines the things that 
matter'. But how does the 'self' emerge? Exist? How does it KNOW the 'things 
that matter'. After all - does a bird have to, via

RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina, before we can proceed further, let us address one of my core 
assumptions. Norman Doidge, in his 2007 book The brain that changes itself, 
introduced the notion that experience “wires” the neuroplastic brain. His 
interpretation was heavily dosed with deterministic reductionism, and in this 
context, he interprets neural plasticity as a add-on to a basically genocentric 
reductionism. But at least he started something important.

In the context of our debate, now, this is important because I am of the view 
that neural plasticity is a comprehensive principle. It’s not a mere “add-on” 
as  Doidge would interpret it. In other words, there is no DNA blueprint that 
specifies the functional specializations in the brain. It is experience and 
only experience that “wires” the brain. To this end, I wrote my 2013 article, 
Pragmatism, neural plasticity and mind-body unity 
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-012-9145-5>  that provides 
ample and compelling evidence, by way of references, in support of my thesis. 
The bottom line is that there is no information determinism, there is no 
centralized, top-down directive based on a DNA blueprint that directs how the 
brain should wire itself. The skull containing the brain is much more like a 
bucket of bugs or an ant colony or a swarm of bees or a city of people, than a 
computer.

If we cannot come to an agreement on my bucket-of-bugs interpretation, here, 
then further progress on our debate will be limited. Having gotten that 
formality out of the way, let’s address each of your points in my next post.

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:09 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; 'Mike 
Bergman'; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

 

Stephen, list: Thanks for your comments - See my replies below:



On Sun 10/12/17 2:35 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:

1] EDWINA>” You say 'how a living entity, as a self, defines the things that 
matter'. But how does the 'self' emerge? Exist? How does it KNOW the 'things 
that matter'. After all - does a bird have to, via its own self, learn which 
insects are food and which are poisonous, or is there an innate stored 
knowledge base that provides such information to the collective, of which that 
single bird is merely one example? ”

STEPHEN; My position on this is that imitation plays just as vital a role for 
birds. Furthermore, I am also receptive to Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance 
theory, because it is consistent with the DNA nonlocality that I discuss in my 
article, Quantum Semiotics 
<http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63> 
. The idea that knowledge of which insects are food and which are poisonous is 
somehow stored in the genetic code, in the sense of information determinism, is 
conjectural. The question of morphic resonance (and DNA nonlocality) introduces 
another subconscious level of choice-making, as an alternative to instinct in 
the sense of information determinism. And what do you mean by “How does the 
‘self’ emerge?” It emerges by experience, and experience wires the neuroplastic 
brain (Norman Doidge, The Brain that Changes Itself).

EDWINA: I] Essentially, you seem to be saying that there is no such thing as 
stored knowledge - which can be stored both genetically and epigenetically. You 
seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that continuity of behaviour 
exists only by imitation, where, I presume, the young imitate the elders. This 
is equally a hypothesis/conjectural. I would guess that your species introduces 
new behaviour..by accident?...and if it is successful..others imitate it? I 
wouldn't agree to that accidental hypothesis..

 Your idea of 'morphic resonance' [could you explain it simply?]...seems to be 
rather similar to instinct/ communal knowledge, i.e., stored general knowledge 
within the species.  

 How does the self emerge? How does a newborn antelope know how to suckle from 
its mother? How to run? It has no experience of either action. How does a leaf 
'know' how to expand; how does a flower 'know' how to turn to the sun?

--

2] EDWINA; >”But this didn't explain how different isolated populations 
developed the same technology or mode of behaviour/belief.”

STEPHEN; Examples? I can’t really comment without specifics. HOW different are 
these different, isolated examples? For example, communities that were once 
connected but later become isolated from one another, will share the same 
predispositions in cultural logic, to go on to create the parallel technologies 
and beliefs. Predispositions are as relevant to cultures as they are to 
mind-bodies. A human mind-body (hands, vocal-cords) is predisposed to 
self-evident inventions like fire and the wheel, or even mud huts and tree huts 
a

RE: RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

[Stephen Jarosek]

>” You say 'how a living entity, as a self, defines the things that matter'. 
>But how does the 'self' emerge? Exist? How does it KNOW the 'things that 
>matter'. After all - does a bird have to, via its own self, learn which 
>insects are food and which are poisonous, or is there an innate stored 
>knowledge base that provides such information to the collective, of which that 
>single bird is merely one example?”

My position on this is that imitation plays just as vital a role for birds. 
Furthermore, I am also receptive to Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance 
theory, because it is consistent with the DNA nonlocality that I discuss in my 
article, Quantum Semiotics 
<http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63> 
. The idea that knowledge of which insects are food and which are poisonous is 
somehow stored in the genetic code, in the sense of information determinism, is 
conjectural. The question of morphic resonance (and DNA nonlocality) introduces 
another subconscious level of choice-making, as an alternative to instinct in 
the sense of information determinism. And what do you mean by “How does the 
‘self’ emerge?” It emerges by experience, and experience wires the neuroplastic 
brain (Norman Doidge, The Brain that Changes Itself).

>”But this didn't explain how different isolated populations developed the same 
>technology or mode of behaviour/belief.”

Examples? I can’t really comment without specifics. HOW different are these 
different, isolated examples? For example, communities that were once connected 
but later become isolated from one another, will share the same predispositions 
in cultural logic, to go on to create the parallel technologies and beliefs. 
Predispositions are as relevant to cultures as they are to mind-bodies. A human 
mind-body (hands, vocal-cords) is predisposed to self-evident inventions like 
fire and the wheel, or even mud huts and tree huts and even pottery, across 
most cultures, even when they are isolated from one another.

>”that the FORM of matter, i.e., a particular body-shape predisposes the 
>organism as to its behaviour.”

The late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically parallels my own, when he 
attributes an ape’s inability to speak to the absence of vocal chords:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html

>”So - the wings of a bird will predispose it to fly - but that's not an 
>analysis in my view.”

What do you mean that it’s not an analysis? It’s a self-evident observation… 
like an axiom. Experience wires the neuroplastic brain (Norman Doidge), and a 
winged animal is predisposed to wiring its brain to fly. Furthermore, in many 
species of birds, young birds learn to fly from their parents. That is, they 
learn to apply their winged predispositions, from their parents. So again, 
imitation plays an important role, despite the physiological predispositions.

>”Am I correct that your analysis excludes Mind and Thirdness? It seems to 
>focus primarily on Firstness and Secondness - if I may use these Peircean 
>categories within its framework.”

Absolutely not. Thirdness is integral to my line of thinking. I was addressing 
that aspect of semiosis - pragmatism and imitation - that is best characterized 
in the context of firstness and secondness. What is it that motivates an 
organism to imitate (the associations that become habits)? That’s a question, 
in the first instance, of Firstness.

>”It also seems to focus on the individual [as Self] rather than the collective 
>[i.e., that exclusion of Thirdness].”

Again, as per preceding point, I am addressing that aspect of semiosis – 
pragmatism and imitation – that most immediately takes place at the level of 
the self. There is, of course, the collective that provides the recursion of 
behaviors that manifests as habit, or Thirdness, but that’s beyond the point 
that I wanted to emphasize.

Just a final comment on what I am trying to achieve with my line of thinking. 
There are now estimated to be trillions of galaxies throughout the universe, 
with a couple hundred-thousand stars per galaxy. What I am outlining, with my 
line of thinking, suggests life as inevitable, and not accidental. It’s a 
living universe. Mine is an attempt to address the entropy problem - Shannon 
entropy, thermodynamic entropy, entropy as the tendency to disorder. By 
contrast, the notion of instinct as stored information, as with the 
NeoDarwinian theory of evolution, are inconsistent with the reality of entropy. 
It is the persistence of complexity across time, as evident in the persistence 
of life across time on Earth, that is the deal-breaker for any kind of 
information determinism.

Regards sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 5:40 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; 'Mike 
Bergman'; Stephen J

RE: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

[Stephen Jarosek]

Hi Edwina

No, knowing how to be is not a synonym for instinct. It is an expression of 
pragmatism, and how a living entity, as a self, defines the things that matter. 
It particularly relates to firstness and self. Knowing how to be incorporates 
the self into pragmatism. I suppose one might say, in this context, that a 
proper appreciation of firstness needs to factor in the role of self, and the 
self’s relationship to the world, in the context of its needs. By taking this 
approach, we attain a different and more compelling perspective on the role of 
imitation, particularly in the context of pragmatism. By factoring in 
imitation, we obtain a greater appreciation of the nuances that motivate a self 
to imitation… for example, fear. Fear motivates selves to imitate the current 
Bitcoin craze… the fear of missing out, versus the fear of loss when people 
begin to flee the market. The comfortable known versus fear of the unknown.

Mind-body predisposition… again, relates to pragmatism. The body provides the 
“tools” that predispose us to how we define the things that matter… as per Mark 
Twain’s famous aphorism, ‘A man whose only tool is a hammer will perceive the 
world in terms of nails’.

There are different layers to pragmatism, for example:

1)  There are the mind-body predispositions;

2)  There is imitation.

 

Imitation sometimes overrides mind-body predispositions, for example, in the 
domestication of animals or in the feralization of humans (feral children, eg, 
the Wild Boy of Aveyron).

Regards

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:26 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; 'Mike 
Bergman'; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

 


Stephen - the problem I have with your hypothesis is that you haven't explained 
what 'know how to be' involves. How does it exist? Where? How does it evolve? 
It seems to be a synonym for 'instinct'!

What is a 'mind-body' predisposition?

Edwina
 

On Sun 10/12/17 10:05 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:

List, in the interests of the universality of semiosis, it would be helpful, I 
believe, to do away entirely with the notion of instinct. No such thing. ALL 
organism's are decision-makers, making choices from their ecosystems. What one 
might typically categorize as instinct, in other animals, is nothing other than 
a reduced horizon of options (analogous to a goldfish living inside a small 
bowl instead of a wide ocean). ALL organisms have to "know how to be." A fish 
behaves exactly as I would behave if my body were that of a fish. Or, putting 
it another way… a man behaves as a woman would behave if her body were that of 
a man.

And once we do away with this notion of instinct as a preprogrammed blueprint 
for behavior, so too we might extend the same reasoning to atoms and molecules. 
That is, the mechanics of chemical bonds and subatomic forces are not what 
"determine" atomic and molecular properties (behavior). Rather, atoms and 
molecules must also "know how to be", in accordance with their own mind-body 
predispositions... that's why semiosis is relevant also to quantum mechanics, 
imho... and nonlocality (entanglement) is integral to enabling semiosis to take 
place at that level. The mechanics of chemical bonds and subatomic forces are 
the product of semiosis, and not its cause. Hence the motivation behind my 
previously-referenced article, Quantum Semiotics 
<http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63> 
. 

While we are discussing the role of mind-body predispositions in semiosis and 
pragmatism... I am reminded of Simon and Garfunkel's El Condor Pasa. In its 
original form, it was a Peruvian folk song about a group of Andean miners who 
were exploited by their boss. The condor (condor mind-body) looks from the sky, 
at the human mind-bodies toiling away in the mines, and it becomes the symbol 
of freedom for the miners to achieve:

I'd rather be a sparrow than a snail
Yes, I would; If I could; I surely would

I'd rather be a hammer than a nail
Yes, I would; If I only could; I surely would

Away, I'd rather sail away
Like a swan that's here and gone
A man gets tied up to the ground
He gives the world its saddest sound
It's saddest sound

I'd rather be a forest than a street
Yes, I would; If I could; I surely would

I'd rather feel the earth beneath my feet
Yes, I would; If I only could; I surely would

Regards

 

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [ mailto:tabor...@primus.ca 
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ] 
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 2:07 AM
To: g...@gnusystems.ca 
<javascript:top.opencompose('g...@gnusystems.ca','','','')> ; 
peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 
<javascript:top.opencompose('peirce-l@list.iupui.edu','','','')> ; Mike Bergman
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

 

Mike, list - 

RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

[Stephen Jarosek]

List, in the interests of the universality of semiosis, it would be helpful, I 
believe, to do away entirely with the notion of instinct. No such thing. ALL 
organism's are decision-makers, making choices from their ecosystems. What one 
might typically categorize as instinct, in other animals, is nothing other than 
a reduced horizon of options (analogous to a goldfish living inside a small 
bowl instead of a wide ocean). ALL organisms have to "know how to be." A fish 
behaves exactly as I would behave if my body were that of a fish. Or, putting 
it another way… a man behaves as a woman would behave if her body were that of 
a man.

And once we do away with this notion of instinct as a preprogrammed blueprint 
for behavior, so too we might extend the same reasoning to atoms and molecules. 
That is, the mechanics of chemical bonds and subatomic forces are not what 
"determine" atomic and molecular properties (behavior). Rather, atoms and 
molecules must also "know how to be", in accordance with their own mind-body 
predispositions... that's why semiosis is relevant also to quantum mechanics, 
imho... and nonlocality (entanglement) is integral to enabling semiosis to take 
place at that level. The mechanics of chemical bonds and subatomic forces are 
the product of semiosis, and not its cause. Hence the motivation behind my 
previously-referenced article, Quantum Semiotics 
 
. 

While we are discussing the role of mind-body predispositions in semiosis and 
pragmatism... I am reminded of Simon and Garfunkel's El Condor Pasa. In its 
original form, it was a Peruvian folk song about a group of Andean miners who 
were exploited by their boss. The condor (condor mind-body) looks from the sky, 
at the human mind-bodies toiling away in the mines, and it becomes the symbol 
of freedom for the miners to achieve:

I'd rather be a sparrow than a snail
Yes, I would; If I could; I surely would

I'd rather be a hammer than a nail
Yes, I would; If I only could; I surely would

Away, I'd rather sail away
Like a swan that's here and gone
A man gets tied up to the ground
He gives the world its saddest sound
It's saddest sound

I'd rather be a forest than a street
Yes, I would; If I could; I surely would

I'd rather feel the earth beneath my feet
Yes, I would; If I only could; I surely would

Regards

 

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 2:07 AM
To: g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; Mike Bergman
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

 

Mike, list - My reference to semiosis within the physical realm refers to its 
functioning as a triadic process: Object-Representamen-Interpretant, with each 
of these nodes in any one of the three modal categories.

Certainly, as in the quotes from my other post - habit-taking is a basic 
quality in the physical realm [see his discussion of such by atoms]. But 
semiosis is not simply habit-taking [ which is a modal category]. It is a 
relational or interactive process where one 'bit' of matter interacts with 
another 'bit' of matter. This is not, as Peirce frequently pointed out, 
confined to mechanical interactions [Secondness], but includes both spontaneity 
[Firstness]  and also, Mind or Thirdness. 

But - the focus is on the results of these interactions. Does a crystal simply 
increase its size by simple mechanical contact or, are its atoms such that Mind 
both attracts and organizes this expansion. The latter is a key semiosic 
interaction. [though I would say that a simple mechanical triadic interaction 
is also semiosic - with each node [O-R-I]  in a mode of Secondness. But 
organization of the results of contact - involves Mind or Thirdness.

Edwina

 

On Sat 09/12/17 6:50 PM , Mike Bergman m...@mkbergman.com sent:

Hi Gary f, List,

I am generally familiar with the general references for laws and the tendencies 
to them. I guess I did not address my question well. Are there passages from 
Peirce where he specifically connects semiosis or signs to nature, other than 
the passing reference to crystals? I believe we can infer that Peirce likely 
believed the laws of nature to be subject to semiosis, but is it anywhere 
stated something like that?

I found the connection of CP 5.105 'law of nature' to signs or semiosis in the 
context of my question to be unclear, though suggesting it was helpful. I read 
on and found CP 5.107 a little more to the point, but still vague. I do like 
the fact this comes up in his discussion of the reality of Thirdness. Still, 
pretty thin gruel. Maybe that is as strong as the evidence gets.

Thanks!

Mike

 

On 12/9/2017 5:02 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca 
  wrote:

Mike,

 

There are plenty of passages in Peirce which virtually identify semiosis with 
Representation and thus with Thirdness, and the laws of nature being general 
laws, Thirdness is 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] The Secret Language of Plants

[Stephen Jarosek]

EDWINA: “And it IS an aspect of 'Mind'. As Peirce said - "Thought is not 
necessarily connected with a brain.”

Ultimately, the question of what role a brain plays relates to thermodynamics. 
Plants don’t have brains because the choices that they make from their Umwelts 
are simple, and in “slow motion”. They receive a distributed, limited form of 
energy from the sun and nutrients from the soil, and so they cannot afford to 
squander their energy in the same way that brained organisms can… it’s why 
plants don’t have legs, why they don’t get up and move around. The “brain” of 
the plant is therefore distributed throughout its body, in its leaves, 
branches, roots and stem… that’s how I would interpret it.

Carnivorous plants, however, such as the Venus flytrap, receive excess energy & 
nutrients from the insects that they digest, and therefore are able to divert 
that energy to “hunting” for supplementary food sources. And by the time that 
some hypothetical plant might develop sufficiently to get up and move around, 
it would cross an energy-access threshold whereby it would no longer need its 
leaves… it then becomes an animal and, by necessity, one that requires a brain. 
Brains are required for more complex conceptualizations,  in order to 
accommodate energy-intensive choice-making from complex environments.

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 12:42 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; Charles Pyle
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Secret Language of Plants

 

Thanks for the article. Biosemiotics is very involved with this reality - of 
plant communication.

And it IS an aspect of 'Mind'. As Peirce said - "Thought is not necessarily 
connected with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals and 

throughout the purely physical world'. 4.551.

And 'Mind' is most certainly operative in the biological realm.

Edwina Taborsky

 

On Fri 24/11/17 5:08 PM , Charles Pyle charlesp...@comcast.net sent:

 

Striking evidence that plants warn each other of environmental dangers is 
reviving a once ridiculed field.

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-secret-language-of-plants-20131216/

 


-
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: RE: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”I doubt that the animal species had the brain capacity to develop language”

I don’t know about that. Communication between animals has been long 
well-established, so perhaps I need to know what you mean by “language”. I am 
almost embarrassed to have to admit that I just googled “do animals talk to one 
another,” curious to see what google brings up. Birds are capable of a rich 
repertoire of sounds, so it would come as a surprise to me if that richness was 
not employed somehow in some manner of linguistic expression. I’ve often 
observed magpies chortling in the early morning, and I cannot conclude anything 
other than that they were communicating somehow with one another. Perhaps there 
might be grounds for saying that magpie language does not have the semantic, 
structural complexity that human languages have… but how can we know for sure?

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:11 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen 
Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

 

Stephen - you wrote that 

that some animals have vestigial representations of vocal chords but chose not 
to use them, so their ability to speak atrophied.

 

I don't see this; I don't see that the animal species CHOSE not to use those 
vocal chords. Speech is a cognitive system, made up not merely of sounds but of 
grammar; i.e., logical order of sounds. I doubt that the animal species had the 
brain capacity to develop language - again, understanding language as a 
symbolic system operating within a 'deep structural grammar'.

 

Therefore - I wouldn't follow Sebeok's view of the ape/chimpanzee.

 

I see biological [and physical] organisms as evolving complex Forms; the simple 
organisms have a lesser ability to change but as simple - are everywhere - 
various bacterium, simple insects, plants, etc...The more complex organisms are 
more adaptable but are more diverse and 'niche-constrained'. The most complex 
organism, our species, is highly adaptable, diverse and, interestingly, also 
'niche-constrained'. That is, as material entities, we don't float above our 
material environment, indifferently. We live, are rooted, in a 'niche', in a 
neighbourhood...and develop local beliefs and behaviour...fascinating that we 
always, although the same species - created diversity.

 

Edwina 

 



 

On Tue 24/10/17 1:57 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:

>”You seem  to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective 
>actions - which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement 
>involves a communal interaction.”

You raise good points Edwina. I try to keep things simple and brief, in the 
interests of keeping things digestible. There is, of course, more to all of 
this. Different species of dog, for example, can have basically identical 
anatomical predispositions, you would think, given that they have almost 
identical “tools” (body as tool)… yet they can be predisposed to very different 
personalities, despite their apparent anatomical similarities. And I 
encountered a reference somewhere pointing out that some animals have vestigial 
representations of vocal chords but chose not to use them, so their ability to 
speak atrophied. And then there are parrots that can articulate human words 
perfectly, yet remain entirely birdlike in behavior. So there’s certainly more 
going on.  But the late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically parallels my 
own, when he attributes an ape’s inability to speak to the absence of vocal 
chords:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca 
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:53 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca 
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ; 'Jeffrey Brian 
Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

  


Stephen -  if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it is the 
FORM of the insect that is defining its actions within the world. I can 
certainly see that the Form definitely enables/constrains its actions, but you 
are, I think,  removing the notion of Mind from the formation of that Form. You 
seem  to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective actions 
- which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement involves a 
communal interaction. 

 

I don't think that your Mind and the Insect's Mind [and I acknowledge that Mind 
functions in both]..are similar. That is, I don't see that the fact that the 
Insect has no capacity for symbolic communication is due strictly to its Form - 
though I acknowledge that its Form [lack of a complex brain] doesn't enable 
symbolic communication. I'm suggesti

RE: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”You seem  to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective 
>actions - which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement 
>involves a communal interaction.”

You raise good points Edwina. I try to keep things simple and brief, in the 
interests of keeping things digestible. There is, of course, more to all of 
this. Different species of dog, for example, can have basically identical 
anatomical predispositions, you would think, given that they have almost 
identical “tools” (body as tool)… yet they can be predisposed to very different 
personalities, despite their apparent anatomical similarities. And I 
encountered a reference somewhere pointing out that some animals have vestigial 
representations of vocal chords but chose not to use them, so their ability to 
speak atrophied. And then there are parrots that can articulate human words 
perfectly, yet remain entirely birdlike in behavior. So there’s certainly more 
going on.  But the late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically parallels my 
own, when he attributes an ape’s inability to speak to the absence of vocal 
chords:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:53 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen 
Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

 


Stephen -  if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it is the 
FORM of the insect that is defining its actions within the world. I can 
certainly see that the Form definitely enables/constrains its actions, but you 
are, I think,  removing the notion of Mind from the formation of that Form. You 
seem  to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective actions 
- which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement involves a 
communal interaction. 

 

I don't think that your Mind and the Insect's Mind [and I acknowledge that Mind 
functions in both]..are similar. That is, I don't see that the fact that the 
Insect has no capacity for symbolic communication is due strictly to its Form - 
though I acknowledge that its Form [lack of a complex brain] doesn't enable 
symbolic communication. I'm suggesting that Mind cannot express itself in a 
similar capacity in all its biological Forms. That is Mind,  understood as 
Reason/the Rational Will to Exist, operates in ALL biological forms but is it 
with the same capacity?

 

I agree with your suspicion about 'information determinism' but I don't think 
that Thirdness/general habits are the same as mechanical determinism - because 
of the existence, also, of the other two modes.

 

I'll try to take a look at your article on Quantum Semiotics.

 

Edwina

 

 

 


 

On Tue 24/10/17 12:22 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:

>”After all, a tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it 
>doesn't require a learning phase”

Good point, Edwina. But I conjecture that the butterfly’s body (or any other 
insect’s body) sufficiently accounts for the predispositions that enable it to 
make sensible choices from a reduced horizon of options. So yes, I would “ 
define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced horizon of 
options'”. In other words, if there is any semblance of information (genetic) 
determinism to be considered, then it would be confined to physiology 
(anatomy). The rest… the choice-making, the survival… is pure mind stuff. 
Insects are people too J An insect behaves as I would behave if I had an 
insect’s body.

But there is another conjecture that I bring to bear on my reasoning, and it is 
DNA entanglement (nonlocality). The basis for my reasoning is outlined in my 
article, Quantum Semiotics 
<http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63> 
. DNA entanglement goes further in lifting us out of the notion of information 
determinism, to immerse us in an alternative narrative where knowing how to be 
(pragmatism “on steroids”) seems to be primary. This is the interpretation that 
first struck me when I stumbled across this link on DNA replication 
<http://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-has-been-filmed-for-the-first-time-and-it-s-stranger-than-we-thought>
 .

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca 
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')>  ] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:01 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca 
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ; 'Jeffrey Brian 
Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

 

Stephen - interesting; I haven't thought of it that way. 

 

Yes,  all organisms learn how to live, but in most cases, the knowledge base is 
stable and incapable of much change [which contributes to the stability of 

RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”After all, a tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it 
>doesn't require a learning phase”

Good point, Edwina. But I conjecture that the butterfly’s body (or any other 
insect’s body) sufficiently accounts for the predispositions that enable it to 
make sensible choices from a reduced horizon of options. So yes, I would 
“define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced horizon of 
options'”. In other words, if there is any semblance of information (genetic) 
determinism to be considered, then it would be confined to physiology 
(anatomy). The rest… the choice-making, the survival… is pure mind stuff. 
Insects are people too J An insect behaves as I would behave if I had an 
insect’s body.

But there is another conjecture that I bring to bear on my reasoning, and it is 
DNA entanglement (nonlocality). The basis for my reasoning is outlined in my 
article, Quantum Semiotics 
<http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63> 
. DNA entanglement goes further in lifting us out of the notion of information 
determinism, to immerse us in an alternative narrative where knowing how to be 
(pragmatism “on steroids”) seems to be primary. This is the interpretation that 
first struck me when I stumbled across this link on DNA replication 
<http://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-has-been-filmed-for-the-first-time-and-it-s-stranger-than-we-thought>
 .

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:01 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen 
Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

 

Stephen - interesting; I haven't thought of it that way. 

 

Yes,  all organisms learn how to live, but in most cases, the knowledge base is 
stable and incapable of much change [which contributes to the stability of the 
biological world].  I have put the knowledge base of most non-homo-sapiens as 
stored genetically/materially rather than socially/conceptually. After all, a 
tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it doesn't require a 
learning phase, whereas the human species requires a long learning phase - and- 
the development of a symbolic communication system to achieve that learning. 

 

Would you define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced 
horizon of options' ?

 

But regardless of the terms, isn't the function of this difference in the 
nature of the knowledge base an important concept? The limited capacity to 
change a knowledge base, and its removal from any attempts to change it by 
storing it genetically rather than conceptually - means that the biological 
realm has a worldwide stable continuity of organization. Only the human realm 
can change - up to a point - both its biological and conceptual knowledge.

 

Edwina

 



 

On Tue 24/10/17 10:25 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:

>”Our species, homo sapiens, has no genetic knowledge. The human individual has 
>to learn-how-to-live. This is certainly achieved by imitation.  This enables 
>continuity and stability. The lack of genetic knowledge gives this species an 
>enormous capacity to change its lifestyle and technology. ”

Indeed! This is the most important insight of all, and why Peirce is so 
important.

However, I’d go one step further than that… my own suggestion is that what we 
are saying here applies to all life. All organisms have to learn how to be. 
What one might typically categorize as instinct, in other animals, is nothing 
other than a reduced horizon of options (analogous to a goldfish living inside 
a small bowl instead of a wide ocean). Mind-body predispositions impact on the 
reach of that horizon. A reduced horizon makes for simple, almost reflexive 
choices that are tempting to write off as “instinct”. An expanded horizon, by 
contrast, such as we have in human cultures, creates the illusion that we are 
somehow different, unbounded by instinct. In principle, though, all living 
entities are bound by exactly the same basic axioms, and the differences become 
a question of degree. Many don’t see it that way, but my justification for this 
relates to neural plasticity, and the impact that a mind-body’s experiences 
have on how the brain is wired… all brains are neuroplastic.

Cheers

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca 
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:41 PM
To: 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; tabor...@primus.ca 
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ; Stephen Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

 


Stephen - thanks for your outline.

My comments are [apart from my view that I don't agree that 'the Western world 
is unravelling'] - but, imitation is the first basic component of 'continuity'. 
The function of an

RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”Our species, homo sapiens, has no genetic knowledge. The human individual has 
>to learn-how-to-live. This is certainly achieved by imitation.  This enables 
>continuity and stability. The lack of genetic knowledge gives this species an 
>enormous capacity to change its lifestyle and technology.”

Indeed! This is the most important insight of all, and why Peirce is so 
important.

However, I’d go one step further than that… my own suggestion is that what we 
are saying here applies to all life. All organisms have to learn how to be. 
What one might typically categorize as instinct, in other animals, is nothing 
other than a reduced horizon of options (analogous to a goldfish living inside 
a small bowl instead of a wide ocean). Mind-body predispositions impact on the 
reach of that horizon. A reduced horizon makes for simple, almost reflexive 
choices that are tempting to write off as “instinct”. An expanded horizon, by 
contrast, such as we have in human cultures, creates the illusion that we are 
somehow different, unbounded by instinct. In principle, though, all living 
entities are bound by exactly the same basic axioms, and the differences become 
a question of degree. Many don’t see it that way, but my justification for this 
relates to neural plasticity, and the impact that a mind-body’s experiences 
have on how the brain is wired… all brains are neuroplastic.

Cheers

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:41 PM
To: 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; tabor...@primus.ca; Stephen 
Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

 


Stephen - thanks for your outline.

My comments are [apart from my view that I don't agree that 'the Western world 
is unravelling'] - but, imitation is the first basic component of 'continuity'. 
The function of an organism/species - is reproduction-of-type. Mimesis, or 
imitation is the most basic method of enabling this continuity. It provides 
Stability - for one cannot have intricate networking of species in the 
biological world if each generation is vastly different from the previous 
generation. So, imitation is a key component of stable continuity.

 

With regard to your outline of the emotions of Firstness, I see your point, 
but, I reduce the emotion to only the Will-to-Exist which would be similar,  to 
Desire-to-Be. That is, there is no other emotion such as fear of the Other, in 
my analysis of Firstness 

 

With regard to your use of imitation within Secondness - hmm - I see the point 
of Secondness within its Need for Limits, the need for differentiation from 
Others. So, I don't see imitation in this mode.  I accept your use of imitation 
in tool-use, i.e., in developing the knowledge of how-to-live, but I think this 
is more a function of Thirdness.

 

With regard to your use of imitation in thirdness - I would see that 
generalizing a habit, such that similarity of Type becomes continuous - 
requires imitation.- as a general mode.

 

Our species, homo sapiens, has no genetic knowledge. The human individual has 
to learn-how-to-live. This is certainly achieved by imitation.  This enables 
continuity and stability. The lack of genetic knowledge gives this species an 
enormous capacity to change its lifestyle and technology. Rather then evolve 
wings, this species invents the airplane. 

 

I think we need all three modes - the Firstness of imitation, the Secondness of 
differentiation and deviation, the Thirdness of continuity. 

 

Edwina

 

 

 

 

 


 

On Tue 24/10/17 4:52 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:

While we are on the topic of categories… some time ago, we discussed the role 
of imitation with respect to pragmatism, and I recall that we arrived at a 
consensus that yes, imitation is important. But as we watch the western world 
unravel, I’ve been thinking more and more about the role imitation in this 
decent into chaos. Imitation is at the centre of it. If you are born into 
Christianity, or Islam, or conservatism, or liberalism, and if you choose to 
immerse yourself into one of these lifestyles, you will imitate its values. The 
spilling of blood or rule by governments is contingent, in the first instance, 
on imitation. So how do the categories apply to imitation? Allow me to suggest 
some possibilities:

1)  Firstness: In my 2001 semiotica paper (The law of association of 
habits), I introduced the desire to be (analogous to Heidegger’s Dasein). The 
known and the unknown relate. Fear of the unknown provides a compelling 
motivation to imitate the known, in order to be. It applies, principally, to 
any living entity. Does it make sense to define this desire to be as the prime 
mover (or firstness)? It does, after all, account for other emotions, such as 
the fear of not being, or the fear of loss, or the fear of the unknown, or the 
desire for materialism, or the need to belong (conformity); 

2)  Secon

RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

[Stephen Jarosek]

While we are on the topic of categories… some time ago, we discussed the
role of imitation with respect to pragmatism, and I recall that we arrived
at a consensus that yes, imitation is important. But as we watch the western
world unravel, I’ve been thinking more and more about the role imitation in
this decent into chaos. Imitation is at the centre of it. If you are born
into Christianity, or Islam, or conservatism, or liberalism, and if you
choose to immerse yourself into one of these lifestyles, you will imitate
its values. The spilling of blood or rule by governments is contingent, in
the first instance, on imitation. So how do the categories apply to
imitation? Allow me to suggest some possibilities:



1)  Firstness: In my 2001 semiotica paper (The law of association of
habits), I introduced the desire to be (analogous to Heidegger’s Dasein).
The known and the unknown relate. Fear of the unknown provides a compelling
motivation to imitate the known, in order to be. It applies, principally, to
any living entity. Does it make sense to define this desire to be as the
prime mover (or firstness)? It does, after all, account for other emotions,
such as the fear of not being, or the fear of loss, or the fear of the
unknown, or the desire for materialism, or the need to belong (conformity);

2)  Secondness: A living entity imitates the things that matter that
come together in the contexts that are relevant to its Umwelt (for humans,
the Umwelt is culture). Birds, like crows, are terrific and intelligent
imitators that will imitate their conspecifics in the use of tools, for
example;

3)  Thirdness: A living entity habituates and internalizes the things
that matter and these become manifestations of the entity’s notion of self.


Abduction, induction, etc, are relevant when it comes to how a mind-body
negotiates its Umwelt of options. But I’m coming around to thinking that
perhaps imitation should be elevated to a more central role, around which
everything else revolves. An infant raised among wolves will become a feral
child. An animal raised among humans will become domesticated. A human with
thugs as role models will become a criminal. In other words, imitation, to
some extent, overrides the mind-body predispositions. It might even be
argued that abduction, induction, etc, are secondary to dumb imitation… just
go along with what everyone else is doing.

And we might extend the same line of thinking to matter and the physics of
entanglement. Subatomic particles also need to make a choice between being
and not being… hence the relevance of virtual particles, and their need to
acquire the “right” behavior before they can become the atoms and molecules
that persist across time.

Here is an interesting article
 * on gender differences in
humans and monkeys. Do boy and girl humans/monkeys somehow already sense
that they are boys or girls, and ipso facto go on to imitate the respective
male/female parent? The parents know, so surely, the infants pick up on
their cues to know whether they are boy or girl, and therefore, which parent
to imitate.

Is this what it all comes down to? Imitation? Imitation is important because
it is the interface between the known and the unknown. Imitation is integral
to overcoming entropy. 

Imitation accounts for organism behavior far better than mainstream genetic
determinism. In this regard, at least, Richard Dawkins’ memetic theory was a
baby-step in the right direction.

* Jarrett, Christian (2017, October 3). The Psychology of Sex Differences –
5 Revealing Insights From Our Primate Cousins. Research Digest.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/10/03/the-psychology-of-sex-differences-5-rev
ealing-insights-from-our-primate-cousins/

Regards

 

From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:40 AM
To: Helmut Raulien; tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories

 

Edwina, Helmut, List,

 

If you are interested in Peirce's account of genuine and degenerate
relations among the elemental categories, then I recommend:  

 

Kruse, Felicia E. "Genuineness and Degeneracy in Peirce's Categories."
Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 27, no. 3 (1991): 267-298.

 

--Jeff

 

Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354

  _  

From: Edwina Taborsky 
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 12:21:40 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; Helmut Raulien
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories 

 


Helmut - my understanding of 'degenerate' is simply that the mode includes
another mode. So, genuine Secondness refers to a mode of organization or
composition that functions only within Secondness. Degenerate Secondness
includes Firstness in that composition.

One can 'theoretically, I suppose, refer to 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Collapsing the wave function

[Stephen Jarosek]

And as gifted as he was, Peirce was also human. It pays to bear that in mind.

>"That means that no hypothesis should be ruled out in advance."

I agree. But multiverse theory has been around for a while. It has been 
incorporated into the narrative and provided the basis for testing conjectures 
and viewpoints... it deserved to be aired, at least in the spirit of 
brainstorming. And in its failure to yield anything of substance, it has long 
exceeded its use-by date. But instead, it persists and continues to be taken 
seriously only because the credentialed keep breathing life into it.

Credentialism, as a reflection of contemporary, progressive celebrity-culture, 
is quite different to authentic scholastic enquiry.

Regards


-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] 
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 5:10 AM
To: Peirce-L; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Collapsing the wave function

On 9/28/2017 7:18 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> Multiverse theory is a symptom of intellectual desperation… a descent 
> into debating the number of angels on the head of a pin.

Both of those lines are contrary to anything Peirce would have said or approved.

Peirce's First Rule of Reason:  "Do not block the way of inquiry."

That means that no hypothesis should be ruled out in advance.
It may be a dead end.  Or maybe not.  But sometimes the act of stating a bad 
hypothesis may suggest something better.

Second line:  The joke about "counting the number of angels on the head of a 
pin" was stated by ignorant people who were trying to ridicule Scholastic logic 
and philosophy.

Peirce had a high regard for Scholastic logic, and he took pride in having the 
largest number of manuscripts on medieval logic in the Boston area.

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 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] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

[Stephen Jarosek]

>"but because these posts have not been relevant to the study of semiotics"

Complete rubbish. The topic, AND the broken culture that provides the 
narratives for the topic, have everything to do with semiotics, particularly in 
the context of pragmatism. Broken science can only ever come from broken 
culture and politicized agendas. If you do not see this, then you should not be 
calling whatever it is that you are studying, semiotics.

Nonetheless, I do agree that something needs to be done about this situation 
with Sadhu Sanga... people should have the freedom to participate in the lists 
of their choosing. 

And just to be clear - I certainly have no intention of curtailing my 
participation in Sadhu Sanga just to appease anyone's butthurt. So the sooner 
this situation is resolved, the better.


-Original Message-
From: g...@gnusystems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:52 PM
To: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Is relativity theory holding back 
progress in science?

I'd like to second John Sowa's suggestion that the cc or bcc of Sadhu Sanga 
posts to Peirce-L should stop — not because the study of physics is irrelevant 
to the study of semiotics, but because these posts have not been relevant to 
the study of semiotics or of Peirce.

Gary f.

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] 

>"I would prefer not to have these emails stuff my folder for Peirce-L.  Unless 
>other Peirce-L subscribers want to read these notes, I suggest that the cc or 
>bcc to Peirce-L should stop."




-
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] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

[Stephen Jarosek]

>"I would prefer not to have these emails stuff my folder for Peirce-L.  Unless 
>other Peirce-L subscribers want to read these notes, I suggest that the cc or 
>bcc to Peirce-L should stop."

Before anyone dismisses the study of physics as irrelevant to the study of 
semiotics, might I suggest that physics has everything to do with semiotics... 
not just from the perspective of pragmatism as it relates to experimentation, 
but also pragmatism in the context of how living entities with neuroplastic 
brains define space and time to matter. If physicists do not address these 
deeper aspects of pragmatism, then they are likely to keep making the same 
category errors and churning out the same unfalsifiable nonsense without end.

Indeed, I'd go so far as to suggest that the solution to these contemporary 
controversies in physics must ultimately factor in semiotics, by necessity, 
because everything that any living organism can know about space or time is 
experiential and irredeemably subjective. David Chalmers' "hard problem" is 
about much more than the color red. Space and time are the meanings that we 
attribute to what we experience, in the choices that we make from space.

Or to put all this another way... maybe it is semiotics that will save physics.

sj

-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] 
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 2:25 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Is relativity theory holding back 
progress in science?

I have been following new developments in physics for many years, and I am also 
interested in Peirce's views on the subject.  But I agree with the summary 
below by Kashyap V Vasavada.

I would prefer not to have these emails stuff my folder for Peirce-L.  Unless 
other Peirce-L subscribers want to read these notes, I suggest that the cc or 
bcc to Peirce-L should stop.

John

---
Dear Mark,

I completely agree with you. QM, SR and GR are three beautiful theories of 
physics, extremely successful in their domain of applicability. 
Surely, problems remain, like combination of QM and GR in a theory of quantum 
gravity which will be relevant in discussion of black holes, origin of 
universe, dark matter and dark energy. But trying to find faults at a very 
elementary text book material is like pursuing mirage. 
Anyone is welcome to waste his/her time!!!

You put it very well. Thanks!

As I said before, understanding Consciousness is a major task for science. But 
that will not be helped by trying to fix physical science theories. Do not try 
to fix things which are not broken!!

Best Regards.

Kashyap


-
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] Quantum Semiotics - published paper

[Stephen Jarosek]

Dear list members,

My latest paper, Quantum Semiotics, has just now become available as a pdf,
online, at the Journal of Nonlocality:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64

The timing is a pleasant surprise, as only this morning I stumbled across
the following (it raises fascinating questions with respect to my paper -
meaning, will DNA entanglement explain these goings on?):
http://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-has-been-filmed-for-the-first-ti
me-and-it-s-stranger-than-we-thought

Stephen Jarosek


-
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:9231] Re: Transcending Scientism - print version ready

[Stephen Jarosek]

Sure, I'll follow up Monday or Tuesday.

 

From: Spooner, Brian J [mailto:spoo...@sas.upenn.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:34 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: [biosemiotics:9231] Re: Transcending Scientism - print version
ready

 

I would be grateful if you would email me a pdf of your book/

 

Thanks

 

brian spooner

  _  

From: Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:41:46 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: [biosemiotics:9225] Transcending Scientism - print version ready
now. 

 

List,

Towards the end of last year I posted here to advise that my eBook was
published. Some members contacted me to ask when the print version is
available. It's available now.

A more detailed synopsis of the book than that already provided:

1) Emphasis is on the PRACTICAL interpretation of the semiotics of CS
Peirce. What does Peircean semiotics imply for how we should live our lives?
Intended for general readership and as such, it omits detailed scholarly
discourse;
2) The FIRST CHAPTER is about the failure of the Darwinian paradigm,
attributable to its failure to address entropy. Peircean semiotics is in a
much better position to address entropy because of imitation. Imitation as a
variation on the pragmatic maxim, and how organisms define the things that
matter;
3) We touch on quantum semiotics - semiosis at the atomic-molecular
level, and how it relates to entanglement, and why DNA entanglement is
essential to understanding how life works. Unlike my earlier unsubstantiated
conjectures that I introduced in this forum, however, this time I provide
robust evidence to substantiate the DNA entanglement conjecture;
4) The SECOND CHAPTER is about exposing Dukkha. Dukkha is a term from
Buddhism, loosely translated as "suffering" or "imperfection." Exposing
dukkha is about exposing the breakdown in contemporary culture, and why we
need to "flee this burning house" (the burning house parable familiar to
Buddhists - to learn to see culture as it is, thus enabling one, in effect,
to transform to a different kind of "human organism"). Exposing dukkha...
how dukkha relates to the three categories, expressed in terms of habit,
association and motivation;
5) Throughout the book, we address broken science, and how a broken
materialist paradigm relates to broken culture. Of course this relates
directly to semiotics... how a broken science paradigm relates to pragmatism
and epistemology, by informing cultures about the things that matter;
6) Imitation - knowing how to be - the most essential pragmatism, and
how every organism defines the things that matter. The importance of
narrative and the company that we keep;
7) In its practical emphasis, the book relates also to politics and
religion;
8) Scientism as religion. There is nothing "objective" about materialist
science at all, as it will never overcome the subjectivity that is integral
to the pragmatic maxim.

If anyone is having difficulty obtaining the ebook online, contact me and
I'll forward a file version in either epub or pdf format, no charge.

The full title of the book: Transcending Scientism - Mending Broken
Culture's Broken Science

Print version:
https://www.amazon.com/Transcending-Scientism-Mending-Cultures-Science/dp/09
77526119

eBook version:
https://www.amazon.com/Transcending-Scientism-Mending-Cultures-Science-ebook
/dp/B01M14TCVR

sj


-
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] Pragmatism and Sign as holon as mind-body as tool

[Stephen Jarosek]

Ah yes Edwina, now I remember… we had this conversation before… perhaps we 
should quit while we are still friends J

But briefly, should others here be interested in exploring where I’m coming 
from, my reasoning is along the lines of Norman Doidge’s ideas on neural 
plasticity, and how experience wires the brain. Experiences are intercepted by 
bodies, and it is at the interface between body and experience that the brain 
is wired. There is no genetic blueprint to account for the brain’s functional 
specializations. The brain is a “bucket of bugs” where neurons/glia are free to 
assemble themselves in order to accommodate experiences. Much like how a city 
of people assemble themselves in order to accommodate the city-culture’s 
experiences. The functional specializations of a city (zones – residential, 
commercial, industrial, etc) are my metaphor for the functional specializations 
in the brain (cerebellum, visual cortex, medulla, etc). But all this is 
outlined in greater detail in my Biosemiotics journal article (Springer).

The study of feral children relates directly… feral children are not “brain 
damaged” – their brains are wired perfectly, following exposure to unique 
experiences, in order to accommodate those unique experiences. The ideas of 
Tomasz Szasz (The Myth of Mental Illness) also relate.

The principle target of my criticism is the widely accepted genocentric notion, 
in the mainstream, of “instinct”. Darwinism, especially Neo-Darwinism, has 
imposed on our cultural narrative this self-consistent “explanation” for 
behavior grounded in instinct. It is accepted as a given. Their method of 
analysis relies on confirmation bias to prove it. “Oh cats behave like cats 
because instinct, dontcha know?” “It’s programmed into the genes, dumbass.” 
“Dogs bark because instinct, silly.”  Genocentrism… it’s just not how life 
works… not by a long shot.

Cheers
sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 2:18 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism and Sign as holon as mind-body as tool

 


Stephen, list - I think this is a bit of 'putting the cart before the horse'; 
I'm not a fan of Sebeok - and to say that because an organism does not have the 
physiological equipment for speech means that they will not use speech - is 
hardly a world-shaking analysis. Perhaps I've missed the point.

Edwina
-- 
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's 
largest alternative telecommunications provider. 

http://www.primus.ca 

On Wed 05/04/17 5:00 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:

List,

Allow me to take advantage of this lull in postings to elaborate on the 
relationship between pragmatism and the mind-body unity. The notion of 
body-as-tool is a very important one because it sheds light on so many things, 
from sex differences in most species to gender roles in culture, to why cats 
don’t boogie, to why dogs don’t wear suits. 

Or, why can’t dogs ever be taught to drive? Because their mind-bodies do not 
predispose them to caring about all the contexts that must come together to 
make driving a “thing”. Why can’t cats be taught to use a fork and knife 
instead of gulping down their cat-food from a bowl? Because their mind-bodies 
provide no basis upon which they should define table manners as relevant. But 
can’t you just indoctrinate the most stubborn of critters by repetition, or 
shouting instructions at them more often and more loudly? No, because you 
cannot cross pragmatism’s mind-body barrier. If something cannot matter to an 
entity, then no manner of shouting at it is going to change their minds. To a 
cat with four paws and no vocal chords with which to voice approval or dissent, 
a fork and knife will bear no relationship to food, and it never can. Now you 
might be able to make table-manners matter by the force of will and the threat 
of punishment, but said “manners” will never matter in the same way that it 
matters to humans, the meaning is completely different.

None of this has anything to do with “intelligence” and everything to do with 
motivation (firstness?) and bodily predispositions and how an entity defines 
the things that matter. It’s a fundamentally simple idea that is often 
expressed along the following lines (variously misattributed to everyone, from 
Mark Twain to Abraham Maslow):
“If Your Only Tool Is a Hammer Then Every Problem Looks Like a Nail”
“A man whose only tool is a hammer will perceive the world in terms of nails”
“A critter whose only tool is four paws, fur and whiskers will perceive the 
world in terms of cat-food.”
(ahem… that last one was me)

Developing upon this theme:
A human whose only tool is a woman’s body will perceive the world principally 
in terms of the cultural known;
A human whose only tool is a man’s body will perceive the world principally in 
terms of the interface between the cultural known and the unkno

[PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism and Sign as holon as mind-body as tool

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

Allow me to take advantage of this lull in postings to elaborate on the
relationship between pragmatism and the mind-body unity. The notion of
body-as-tool is a very important one because it sheds light on so many
things, from sex differences in most species to gender roles in culture, to
why cats don't boogie, to why dogs don't wear suits. 

Or, why can't dogs ever be taught to drive? Because their mind-bodies do not
predispose them to caring about all the contexts that must come together to
make driving a "thing". Why can't cats be taught to use a fork and knife
instead of gulping down their cat-food from a bowl? Because their
mind-bodies provide no basis upon which they should define table manners as
relevant. But can't you just indoctrinate the most stubborn of critters by
repetition, or shouting instructions at them more often and more loudly? No,
because you cannot cross pragmatism's mind-body barrier. If something cannot
matter to an entity, then no manner of shouting at it is going to change
their minds. To a cat with four paws and no vocal chords with which to voice
approval or dissent, a fork and knife will bear no relationship to food, and
it never can. Now you might be able to make table-manners matter by the
force of will and the threat of punishment, but said "manners" will never
matter in the same way that it matters to humans, the meaning is completely
different.

None of this has anything to do with "intelligence" and everything to do
with motivation (firstness?) and bodily predispositions and how an entity
defines the things that matter. It's a fundamentally simple idea that is
often expressed along the following lines (variously misattributed to
everyone, from Mark Twain to Abraham Maslow):
"If Your Only Tool Is a Hammer Then Every Problem Looks Like a Nail"
"A man whose only tool is a hammer will perceive the world in terms of
nails"
"A critter whose only tool is four paws, fur and whiskers will perceive the
world in terms of cat-food."
(ahem. that last one was me)

Developing upon this theme:
A human whose only tool is a woman's body will perceive the world
principally in terms of the cultural known;
A human whose only tool is a man's body will perceive the world principally
in terms of the interface between the cultural known and the unknown.
(where the cultural known relates to the habits of established authority,
traditions, values, etc, and the cultural unknown relates to risk,
competition, resource management, etc)

Thomas Sebeok was basically on track with his thesis that an ape can never
use language to communicate with humans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-
speech-theory.html

Now whether or not Sebeok's thesis is 100% accurate, before an ape can be
taught to speak, it has to have the MOTIVATION to speak. And that can only
come about by somehow addressing the ape's mind-body predispositions, and
the environment with which it interfaces, to draw those predispositions into
actuality. 

Now perhaps I am making leaps in reasoning that need to be laid out. The
notion of Self as Sign, for example, might be better understood if we
factored in the DNA entanglement that unifies all the cells constituting a
mind-body (holon), into a single unity. Without at least an outline alluding
to the physics of this unity (the binding problem), our way forward will
remain ambiguous. Either way, my position is that the notion of body as tool
is fundamental to understanding pragmatism (and consciousness). And this is
not inconsistent with the notion of mind-body, or holon, as Sign. A more
detailed explanation of my line of reasoning can be found in the
Biosemiotics journal (Springer), or at:
https://www.academia.edu/3236559/Pragmatism_Neural_Plasticity_and_Mind-Body_
Unity
My paper on DNA entanglement is scheduled to be published in a couple of
months time in another journal - an outline of the original relevant
concepts exists:
https://www.academia.edu/29626663/DNA_ENTANGLEMENT_THE_EVIDENCE_MOUNTS

sj


-
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: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was semantic problem with the term)

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina, in a previous comment, you stated, “I'd use the term 'Sign' [capital S] 
to mean, I think, what you mean by a 'holon'.“

While I wholly agree with your point, my reference to holon as a mind-body is 
also helpful one to keep in mind, because it draws attention to the 
relationship between the mind-body and pragmatism. That is, the body provides 
very specific “tools” that predispose an entity to making very specific choices 
from its ecosystem. So, where you consider a bacterium to be a “semiosic 
materialization of Mind” you must surely also be inferring the mind-body 
predispositions in which it manifests… ie, its physical structure and chemical 
properties.

A mind-body is a sign, but the body is also the toolkit that extracts from 
infinite possibility the very specific things that matter, and that become 
defined in the mind-body’s world-view. For example, sex across species and 
gender roles in culture… and chemical reactions in molecules. As I am not a 
scholar studying Peirce in detail, am I perhaps over-stating the already 
obvious?

sj



From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 8:16 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; Stephen Jarosek; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; John F Sowa
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was 
semantic problem with the term)

 

John, list: As you say - you've evaded the issue. 

My own interest is in examining the 'rational materialization of Mind' - each 
of which I consider a Sign, or rather, a Sign-process, since nothing is static. 
So, rather than saying that a single bacterium 'has' a quasi-mind, I'd consider 
that bacterium to be a semiosic materialization of Mind. The brain is not the 
same as Mind. 

Edwina

-- 
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's 
largest alternative telecommunications provider. 

http://www.primus.ca 

On Sun 02/04/17 12:00 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:

On 4/2/2017 11:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: 
> I like your terms and yes, Peirce has indeed used all of them. 
> My question is: What would your definition be of a 'sign'? 
> You use it often in the chart but it has no definition. 

I'm glad that you approve of the choice of terms. 

Re definition of sign: I agree with all of Peirce's definitions. 
He used different words and phrases on various occasions, but I 
believe that they are consistent ways of expressing the fundamental 
relationships. 

In "Signs and Reality", I quoted one of them (CP 2.228), but it uses 
the word 'person', which would exclude computers. Later, I quoted 
“Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain” (CP 4.551). 
And I also believe that his term 'quasi-mind' is important for 
biosemiotics and computer systems. 

In short, I evaded the issue. But I think that Peirce also evaded 
the issue -- for a very good reason: Within a particular formal 
system (axioms in some version of logic), it's possible to state 
necessary and sufficient conditions that cover all and every use 
of a term within that system. 

But the question of how or whether a particular formal theory 
applies to some aspect of the real world is an empirical issue. 
Nobody knows what kinds of quasi-minds might exist somewhere 
in the universe. 

Even within our own brains, neuroscientists are constantly 
discovering unexpected features. If a single bacterium could 
be considered to have a quasi-mind, what about a single neuron 
in the brain? A single eukaryotic cell has several organelles, 
derived from more primitive cells that have been "swallowed" 
and incorporated into the larger cell. Are those organelles 
also "quasi-minds"? 

Marvin Minsky coined the term 'Society of Mind'. Are our brains 
societies of billions of quasi-minds (neurons), each of which is 
a society of even smaller quasi-minds? 

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 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] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was semantic problem with the term)

[Stephen Jarosek]

On the one hand I agree with you, John. Perhaps there is greater value in 
sticking with the word imitation, for example, but emphasizing its nuances to 
the scholars. I can accept that.

However, the more I think about it, imitation is so central that perhaps a case 
can be made for a more accurate representation of what we really mean. Even 
Richard Dawkins accepts imitation as utterly vital for understanding culture, 
in the memetic theory that he developed. But as we realize, what he means by 
imitation is very different to what we mean. He means imitation as some kind of 
instinct for copying, "programmed" into the brain... an adaptive response to 
environmental pressures... an almost trivial after-thought that plays second 
fiddle to selfish genes. But what we mean by imitation is very, very 
different... it relates to the core of being, pragmatism, knowing how to be, 
overcoming entropy, and how existence is even possible.

But yes, I agree with you... as unsatisfactory as the term might be, at least 
it resonates with what the mainstream easily understands. And anyways, it is 
the nature of signs to change their meaning with history and learning, and so 
we can envisage a more enlightened, revised interpretation down the track. 
Imitation it is then :)

sj

-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] 
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 8:53 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was semantic 
problem with the term)

Edwina, Stephen, list,

I don't disagree with the points you're addressing, but I'm concerned about the 
proliferation of terminology.

Formal logic and linguistics (Chomsky, Montague, Kamp, Partee and their PhD 
students) have had little success for AI and natural language understanding.  
The next generation of students adopted statistics and neural networks.

I believe that Peirce's insights are an excellent foundation for relating and 
integrating all those areas -- the new and the old.

We have an opportunity for bringing Peirce into the mainstream of cognitive 
science (philosophy, psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, 
neuroscience, and anthropology).  Peirce was a pioneer in developing the 
foundations for all those areas.

Edwina
> And I'd also agree that imitation is vital, but I'd define such an 
> action more through the development of common GENERAL habits-of-form 
> and behaviour than pure active imitation or direct copying.

Stephen
> I am 100% with you on this. I just did a synonym search on imitation, 
> without luck. I think we need to invent a new word to more accurately 
> describe this replication and sharing of signs/behavior.

Some new words may be useful, but there's already an overabundance of 
terminology from several millennia of philosophy, most of which Peirce replaced 
with a new set of terms.  That is the theme of the following article:

Signs and Reality
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signs.pdf

Criterion for any new terminology:  Will it make Peirce's writings more 
accessible to people who come from other traditions?

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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

RE: RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was semantic problem with the term)

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”And I'd also agree that imitation is vital, but I'd define such an action 
>more through the development of common GENERAL habits-of-form and behaviour 
>than pure active imitation or direct copying.”

I am 100% with you on this. I just did a synonym search on imitation, without 
luck. I think we need to invent a new word to more accurately describe this 
replication and sharing of signs/behavior.

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 2:30 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Jon Alan Schmidt'; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; Stephen 
Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis 
(Was semantic problem with the term)

 

Stephen - interesting outline. 

 

I'd use the term 'Sign' [capital S] to mean, I think, what you mean by a 
'holon'.

 

And I agree with your notion of non-local  'entanglement' which I would refer 
to as 'informational networking'. It is also non-local.

 

And I'd also agree that imitation is vital, but I'd define such an action more 
through the development of common GENERAL habits-of-form and behaviour than 
pure active imitation or direct copying.

 

Edwina

-- 
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's 
largest alternative telecommunications provider. 

http://www.primus.ca 

On Sat 01/04/17 3:48 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:

List,

Regarding the Peircean categories in matter, here are the starting assumptions 
that I work with:

1)  First, a couple of definitions: A HOLON is a mind-body. Every living 
organism, as a mind-body, is a holon. Furthermore, IMITATION is an important 
category of pragmatism. Every organism “learns how to be” through imitation;

2)  The Peircean categories relate to holons. Pragmatism requires a 
mind-body in order to define the things that matter;

3)  An atom or a molecule is a holon;

4)  In the video Inner Life of the Cell <https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk> , 
what I observe is less chemical reactions (in the conventional, linear, 
materialist sense) than it is a whole ecosystem at the molecular level.

 

In the persistence of atoms and molecules across time, we encounter Peirce’s 
description of matter as  “mind hide-bound in habit,” so we have no argument 
there. But what about pragmatism, or the other categories? From a 
semiotic/pragmatic perspective, how does an atom or molecule define the things 
that matter? 

This is where entanglement (nonlocality) enters the picture. My conjecture is 
that atoms and molecules “know” their proper conduct, or properties, through 
entanglement. Entanglement is their imitation. A molecular “mind-body” has its 
predispositions (secondness, or association) and motivations (firstness), and 
it will act on them as per the video clip… but it can only “know how to be” 
through entanglement. Knowing how to be, I guess, relates in the first instance 
to firstness.

It is along these lines that I base my DNA entanglement thesis: 
https://www.academia.edu/29626663/DNA_ENTANGLEMENT_THE_EVIDENCE_MOUNTS


Imitation plays such an important role in pragmatism and defining the things 
that matter. Even for atoms and molecules. Imitation is perhaps the most 
important antidote to entropy… no let me rephrase that… imitation is perhaps 
central to overcoming entropy. A species sharing identical mind-bodies with 
identical predispositions is one thing, but there are so many possibilities in 
those predispositions that a shared consensus in behavior… imitation… is 
required to enable an ecosystem to hang together. We see this especially in 
human cultures… same mind-bodies, but totally different cultures. Imitation 
whittles down infinite possibility to pragmatic, tangible reality.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca 
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ] 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:33 PM
To: Jon Alan Schmidt; tabor...@primus.ca 
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ; Jeffrey Brian 
Downard
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was 
semantic problem with the term)

 


Jeff, list: I agree; I have written about how the relations - as I call them, 
the Six Relations of:

Firstness -as- Firstness, i.e., genuine Firstness 

Secondness -as- Secondness; i.e., genuine Secondness

Thirdness-as-Thirdness, i.e., genuine Thirdness

Secondness-as-Firstness, i.e., degenerate Secondness, or Secondness operating 
within a mode also of Firstness

Thirdness-as Firstness, i.e., degenerate Thirdness

Thirdness-as- Secondness

 

I've written about how these Six Relations - and I agree that ALL of them are 
vital - operate to enable particular matter, diversity of matter, stability of 
type etc. 

I could send you, off list, a paper on this. I don't see posting it on this 
list.

 

I would question, however, whether dyadic 'things' were primary, as you see

RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was semantic problem with the term)

[Stephen Jarosek]

I forgot to mention some assumptions in my thought experiment:

1)  Identicality – to be perfectly identical is to be entangled;

2)  Recoherence – there is no such thing as decoherence –but there is 
recoherence when an atom/molecule reconnects with previous states.

 

From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] 
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 9:49 AM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Jon Alan Schmidt'; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was 
semantic problem with the term)

 

List,

Regarding the Peircean categories in matter, here are the starting assumptions 
that I work with:

1)  First, a couple of definitions: A HOLON is a mind-body. Every living 
organism, as a mind-body, is a holon. Furthermore, IMITATION is an important 
category of pragmatism. Every organism “learns how to be” through imitation;

2)  The Peircean categories relate to holons. Pragmatism requires a 
mind-body in order to define the things that matter;

3)  An atom or a molecule is a holon;

4)  In the video Inner Life of the Cell <https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk> , 
what I observe is less chemical reactions (in the conventional, linear, 
materialist sense) than it is a whole ecosystem at the molecular level.

 

In the persistence of atoms and molecules across time, we encounter Peirce’s 
description of matter as  “mind hide-bound in habit,” so we have no argument 
there. But what about pragmatism, or the other categories? From a 
semiotic/pragmatic perspective, how does an atom or molecule define the things 
that matter? 

This is where entanglement (nonlocality) enters the picture. My conjecture is 
that atoms and molecules “know” their proper conduct, or properties, through 
entanglement. Entanglement is their imitation. A molecular “mind-body” has its 
predispositions (secondness, or association) and motivations (firstness), and 
it will act on them as per the video clip… but it can only “know how to be” 
through entanglement. Knowing how to be, I guess, relates in the first instance 
to firstness.

It is along these lines that I base my DNA entanglement thesis: 
https://www.academia.edu/29626663/DNA_ENTANGLEMENT_THE_EVIDENCE_MOUNTS


Imitation plays such an important role in pragmatism and defining the things 
that matter. Even for atoms and molecules. Imitation is perhaps the most 
important antidote to entropy… no let me rephrase that… imitation is perhaps 
central to overcoming entropy. A species sharing identical mind-bodies with 
identical predispositions is one thing, but there are so many possibilities in 
those predispositions that a shared consensus in behavior… imitation… is 
required to enable an ecosystem to hang together. We see this especially in 
human cultures… same mind-bodies, but totally different cultures. Imitation 
whittles down infinite possibility to pragmatic, tangible reality.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:33 PM
To: Jon Alan Schmidt; tabor...@primus.ca; Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was 
semantic problem with the term)

 


Jeff, list: I agree; I have written about how the relations - as I call them, 
the Six Relations of:

Firstness -as- Firstness, i.e., genuine Firstness

Secondness -as- Secondness; i.e., genuine Secondness

Thirdness-as-Thirdness, i.e., genuine Thirdness

Secondness-as-Firstness, i.e., degenerate Secondness, or Secondness operating 
within a mode also of Firstness

Thirdness-as Firstness, i.e., degenerate Thirdness

Thirdness-as- Secondness

 

I've written about how these Six Relations - and I agree that ALL of them are 
vital - operate to enable particular matter, diversity of matter, stability of 
type etc.

I could send you, off list, a paper on this. I don't see posting it on this 
list.

 

I would question, however, whether dyadic 'things' were primary, as you seem to 
suggest, and only later evolved to include the triad. I think the triad is 
primal.

 

Edwina


-- 
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's 
largest alternative telecommunications provider. 

http://www.primus.ca 

On Fri 31/03/17 4:18 PM , Jeffrey Brian Downard jeffrey.down...@nau.edu sent:

Edwina, Jon S, List,

 

With the aim of sharpening the point, Peirce seems to suggest that, for the 
sake of explaining the cosmos, it is important to ask how degenerate forms of 
these relations might have grown into more genuine forms of the relations.

 

As such, the question is not simply one of how, as you seem to be putting it, 
simple firsts, second and thirds started to grow together--or of how one simple 
element might have preceded the other in some sense. Rather, using the more 
sophisticated classification of types of seconds and thirds that Peirce 
provides in a number of places, the question I'm asking is how things having 
the cha

RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was semantic problem with the term)

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

Regarding the Peircean categories in matter, here are the starting assumptions 
that I work with:

1)  First, a couple of definitions: A HOLON is a mind-body. Every living 
organism, as a mind-body, is a holon. Furthermore, IMITATION is an important 
category of pragmatism. Every organism “learns how to be” through imitation;

2)  The Peircean categories relate to holons. Pragmatism requires a 
mind-body in order to define the things that matter;

3)  An atom or a molecule is a holon;

4)  In the video Inner Life of the Cell  , 
what I observe is less chemical reactions (in the conventional, linear, 
materialist sense) than it is a whole ecosystem at the molecular level.

 

In the persistence of atoms and molecules across time, we encounter Peirce’s 
description of matter as  “mind hide-bound in habit,” so we have no argument 
there. But what about pragmatism, or the other categories? From a 
semiotic/pragmatic perspective, how does an atom or molecule define the things 
that matter? 

This is where entanglement (nonlocality) enters the picture. My conjecture is 
that atoms and molecules “know” their proper conduct, or properties, through 
entanglement. Entanglement is their imitation. A molecular “mind-body” has its 
predispositions (secondness, or association) and motivations (firstness), and 
it will act on them as per the video clip… but it can only “know how to be” 
through entanglement. Knowing how to be, I guess, relates in the first instance 
to firstness.

It is along these lines that I base my DNA entanglement thesis: 
https://www.academia.edu/29626663/DNA_ENTANGLEMENT_THE_EVIDENCE_MOUNTS


Imitation plays such an important role in pragmatism and defining the things 
that matter. Even for atoms and molecules. Imitation is perhaps the most 
important antidote to entropy… no let me rephrase that… imitation is perhaps 
central to overcoming entropy. A species sharing identical mind-bodies with 
identical predispositions is one thing, but there are so many possibilities in 
those predispositions that a shared consensus in behavior… imitation… is 
required to enable an ecosystem to hang together. We see this especially in 
human cultures… same mind-bodies, but totally different cultures. Imitation 
whittles down infinite possibility to pragmatic, tangible reality.

sj



 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:33 PM
To: Jon Alan Schmidt; tabor...@primus.ca; Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was 
semantic problem with the term)

 


Jeff, list: I agree; I have written about how the relations - as I call them, 
the Six Relations of:

Firstness -as- Firstness, i.e., genuine Firstness

Secondness -as- Secondness; i.e., genuine Secondness

Thirdness-as-Thirdness, i.e., genuine Thirdness

Secondness-as-Firstness, i.e., degenerate Secondness, or Secondness operating 
within a mode also of Firstness

Thirdness-as Firstness, i.e., degenerate Thirdness

Thirdness-as- Secondness

 

I've written about how these Six Relations - and I agree that ALL of them are 
vital - operate to enable particular matter, diversity of matter, stability of 
type etc.

I could send you, off list, a paper on this. I don't see posting it on this 
list.

 

I would question, however, whether dyadic 'things' were primary, as you seem to 
suggest, and only later evolved to include the triad. I think the triad is 
primal.

 

Edwina


-- 
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's 
largest alternative telecommunications provider. 

http://www.primus.ca 

On Fri 31/03/17 4:18 PM , Jeffrey Brian Downard jeffrey.down...@nau.edu sent:

Edwina, Jon S, List,

 

With the aim of sharpening the point, Peirce seems to suggest that, for the 
sake of explaining the cosmos, it is important to ask how degenerate forms of 
these relations might have grown into more genuine forms of the relations.

 

As such, the question is not simply one of how, as you seem to be putting it, 
simple firsts, second and thirds started to grow together--or of how one simple 
element might have preceded the other in some sense. Rather, using the more 
sophisticated classification of types of seconds and thirds that Peirce 
provides in a number of places, the question I'm asking is how things having 
the character of essential or inherential dyads might have evolved into 
relational dyads of diversity, or of how qualitative relational dyads might 
have evolved into dynamical dyads--and how more genuine types of triads might 
have evolved from those that were relatively vague.

 

This, I think, is a better way of framing the questions coming out of his work 
in phenomenology and semiotics. From this work, we are supposed to derive the 
resources needed to frame better hypotheses in metaphysics and, in turn, in the 
special sciences.

 

--Jeff

 

Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Transcending Scientism - print version ready now.

[Stephen Jarosek]

Oops, correction. Animals don't do formal logic or science :) 
"Imitation as a variation on the pragmatic maxim" should read "Imitation as
a variation of pragmatism (biosemiotic)".

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:42 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Transcending Scientism - print version ready now.

List,

Towards the end of last year I posted here to advise that my eBook was
published. Some members contacted me to ask when the print version is
available. It's available now.

A more detailed synopsis of the book than that already provided:

1) Emphasis is on the PRACTICAL interpretation of the semiotics of CS
Peirce. What does Peircean semiotics imply for how we should live our lives?
Intended for general readership and as such, it omits detailed scholarly
discourse;
2) The FIRST CHAPTER is about the failure of the Darwinian paradigm,
attributable to its failure to address entropy. Peircean semiotics is in a
much better position to address entropy because of imitation. Imitation as a
variation on the pragmatic maxim, and how organisms define the things that
matter;
3) We touch on quantum semiotics - semiosis at the atomic-molecular
level, and how it relates to entanglement, and why DNA entanglement is
essential to understanding how life works. Unlike my earlier unsubstantiated
conjectures that I introduced in this forum, however, this time I provide
robust evidence to substantiate the DNA entanglement conjecture;
4) The SECOND CHAPTER is about exposing Dukkha. Dukkha is a term from
Buddhism, loosely translated as "suffering" or "imperfection." Exposing
dukkha is about exposing the breakdown in contemporary culture, and why we
need to "flee this burning house" (the burning house parable familiar to
Buddhists - to learn to see culture as it is, thus enabling one, in effect,
to transform to a different kind of "human organism"). Exposing dukkha...
how dukkha relates to the three categories, expressed in terms of habit,
association and motivation;
5) Throughout the book, we address broken science, and how a broken
materialist paradigm relates to broken culture. Of course this relates
directly to semiotics... how a broken science paradigm relates to pragmatism
and epistemology, by informing cultures about the things that matter;
6) Imitation - knowing how to be - the most essential pragmatism, and
how every organism defines the things that matter. The importance of
narrative and the company that we keep;
7) In its practical emphasis, the book relates also to politics and
religion;
8) Scientism as religion. There is nothing "objective" about materialist
science at all, as it will never overcome the subjectivity that is integral
to the pragmatic maxim.

If anyone is having difficulty obtaining the ebook online, contact me and
I'll forward a file version in either epub or pdf format, no charge.

The full title of the book: Transcending Scientism - Mending Broken
Culture's Broken Science

Print version:
https://www.amazon.com/Transcending-Scientism-Mending-Cultures-Science/dp/09
77526119

eBook version:
https://www.amazon.com/Transcending-Scientism-Mending-Cultures-Science-ebook
/dp/B01M14TCVR

sj



-
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] Transcending Scientism - print version ready now.

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

Towards the end of last year I posted here to advise that my eBook was
published. Some members contacted me to ask when the print version is
available. It's available now.

A more detailed synopsis of the book than that already provided:

1) Emphasis is on the PRACTICAL interpretation of the semiotics of CS
Peirce. What does Peircean semiotics imply for how we should live our lives?
Intended for general readership and as such, it omits detailed scholarly
discourse;
2) The FIRST CHAPTER is about the failure of the Darwinian paradigm,
attributable to its failure to address entropy. Peircean semiotics is in a
much better position to address entropy because of imitation. Imitation as a
variation on the pragmatic maxim, and how organisms define the things that
matter;
3) We touch on quantum semiotics - semiosis at the atomic-molecular
level, and how it relates to entanglement, and why DNA entanglement is
essential to understanding how life works. Unlike my earlier unsubstantiated
conjectures that I introduced in this forum, however, this time I provide
robust evidence to substantiate the DNA entanglement conjecture;
4) The SECOND CHAPTER is about exposing Dukkha. Dukkha is a term from
Buddhism, loosely translated as "suffering" or "imperfection." Exposing
dukkha is about exposing the breakdown in contemporary culture, and why we
need to "flee this burning house" (the burning house parable familiar to
Buddhists - to learn to see culture as it is, thus enabling one, in effect,
to transform to a different kind of "human organism"). Exposing dukkha...
how dukkha relates to the three categories, expressed in terms of habit,
association and motivation;
5) Throughout the book, we address broken science, and how a broken
materialist paradigm relates to broken culture. Of course this relates
directly to semiotics... how a broken science paradigm relates to pragmatism
and epistemology, by informing cultures about the things that matter;
6) Imitation - knowing how to be - the most essential pragmatism, and
how every organism defines the things that matter. The importance of
narrative and the company that we keep;
7) In its practical emphasis, the book relates also to politics and
religion;
8) Scientism as religion. There is nothing "objective" about materialist
science at all, as it will never overcome the subjectivity that is integral
to the pragmatic maxim.

If anyone is having difficulty obtaining the ebook online, contact me and
I'll forward a file version in either epub or pdf format, no charge.

The full title of the book: Transcending Scientism - Mending Broken
Culture's Broken Science

Print version:
https://www.amazon.com/Transcending-Scientism-Mending-Cultures-Science/dp/09
77526119

eBook version:
https://www.amazon.com/Transcending-Scientism-Mending-Cultures-Science-ebook
/dp/B01M14TCVR

sj


-
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] Pavlov's plant

[Stephen Jarosek]

More on Pavlov's plant:
http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201612069277/international/smart-plants-learn-new
-habits

Associative learning AND habituation. very interesting.

 

From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] 
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:08 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Pavlov's plant

 

Some interesting news directly relevant to the Peircean-biosemiotic
paradigm:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-06/plants-can-use-memory-to-learn-uwa-stu
dy-suggests/8098142

(we should anticipate the same extension of rationale to Pavlov's
subatomic/atomic/molecular particle - a paper in the works)


-
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] Pavlov's plant

[Stephen Jarosek]

Some interesting news directly relevant to the Peircean-biosemiotic
paradigm:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-06/plants-can-use-memory-to-learn-uwa-stu
dy-suggests/8098142

(we should anticipate the same extension of rationale to Pavlov's
subatomic/atomic/molecular particle - a paper in the works)


-
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] Quantum semiotics - the evidence mounts

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

While we have a thread running on Peirce's cosmology, metaphysics and
nothing, the following kind of relates, I guess :)

In the course of busying myself with my projects connecting quantum physics
with semiotics, I've unearthed further leads that might interest some of us
here. My thesis is that the principles of Peircean biosemiotics also apply
to subatomic, atomic and molecular particles. In other words, it relates to
pragmatism - even atoms and molecules have to "know" how to be, in order to
realize the properties that make life possible. My latest draft on this
topic can be accessed online:
https://www.academia.edu/29626663/DNA_ENTANGLEMENT_THE_EVIDENCE_MOUNTS

The bibliography from my latest draft incorporates some of the most recent
research in quantum mechanics, particularly as it relates to DNA
entanglement:

1) Established assumptions regarding decoherence presuppose that
quantum entanglement is fragile and easily destroyed when subjected to the
environment. But recent work on the topic of quantum freezing suggests that
this assumption is definitely not the whole picture, and that under certain
conditions, entanglement is quite persistent. Bibliographic references
include: Cianciaruso et al (2015), Silva et al (2016), Zyga (2015) and Zyga
(2016).
2) And even after undergoing decoherence, subatomic, atomic and
molecular entities can RECOHERE. There is such a thing as recoherence...
Bibliography reference: Bouchard et al (2015). Stuart Kauffman also makes
references to recoherence in a recent video clip. The topic of recoherence
has been around a while now.
3) Identicality (the fact that entities such as atoms and molecules
of any one element or compound are perfectly identical to one another) seems
to be implicated in the phenomenon of coherence/entanglement. Bibliographic
reference: Gefter (2015).
4) While references to entanglement between atoms and molecules are
not exactly new, recent research seems to suggest that entanglement between
even the largest molecules might be quite fundamental. Bibliographic
references include: Arndt et al (1999), Hackermüller et al (2003),
Hornberger et al (2012);
5) Recent experimental evidence suggests that coherence is
equivalent to entanglement... Bibliographic reference: Streltsov et al
(2015). This interests us because while it is one thing to suggest that the
principles of de Broglie wave coherence might apply to DNA molecules in an
organism, it is quite another to thus infer that the DNA molecules within an
organism are ENTANGLED. This now brings us to the binding problem, and how
it is that the many parts that come together to make up the whole can act as
a whole.

CONCLUSION

It now seems pretty clear that DNA entanglement is a real thing. Make of
that what we will, but the scope of implications are significant,
particularly from a semiotic perspective. We are reminded of QM's references
to observers, and the idea that the de Broglie wave function (or the
Schrodinger wave equation) relate to possibilities that are available to
particles as they try to figure out their own "options". Quantum
pragmatism... how can matter matter to matter?




ABOVE BIBLIOGRAPHIC ENTRIES IN MORE DETAIL

QUANTUM FREEZING:
Zyga, L. (2015). Physicists show 'quantum freezing phenomenon' is
universal. Phys. Org. Retrieved October 16, 2016 from
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-physicists-quantum-phenomenon-universal.html
Zyga, L. (2016). Forever quantum: physicists demonstrate everlasting
quantum coherence. Phys. Org. Retrieved October 16, 2016 from
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-quantum-physicists-everlasting-coherence.html
Cianciaruso et al. (2015). Universal freezing of quantum
correlations within the geometric approach. Nature Scientific Reports. 5
(Article number 10177). Retrieved October 16, 2016 from
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep10177
Silva et al. (2016). Observation of Time-Invariant Coherence in a
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Quantum Simulator. Physical Review Letters. 117
(160402).
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.160402

DECOHERED PARTICLES CAN RECOHERE:
Bouchard, F., Harris, J., Mand, H., Bent, N., Santamato, E., Boyd,
R. W., et al. (2015). Observation of quantum recoherence of photons by
spatial propagation. Nature Scientific Reports , 5 (15330), 15330. Retrieved
October 16, 2016 from http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15330

IDENTICALITY:
Gefter, A. (2015, November 19). Quantum mechanics is putting human
identity on trial. Retrieved May 22, 2016, from Nautilus, 30:
http://nautil.us/issue/30/identity/quantum-mechanics-is-putting-human-identi
ty-on-trial

EVEN THE LARGEST MOLECULES (DNA?) GET ENTANGLED:
Arndt, M., Nairz, O., Voss-Andreae, J., Keller, C., van der Zouw,
G., Zeilinger, A., et al. (1999, October 14). Wave-particle duality of C60
molecules. Nature , 401, pp. 680-682. Retrieved October 12, 2016 from

[PEIRCE-L] Transcending scientism - new book

[Stephen Jarosek]

Dear members,

 

My latest ebook:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/http://www.lulu.com/shop/stephen-jarosek/transcendi
ng-scientism-mending-broken-cultures-broken-science/ebook/product-22859816.h
tml
<http://www.lulu.com/shop/http:/www.lulu.com/shop/stephen-jarosek/transcendi
ng-scientism-mending-broken-cultures-broken-science/ebook/product-22859816.h
tml> 

 

In fairness to this scholarly forum, I should point out that the book
references Peirce, biosemiotics and semiotics but not from the scholarly
perspective that we know and love here. Principally, my references to the
topic are in the simplified context of fundamental principles, like
habituation, association, motivation, pragmatism, etc, as it is meant for a
more general readership. Some might find the book controversial or
provocative. again, steer clear if controversy offends J

 

A printed version is in the pipeline, not ready yet.

 

Regards,

sj


-
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] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

[Stephen Jarosek]

>"A good book for you to read if you truly want to understand the processes DNA 
>is central to: Life on the Edge, by Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili."

Ah yes, now I remember why I was disappointed when "Life on the edge" first 
came out. I had been following JJ McFadden for some considerable time, and had 
been awaiting their book with eager anticipation. But once it came out, it 
became clear to me that their implementation of quantum physics into biology 
was inspired not in the spirit of establishing consistency across principles, 
but rather, in the mechanistic (reductionist) approach of finding all the parts 
that fit together. Like the parts comprising an engine, or pieces from a jigsaw 
puzzle, quantum mechanics provides new parts to mix and match. Their 
incorporation of quantum mechanics into things like photosynthesis and bird 
migration remains, at its core, deterministic/mechanistic reductionism, but 
with a bit of quantum woo thrown in to account for linkages that don't link. 
Their approach still fails to establish the inevitability of life and its 
ability to persist across time. The entropy problem remains unaddressed.

But that's just my opinion, gleaned mostly from online reviews and websites. In 
the end, I concluded that the book was not for me, and decided not to buy. To 
be fair, some of their examples looked interesting and might merit a closer 
look, but I lost interest quickly once I picked up on the book's direction. The 
book has received positive reviews, so interested folk should make up their own 
minds.

Cheers, sj

-Original Message-
From: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Whit Blauvelt
Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2016 5:45 AM
To: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:47:23PM +0200, Stephen Jarosek wrote:

> Mission statements are "window dressing?" Really? You've not had any 
> experience in strategic planning at the management level, have you... 
> ie, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not only currently involved in strategic planning, I for several years 
edited a business journal for an executive readership, featuring work by many 
of the top business consultants of the time. I'm deeply familiar with both how 
good decisions are made, and the bullshit often brought to the table.

A good book for you to read if you truly want to understand the processes DNA 
is central to: Life on the Edge, by Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili.
It's amazing stuff, and we're only at the beginning of understanding it. Nor is 
it essentially mired in the computationalist metaphor which I join you in 
stressing the limits of.

Not the make too much a thing of exchanging insults, but you might keep in mind 
you're arguing against diversity on a list where a majority of the readers are 
in India, perhaps the most diverse blend of cultures on the planet. The 
problems that France and Germany are having with some immigrants are because 
they fail to welcome and integrate them into their societies.
They keep them apart, as you appear to advocate, rather than bring them into 
the fold, as America historically has.

Best,
Whit

--




-
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] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

[Stephen Jarosek]

>"I'm not only currently involved in strategic planning, I for several years 
>edited a business journal for an executive readership, featuring work by many 
>of the top business consultants of the time. I'm deeply familiar with both how 
>good decisions are made, and the bullshit often brought to the table."

This is helpful to know, and places your objection into a more credible light. 
I am as skeptical as you of the faddism in which business woo is immersed.

>"A good book for you to read if you truly want to understand the processes DNA 
>is central to: Life on the Edge, by Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili."

Good... I am familiar with some of jj McFadden's work.

>"in mind you're arguing against diversity on a list where a majority of the 
>readers are in India, perhaps the most diverse blend of cultures on the 
>planet."

My views of what is taking place in Europe have nothing to do with India and 
the east.. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if India were to take off with a new 
renaissance to rival that which took place in Europe.

>"The problems that France and Germany are having with some immigrants are 
>because they fail to welcome and integrate them into their societies."

I disagree. Germany and Sweden provide generous welfare benefits to refugees. 
And last year Germany declared their "all refugees welcome" open-door policy. 
This does not inspire the sorts of ambitious survivors that provided the 
backbone for American culture. It encourages opportunists who, mired in the 
poverty of their own creation (cultural complicity), look at social security 
handouts as freebies and lifestyle opportunities, and encourages them to 
congregate into enclaves. That alone... unconditional, generous welfare 
benefits for refugees... is a bad move, and it works against the interests of 
an effective refugee program that correctly identifies authentic refugees. This 
naiveté is providing the seed for a new underclass in Europe to rival that of 
its history with gypsies.

My objection to what is taking place in Europe relates to liberalism, its 
virtue-signalling, its self-indulgent narratives and fake equalities. So 
obsessed are they with virtue-signalling and not contradicting their cherished 
narratives that some European leaders now have blood on their hands. As for 
whether or not Middle-Eastern cultures with their Muslim faiths can be 
integrated with Christian Europe, that is a more complex question, and it is 
irresponsible for Europeans to plough ahead with their liberal agenda without 
addressing the issue properly. Irresponsibly, they have failed to incorporate a 
compelling theory of culture and cultural identity.

Cheers, sj

-Original Message-
From: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Whit Blauvelt
Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2016 5:45 AM
To: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:47:23PM +0200, Stephen Jarosek wrote:

> Mission statements are "window dressing?" Really? You've not had any 
> experience in strategic planning at the management level, have you... 
> ie, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not only currently involved in strategic planning, I for several years 
edited a business journal for an executive readership, featuring work by many 
of the top business consultants of the time. I'm deeply familiar with both how 
good decisions are made, and the bullshit often brought to the table.

A good book for you to read if you truly want to understand the processes DNA 
is central to: Life on the Edge, by Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili.
It's amazing stuff, and we're only at the beginning of understanding it. Nor is 
it essentially mired in the computationalist metaphor which I join you in 
stressing the limits of.

Not the make too much a thing of exchanging insults, but you might keep in mind 
you're arguing against diversity on a list where a majority of the readers are 
in India, perhaps the most diverse blend of cultures on the planet. The 
problems that France and Germany are having with some immigrants are because 
they fail to welcome and integrate them into their societies.
They keep them apart, as you appear to advocate, rather than bring them into 
the fold, as America historically has.

Best,
Whit

--




-
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] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

[Stephen Jarosek]

Mission statements are "window dressing?" Really? You've not had any experience 
in strategic planning at the management level, have you... ie, you have no idea 
what you are talking about.

My reference to mission statements is intended as a metaphor to explain the 
purpose of an axiomatic framework. It's important. Try explaining to Isaac 
Newton, or CS Peirce, that they were wasting their time trying to frame things 
in terms of an axiomatic framework... Peirce may not have spelt it out, but he 
too was motivated by consistency and fundamental principles hanging together. 
Sometimes a good scientist, like a competent manager, doesn't need to formalize 
their plan in a mission statement, because it's all worked through in their 
heads... but that does not mean that they don't have a plan, a strategy, 
something that can be explicated in accordance with fundamental assumptions.

Diversity is strength, huh? Like in France and Germany and Sweden and their 
migrant no-go zones? Good one, Whit! That trendy assumption is rapidly becoming 
stale.

"It is well known..."; "everybody knows..."; "extensively observed...". These 
are predictable clichés. Bad science depends absolutely on them. Credentialism. 
The implication is that if you have the right credentials, you will understand, 
and if you don't have the right credentials you are not qualified to comment.

>"You're lost in the metaphor. It's well known how DNA is subject to molecular 
>processes. DNA's not simply abstracted data; its part of the physical (and 
>partially quantum-mechanical) mechanism, whose workings have been extensively 
>observed."

Terrific! If it is so clear in your mind, why don't you sum it up in a few 
lines, the principles that come together to make it all hang together... you 
know, like in a mission statement :)  

"Subject to molecular processes" does not explain anything... just sayin'. What 
molecular processes? If you are going to explain anything, then you need to 
provide either specifics, or principles. It seems to me that you cannot provide 
either.

Cheers, sj



-Original Message-
From: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Whit Blauvelt
Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 8:13 PM
To: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

Hi Stephen,

> You are partially right, Whit. It is indeed true that how corporations 
> are managed these days is itself a joke, often relying more on 
> groupthink, politics and collaborations of convenience than strategy, 
> but they tend not to last long...

I don't know where you've worked. But I've worked in both long-standing 
corporations and startups. Smart ones of both sorts, none of them regarding 
mission statements as more than window dressing.

> ... or, to be anticipated, western indulgent liberalism and our 
> anti-competitive, affirmative-action programs and the trashing of the 
> principles of the US consitution.

You don't like affirmative action? Because the US Constitution referred to 
blacks as being worth 3/5ths of a man? Diversity is strength. Smart companies 
know that. 

> No-one can deny, in a healthy, free and competent market, the 
> importance of vision. A vision/direction is important, irrespective of 
> whether or not it is expressed in a mission statement.

Vision has an important place. The Third Reich was the triumph of a vision ... 
until it wasn't. But seriously, I'm all for visual thinking; the problem comes 
when the vision is static, hypnotic, overly-subscribed to. 

> As for modern scientism masquerading as science... there is no better 
> expression of blind faith than the absurd idea of genetic “data”
> (software), but no account of the “computer” that might “process” it.

You're lost in the metaphor. It's well known how DNA is subject to molecular 
processes. DNA's not simply abstracted data; its part of the physical (and 
partially quantum-mechanical) mechanism, whose workings have been extensively 
observed.

Best,
Whit

--




-
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] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

[Stephen Jarosek]

You are partially right, Whit. It is indeed true that how corporations are 
managed these days is itself a joke, often relying more on groupthink, politics 
and collaborations of convenience than strategy, but they tend not to last 
long... and neither do their cultures. Dumb cultures deserve their dumb 
destinies, eg, Stalinist centralized communism... or, to be anticipated, 
western indulgent liberalism and our anti-competitive, affirmative-action 
programs and the trashing of the principles of the US consitution. 

No-one can deny, in a healthy, free and competent market, the importance of 
vision. A vision/direction is important, irrespective of whether or not it is 
expressed in a mission statement. Good managers do have to know what they're 
doing to be competitive. If you disagree with that, then you don't understand 
strategy or the purpose of competent management. That we are being led by 
clowns in a clown economy is a different subject entirely.

As for axiomatic framework as a creed of faith, again, there is much truth in 
what you say. As I have said many times before in these forums and elsewhere, 
an axiomatic framework can only ever be a best guess. But you've got to commit 
to that best guess in order to decide what direction you want to take it. Your 
principles have to come together to hang together.

As for modern scientism masquerading as science... there is no better 
expression of blind faith than the absurd idea of genetic “data” (software), 
but no account of the “computer” that might “process” it. How dependent on 
blind faith is that? Blind faith in a “computer” that does not exist is no 
different to blind faith in a god who will deliver a people to the Promised 
Land. Or how about blind faith in dumb luck (natural selection by mutation) 
without having to account for entropy? That's not science. That's high-octane, 
unmitigated hogwash.

Cheers, sj



-Original Message-
From: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Whit Blauvelt
Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 2:09 PM
To: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:37:12AM +0200, Stephen Jarosek wrote:

> On the matter of anti-science and anti-rational, you raise an 
> important point, Harold. Any theoretical edifice that does not have a 
> compelling axiomatic framework to guide it is just scientism 
> masquerading as science. An axiomatic framework is essential… like a 
> corporation’s mission statement, it relates to strategy, and properly 
> accounting for cause and effect.

Hi Stephen,

An axiomatic framework is the creed of a faith. Science is not a faith. A 
corporation's mission statement is generally viewed as a joke within the 
corporation, as something for public relations, a rationalization which cannot 
but roughly approximate the complex reality of a firm's inner ecology and its 
fit with the broader economy. Many companies do fine without one.
It's a fad foisted by consultants in the last few decades, prior to which 
corporations, on average, performed better than they have since -- although no 
doubt that difference is largely due to other factors.

Best,
Whit


--




-
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] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

[Stephen Jarosek]

On the matter of anti-science and anti-rational, you raise an important point, 
Harold. Any theoretical edifice that does not have a compelling axiomatic 
framework to guide it is just scientism masquerading as science. An axiomatic 
framework is essential… like a corporation’s mission statement, it relates to 
strategy, and properly accounting for cause and effect. We know that Darwinism 
is not up to the task, for example, because it does not properly factor in the 
implications of entropy and the persistence of complexity across time. Natural 
selection relying on mutations, as the epitome of the dumb-luck hypothesis, is 
a joke. The whole infotech narrative on which genocentrism relies, in all its 
absurd inconsistencies, is a joke. I mean, genetic “data” (software) but no 
account of the “computer” that might “process” it? How anti-science is that? 
Neo-Darwinism is secular woo on steroids, lurching between ignorance and 
absurdity. A bucket of arbitrary facts and observations does not a science 
make. It is scientism that is anti-scientific… a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo 
authorized in the spirit of credentialism. We witness its abysmal failure in 
the breakdown of the peer-review process**. Of course the priests of scientism 
will be reflexively hostile to any encroachment on their dogma. It has been 
this way throughout history, whenever the most parochial religions encountered 
threats to their cherished beliefs.

**
Horton, R. (2015, April 11). Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 
Vol 385. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from  
<http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf> 
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf
Binswanger, M. (2014). Excellence by Nonsense: The Competition for Publications 
in Modern Science (S. Bartling & S. Friesike, Eds.). Retrieved July 18, 2015, 
from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_3/fulltext.html 
 Springer Link, Opening Science

 

From: Harold Orbach [mailto:h...@ksu.edu] 
Sent: Monday, 25 July 2016 8:30 AM
To: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

 

Steven Jarosek confuses BF Skinner with JB Watson but also misrepresents Watson:

Skinner did not use rats but pigeons and human subjects, his own children in 
his famous Skinner nox.

Watson did his PhD with the white rat, but at Chicago used a large variety of 
animals for ethnographic observations and at Johns Hopkins is most famous for 
his experiments with infants, e.g., the Little Hans experiment.  After leaving 
Hopkins because of his affair with his assistant, later his wife, he went into 
the advertising field where he revolutionized the way grocery stores were 
organized, using open shelves and checkout counter displays of small items to 
encourage impulse buying.  He also revolutionized radio and in turn modern TV 
advertising by using loud, jarring and speeded up voice tracks to get 
listener's attention and capture their impulses to respond.  That is, he 
"experimented" on vast human subject populations.

 

I find this whole line of religious spiritual anti-scientific and anti- 
rational propagandizing to be inconsistent with exploring Peirce's work and 
views or attempting to criticize and modify them.  In the process, Peirce as a 
human with faults and follies is ignored as is his relation to contemporary 
pragmatism.

 

Harold L. Orbach 

Emeritus, Kansas State University

PhD, University of Minnesota


Sent from my iPhone


On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

There was a time when homely grandmothers fussing over their pets were more in 
touch with principles of consciousness than scientists in labcoats, back in the 
days of Pavlov or BF Skinner, performing experiments on dogs and rats. One 
understood the sentient nature of other non-human creatures better than the 
other, even though the former were routinely disparaged with charges of 
anthropomorphism. The irony… anthropomorphism pitted against anthropocentrism. 
Anthropocentrism relates to the materialist, infotech anthropocentrism 
portraying humans as the most special products of Darwinian evolution, that 
most complex, most perfect and intelligent of all of dumb luck’s creation. I 
think that homely grandmothers, by far, held the more realistic interpretation.

Indeed, as much as I am a staunch critic of feminism, I must admit that the 
single one thing that I am grateful to feminists for is how they’ve opened up 
the narrative on consciousness (e.g., Dian Fossey and her work with primates). 
If it wasn’t for feminists, we’d still be stuck in BF Skinner… it almost hurts 
me to have to acknowledge this, but hey… let’s give recognition where it is due.

It seems almost paradoxical that those who are least “scientific” can sometimes 
hold a more accurate representation of the nature of 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”I haven’t seen it argued recently except to note that the way to Quantum 
>Mechanics might have been more straightforward if Einstein hadn’t come up with 
>STR.”

Sadly, I suspect that STR/SGR constrains development not only in quantum 
mechanics. It impacts on the science narrative and provides license for all 
sorts of flawed assumptions and unfalsifiable speculation, for example, 
astronomy (e.g., big bang theory, black holes, etc). It’s baggage that the 
sciences don’t need.

 

From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] 
Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 5:10 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

 

I can’t post to the Sadhu Sanga list (and don’t want to), so I am posting to 
Peirce-L

 

Not the Lorenz transformations alone. They would not give the right result for 
Mercury’s precession. In fact it would be hard to apply them in a non ad hoc 
way.

 

Something many people don’t know is that STR is incompatible with gravity. It 
was developed to explain electrodynamics. Einstein used a non-empirical 
assumption, that the correct laws of physics should be the same from all frames 
of reference. This gives STR pretty much directly from Maxwell’s equations. But 
gravity doesn’t fit. So he needed a more inclusive theory. There may be other 
ways to make gravity fit (Mach’s Principle was one proposal, but nobody has 
ever been able to figure out how it would work mathematically). 

 

Some philosophers and historians have argued that Lorenz’ theory of the 
electron gives a better theory than STR. The famous British astronomer, E.T. 
Whittaker argued for Lorenz’ approach as late as 1931, and didn’t eve n mention 
Einstein. I haven’t seen it argued recently except to note that the way to 
Quantum Mechanics might have been more straightforward if Einstein hadn’t come 
up with STR.

 

John Collier

Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier

 

From: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Jarosek
Sent: Friday, 08 July 2016 10:24 AM
To: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

 

>”Einstein's work took longer to gain acceptance, and as we have seen, there 
>are hold-outs to this day (100 years later).”

As a non-physicist, I pose the question… might the Lorentz transformations, in 
the absence of the assumptions of relativity theory, be sufficient to account 
for the anomalous precession of Mercury that has been observed? 

 


-
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] [Sadhu Sanga] New Experiences

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”That said the type of question of being that Heidegger does seems largely 
>absent in Peirce.”

I do not disagree. And after glancing quickly through Joseph’s linked article, 
I take the point being made.  However, people have a limited time on this 
earth, and it would be interesting to see the narrative evolve were it possible 
to bring key thinkers together. In my 2001 Semiotica article, I referenced 
Peirce’s observation “the man is the thought” to make my point “the culture is 
the thought”. There is no reason why, given enough time, Peirce would not have 
come to appreciate the importance of phenomenology au Heidegger.

Ultimately we are all talking about the same thing (might I suggest – knowing 
how to be), and the fact that some people are bringing different lenses to the 
conversation does not mean that they are necessarily wrong to do so. Framed in 
the context of knowing how to be, might that not ultimately be what both 
pragmatism and phenomenology distill to? Phenomenology (Heidegger) concerns 
itself with being, and pragmatism concerns itself with establishing the things 
that matter… I suggest that there necessarily exists a common point of 
intersection between them.

Or to put it another way… There is much more to pragmatism than simply 
exercising mind-body predispositions to establish the things that matter. 
Humans in culture observe what others are doing in order to fast-track the 
learning process, and it is not trivial or incidental. We are not talking just 
“memes”… think of our accents when we speak. Imitation au Dawkinsian memetics 
is simplistic, but imitation in the context of pragmatism and knowing how to be 
plays a very important role. Why would Peirce, given enough time on this earth, 
not come to a similar understanding? I mean, once we go down this path, other 
possibilities with important and practical consequences enter into the 
narrative… for example, gender roles within the context of culture.

And as per the point that I’ve made in other conversations… imitation is 
integral to overcoming entropy. Knowing how to be brings physics and philosophy 
together into a shared narrative.

 

From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] 
Sent: Friday, 3 June 2016 4:46 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [Sadhu Sanga] New Experiences

 

 

On Jun 2, 2016, at 5:26 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

 

To cut a long story short… it all revolves around knowing how to be. To those 
familiar with Heidegger, Dasein is the closest analogy to what I have in mind. 
For those familiar with CS Peirce, pragmatism relates.

 

Yes, Heidegger’s phenomenology engages with a lot of background practices and 
other types of things rather than just what normally goes under consciousness. 
In that regard his phenomenology in some ways is much more like the role 
experience plays in Peirce. People, like the original list originator Joe 
Ransdell, argue against Peirce as a phenomenologist. But most of his critiques 
apply more to Husserl styled phenomenology rather than what comes later. That 
said the type of question of being that Heidegger does seems largely absent in 
Peirce.

 

 

http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/PHENOM.HTM

 

To the point about how different must one be to have a different state of 
being, I think it depends somewhat. The Peircean answer would most likely be in 
terms of continuity. That is the way of being of two twins raised in the same 
how is quite close. The way of being of a person raised in an educated middle 
class home in the 21st century west is quite different from someone raised in 
more primitive conditions thousands of years ago. Yet they’re still similar. To 
borrow Nagel, move towards what it’s like to be a bat and the difference is 
enough that we’d call it a great difference.


-
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] Pragmatism - rethinking imitation

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

The relationship between imitation and entropy has been occupying my
thoughts of late, and I wonder if this might be of further interest to
anyone here.

As we've discussed before in this forum, simplistic imitation is of limited
utility to the Peircean paradigm... it gets a bad rap in many circles
concerned with philosophy of Mind. The usual argument is along the lines
that it ignores the nuances and principles that we are familiar with in
semiotic theory. But, I suggest that imitation plays a very important role
in pragmatism. Imitation fast-tracks how an organism defines the things that
matter, and a timely response is important in resisting entropy and
increasing the odds of survival. In terms of human culture, imitation saves
us from having to reinvent the wheel. Just do what everyone else is doing,
and you optimize your chances for survival... and of course who you choose
as a role model to imitate can impact on wealth and success or punishment
and failure. The same line of thinking applies to any organism that has to
make choices from its colony.

Imitation, within the context of our experiences, wires brains (neural
plasticity), and so it is not easy to reverse if it is allowed to persist
for some time... has practical implications, eg, feral children,
domesticated animals.

Imitation is survival, and people who are born with limbs missing, for
example, can bypass their handicapped predispositions by imitation of
cultural narratives and assumptions. But does this not then suggest that an
ape or chimpanzee can assimilate completely into human culture, without
handicap, by imitation? No it does not, because they do not have the same
predispositions, whether those predispositions manifest at the biological or
cellular or molecular levels. Domestication, yes. Complete assimilation, no
way.

I suggest that imitation provides an indispensable overlay for the theory of
pragmatism. It cannot be ignored because it is integral to resisting
entropy. Peircean-biosemiotic theory accounts principally for the bottom-up
predispositions that inform an organism as to the things that matter. But to
fast-track survival and resist entropy, we must factor in imitation... and
that's top-down.

If we define imitation in the context of replication of behaviour (and not
in the simplistic Dawkinsian interpretation as expressed in memetic theory),
then there are several ways in which imitation might play out. We learn
everything through imitation, including our gender roles (where our male and
female mind-bodies only account for cultural predispositions). At the level
of matter, for example, I suggest that it might play out in the context of
quantum entanglement. No form of existence is possible without the
replication of behaviour that is imitation.

Imitation in its most primal form, as an important manifestation of
pragmatism, is ultimately... knowing how to be. Relates to Martin
Heidegger's Dasein (Being in the World). I suggest that knowing how to be is
the single ordering principle of the universe. Even matter has to know how
to be. Without knowing how to be, all that can ever be is chaos, entropy,
and ultimately, void.

(Some people here have objected to this line of thinking before, based on
their assumptions innateness. We will never agree, so there is little point
in revisiting... what I suggest here is in direct opposition to the notion
of innateness, which I see as an artefact of the genocentric narrative...
innateness is the very thing that needs to be dispensed with if further
progress in the life sciences is to be entertained)

sj


-
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:9127] Re: Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”import any useful concepts from any field whatsoever as long as they share 
>some commonalities with biology.”

Sung, my own preference is to look first to my axiomatic principles, and then 
establish whether observations from reality accord. In this instance, “knowing 
how to be”, as a logical extension of Peirce’s pragmatism, provides the basis 
for my inference. It fits. For ultimately, for any entity, defining the things 
that matter IS about knowing how to be. sj

 

From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Sungchul Ji
Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2016 3:46 AM
To: biosemiotics
Cc: Ed Dellian; Sergey Petoukhov; Robert E. Ulanowicz
Subject: [biosemiotics:9127] Re: Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

 

Hi Stephen and list,

 

Thanks for the interesting link.  I learned a lot from it.  The animation was 
amazing and seems to faithfully reflect the current state of our molecular 
biological knowledge.

 

To understand the molecular machine phenomena shown in the video clip, it may 
be necessary for us to go outside the traditional boundaries of biology, 
physics and chemistry and import any useful concepts from any field whatsoever 
as long as they share some commonalities with biology.

 

One way that Peircean semiotics may be able to help us understand the 
miraculous molecular processes that go on in living cells may be the idea of 
semiosis, or sign processes.  The concept of molecular machines is primarily of 
the physics and engineering origin, which is necessary but may not be 
sufficient.  The missing component may be the concept of the sign.  That is, 
molecular machines are not only machines but also SIGNS.  Most, if not all, 
Peircean signs are irreducibly triadic.  Hence, if we can view molecular 
machines as signs, we can use the following triadic template of the Peircean 
sign or semiosis:

 

   f
 g

 EVOLUTION ---> MOLECULAR MACHINES ---> FUNCTIONS
 (Object)   (Sign)  
 (Interpretant)

   |
^
   |
|
   |
|
   ||
 h

Figure 1.  Molecular Machines as Peircean Signs.  f = Actualization of 
possibilities; g = environment-induced selection; h = genetic information flow. 
 It is assumed that f followed by g leads to the same result as h, i.e., the 
3-node network is a mathematical category.

 

 

If this picture is correct, what we see in the video clip can be interpreted as 
a finite set of molecular and cellular processes selected by the biological 
evolution out of an infinite number of similar processes allowed for by the 
laws of physics (or someone may prefer to say by God or its equivalent). The 
marvelous computer animation technology that now allows us see the inner 
workings of life may be compared to Galileo's telescope with which he was able 
to see the rough surface of the Moon for the first time.  Just as astronomers 
since then found the almost infinite Universe (of galaxies) out there, so 
perhaps biologists will discover the almost infinite Universe (of living 
processes) in us.

 

 

Inline image 1

  http://www.universetoday.com/15763/galileos-telescope/ 

 

 

All the best.

 

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 <http://www.conformon.net/> 

 

 

 

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

List,


I stumbled upon a fascinating video clip <https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk>  on the 
weekend. Might Peircean-biosemiotic concepts apply also to atoms and molecules? 
Peirce’s “mind hidebound with habits” comes to mind. But back in his day, 
Peirce could never have known what we now know about quantum physics and 
entanglement – he’d have much to say about all this were he alive today. Atoms 
and molecules also have to “know” very specific properties in order to make 
possible the astonishing complexity within a cell. Entanglement is the medium 
by which atoms and molecules “know” (imitate) their properties.

 

sj

 


-
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" 

[PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,


I stumbled upon a fascinating video clip   on
the weekend. Might Peircean-biosemiotic concepts apply also to atoms and
molecules? Peirce's "mind hidebound with habits" comes to mind. But back in
his day, Peirce could never have known what we now know about quantum
physics and entanglement - he'd have much to say about all this were he
alive today. Atoms and molecules also have to "know" very specific
properties in order to make possible the astonishing complexity within a
cell. Entanglement is the medium by which atoms and molecules "know"
(imitate) their properties.

 

sj


-
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] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Clark, the inspiration for my own thinking is Isaac Newton. What I would love 
to see in the life sciences is an axiomatic framework that hangs together, much 
as Newton delivered for the physical sciences... hence my interest in Peirce. 
There’s a lot of bad, unfalsifiable science doing the rounds, like multiverse 
theory, the invention of dark energy/matter, etc, in regards to which Wolfgang 
Pauli’s dismissal “not even wrong” often comes to mind. So it’s not a case of 
trying to provide a Peircean interpretation of the different theories, but to 
provide a solid foundation for a life science that hangs together. sj

 

From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] 
Sent: Monday, 1 February 2016 11:02 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

 

 

On Feb 1, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

 

I stumbled upon a fascinating  <https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk> video clip on the 
weekend. Might Peircean-biosemiotic concepts apply also to atoms and molecules? 
Peirce’s “mind hidebound with habits” comes to mind. But back in his day, 
Peirce could never have known what we now know about quantum physics and 
entanglement – he’d have much to say about all this were he alive today. Atoms 
and molecules also have to “know” very specific properties in order to make 
possible the astonishing complexity within a cell. Entanglement is the medium 
by which atoms and molecules “know” (imitate) their properties.

 

I think the mathematics of quantum mechanics can easily be dealt with by 
Peircean semiotics. I suspect though you’re more asking about Peirce’s 
appropriation of the Epicurean swerve into his ontology as it relates to the 
ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics. (Correct me if that isn’t what 
you mean) I don’t know the answer to that if only because it’s far from clear 
how to interpret quantum mechanics. Most of the interpretations simply adopt 
different ontologies from Peirce. An interesting question might be reconciling 
say Everette possible worlds mechanics with how an object determines an 
interpretant in Peirce. But while I could see an Everette transformation of 
Peircean semiotics at the ontological level this would be different from how 
Peirce appears to have conceived it.

 

The second issue is entanglement. Again this is still very much an open 
question in quantum mechanics even if physicists tend to favor certain 
interpretations. (Typically against hidden variables) I’m not quite sure what 
you mean here but I suspect you’re getting at the teleology vs. efficient 
causation issue. Most analysis of quantum entanglement is done at a given time 
but it’s possible to also conceive of entanglement across time which some might 
see as a way to rescue teleology. (Without looking it up I want to say both 
Smolin and Penrose have speculated on this but I might be confusing who wrote 
on it - it’s been years since I last looked into this) In this way what a 
system evolves to in the future can affect the past which is a kind of 
teleology.

 

One thing to keep in mind when considering Peircean teleology is that it’s not 
really the way medievals conceived of teleology where we have intentions of 
God. Rather for Peirce teleology was much more about a tendency. A big question 
then is how to understand this. My sense is that he’s thinking more of 
tendencies within a particular environment for evolution to arrive at certain 
solutions. I suspect one might say Peircean teleology is efficient causation + 
implications in particular environments. I’m not sure if others would agree.


-
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] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

I agree Edwina. But we need to extend the idea beyond our small group. It is
an important interpretation that has big implications. Richard Dawkins is
promoting his own flawed interpretation, and for the moment he's getting
away with it, he's changing the narrative. Society deserves better than
that. sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Monday, 1 February 2016 9:40 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'PEIRCE-L'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

 

Stephen - there are a number of us who have been saying [ and writing] this
for years; that is, that Peircean semiosis operates within the
physico-chemical realm. Peirce too included this realm.

 

Edwina

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'PEIRCE-L' <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>  ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:21 PM

Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

 

List,


I stumbled upon a fascinating video clip <https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk>  on
the weekend. Might Peircean-biosemiotic concepts apply also to atoms and
molecules? Peirce's "mind hidebound with habits" comes to mind. But back in
his day, Peirce could never have known what we now know about quantum
physics and entanglement - he'd have much to say about all this were he
alive today. Atoms and molecules also have to "know" very specific
properties in order to make possible the astonishing complexity within a
cell. Entanglement is the medium by which atoms and molecules "know"
(imitate) their properties.

 

sj

  _  


-
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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Entropy - anticipating the demise of the genocentric paradigm

[Stephen Jarosek]

Lists,

In a recent tweet of his, reading between the lines, it would seem that
Richard Dawkins is beginning to respond to challenges to his genocentric
paradigm within the context of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Due to uncertainties wrt copyright, I won't include his tweet here. But we
should be paying attention. In another forum, I posted the following comment
that succinctly summarizes my position and the problem with the genocentric
paradigm:

To the materialist paradigm, we owe the infotech narrative that portrays DNA
as "data" to be computed. Yet there is no sign anywhere of said "computer".
Hello? And these people call themselves scientists? And to extend the
absurdity of their "just so" narrative they might suggest that the computer
is somehow bound into the molecular sequences and structures around which
all reactions take place, as if this somehow ameliorates their position. It
does not. The absurdity remains because the complex properties of the
subatomic, atomic and molecular structures that make life possible still
need to be accounted for. As if by magic, their materialist complexity
emerges contrary to the laws of thermodynamics and the forces of entropy
that are arrayed against it. Whether it's "because natural selection" or
"because genes" or "because epigenetics" or "because Darwin" or "because
evo-psych" or "because hunter-gatherers of the Pleistocene", there is no
axiomatic framework that hangs together. They have no axiomatic framework.
These labcoats masquerading as scientists don't even know what an axiomatic
framework is or what it is for. The materialist paradigm is an unprecedented
woo on steroids.


-
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: Entropy - anticipating the demise of the genocentric paradigm

[Stephen Jarosek]

Here is an interesting article that supports my conjecture for DNA
entanglement (nonlocality) - for if every cell in a body houses an identical
suite of DNA and chromosomes within its nucleus, then, following through on
the thesis of this article, this would seem to suggest that DNA entanglement
is integral to life, identity and the binding problem:
http://nautil.us/issue/30/identity/quantum-mechanics-is-putting-human-identi
ty-on-trial
(DNA entanglement would also be entropically friendly, unlike the
genocentric-materialist paradigm)


-Original Message-
From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] 
Sent: Thursday, 3 December 2015 11:39 AM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'PEIRCE-L'
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy - anticipating the demise of the genocentric
paradigm

Lists,

In a recent tweet of his, reading between the lines, it would seem that
Richard Dawkins is beginning to respond to challenges to his genocentric
paradigm within the context of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Due to uncertainties wrt copyright, I won't include his tweet here. But we
should be paying attention. In another forum, I posted the following comment
that succinctly summarizes my position and the problem with the genocentric
paradigm:

To the materialist paradigm, we owe the infotech narrative that portrays DNA
as "data" to be computed. Yet there is no sign anywhere of said "computer".
Hello? And these people call themselves scientists? And to extend the
absurdity of their "just so" narrative they might suggest that the computer
is somehow bound into the molecular sequences and structures around which
all reactions take place, as if this somehow ameliorates their position. It
does not. The absurdity remains because the complex properties of the
subatomic, atomic and molecular structures that make life possible still
need to be accounted for. As if by magic, their materialist complexity
emerges contrary to the laws of thermodynamics and the forces of entropy
that are arrayed against it. Whether it's "because natural selection" or
"because genes" or "because epigenetics" or "because Darwin" or "because
evo-psych" or "because hunter-gatherers of the Pleistocene", there is no
axiomatic framework that hangs together. They have no axiomatic framework.
These labcoats masquerading as scientists don't even know what an axiomatic
framework is or what it is for. The materialist paradigm is an unprecedented
woo on steroids.



-
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] Identicality, entanglement, knowing how to be - a conjecture

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

In response to recent calls for submissions for Springer (constructive
biosemiotics) and conferences/gatherings in Poland and Czech, I have been
labouring to put together a paper. But in the end it is evident that it will
never get published, because it is too conjectural, and very difficult to
substantiate or reference. Before abandoning my paper completely, maybe what
I had in mind might resonate with someone in this forum. So here’s the basic
outline that I submit in the spirit of brainstorming...

What I wanted to introduce in my paper is the idea of linking identicality
with entanglement... that is to say, whenever any two or more entities are
wholly identical, they will be entangled. This is an unsubstantiated
conjecture... but there are grounds for exploring it, for reasons as will
become clear below.

I have commented before on these forums on “knowing how to be” and how it
relates not only to humans but to all living organisms, with stem cells
providing a compelling example of what I am getting at. I have also
suggested that maybe atoms and molecules must also “know how to be” and that
this is the reason why the entanglement/nonlocality of quantum physics is
relevant. In this light, we might better understand decoherence as
recoherence... etc, etc (I’ve posted/written on this before if anyone is
interested).

The conjecture that I would like to introduce into our narrative,
particularly in the context of “knowing how to be”, is that of identicality.
All subatomic particles of any one kind, all atoms of any one kind and all
molecules of any one kind can be said to be “identical”. However, as we know
from quantum physics, any two or more particles or atoms can be induced in a
laboratory to share a state that is different to their “normal” state (e.g.,
wrt spin, polarization), and thus, in the narrative of quantum physics, they
are said to be entangled (after they’ve interacted with one another).
However, this entanglement is notoriously very fragile, and subject to
decoherence. In previous posts to this forum, however, I suggested that
decoherence might actually be recoherence. This is relevant to the question
of identicality, because recoherence simply relates to the atoms
“rediscovering” their former narratives, their former states of being, as
they reconnect with their former “knowing how to be” in order to become
“normal” again, and thus identical to their “peer” atoms.

What I want to suggest is that identicality always entails entanglement. And
so entanglement is integral to matter “knowing” its chemical and physical
properties. This conjecture receives its inspiration from a silly thought
experiment that I briefly entertained as a child... what if I encountered
another “me” that was identical to me in every way, in every detail (the
materialist paradigm)? Of course such perfect identicality can never happen
between any two multicellular organisms. But can it happen at the
subatomic/atomic/molecular level? What does it mean to be identical? It is
generally assumed that all the DNA molecules within a single living organism
are identical to one another. It is also often suggested that identical
twins share identical DNA, though the question of how experience impacts on
that DNA remains open. Individual personalities are possible because their
DNA is different from person to person. And so we have identities and selves
that can be distinguished from others, while retaining the entanglement
between identical DNA molecules within our bodies that makes each of us
“whole” (á la binding problem).

The genocentric/mechanistic narrative typically assumes a big bang universe
that belches out particles from its furnace that happen to be identical to
others of their kind, with consistent, replicable properties. But when you
think about it, that is one hell of an assumption to make, an enormous leap
of faith. Why should a hydrogen atom over here be identical to a hydrogen
atom in the Andromeda galaxy? How do atoms and molecules maintain consistent
properties that are useful to nature? And so I conjecture that particle
identicality is integral to understanding matter, entanglement, nonlocality
and how DNA works – this is especially interesting for DNA entanglement,
given that the manner in which DNA replicates provides about as good a case
for interaction between particles as one could conceive. [At first glance
the big bang model would be most agreeable with this idea of entangled
matter, given the commencement of all things at a singularity, but I have my
own reasons for being cautiously sceptical of the big bang interpretation]

If we factor identicality and “knowing how to be” into our paradigm, it
might provide solutions to all sorts of dilemmas, for example:
1) The binding problem (neurons, cells in one body acting as a
whole);
2) While identicality does not provide any explanation for the
“structure” of empty space and the distinction between “in here” versus
“over there”, it 

RE: [biosemiotics:8910] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Interesting DNA-BRE comparison on the link you provided, Sung, but beyond my 
sphere of expertise. sj

 

From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Sungchul Ji
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2015 8:47 PM
To: PEIRCE-L
Subject: [biosemiotics:8910] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for 
DNA entanglement

 

Tom, Stephen J, lists,

 

I sympathize with the frustrations that Stephen J seems to feel about the lack 
of breakthroughs in our understanding about how the genetic information stored 
in DNA may be converted to cell functions.  I intend to write a more detailed 
post shortly on possible molecular mechanisms that living cells may use to 
achieve this miracle catalyzed by molecular machines, also known as "enzymes', 
but for now I only want to call your attention to the following paper that may 
answer some of the challenging questions raised by Stephen.  For thoses 
interested, this paper is available at my home page, http://www.conformon.net, 
under Publications > Refereed Articles:

 

 

"The cell as the smallest DNA-based molecular computer"
 Sungchul Ji Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Rutgers University, 
Piscataway, NJ 08855, USA

 

Abstract:  The pioneering work of Adleman (1994) demonstrated that DNA 
molecules in test tubes can be manipulated to perform a certain type of 
mathematical computation. This has stimulated a theoretical interest in the 
possibility of constructing DNA-based molecular computers. To gauge the 
practicality of realizing such microscopic computers, it was thought necessary 
to learn as much as possible from the biology of the living cell—presently the 
only known DNA-based molecular computer in existence. Here the recently 
developed theoretical model of the living cell (the Bhopalator) and its 
associated theories (e.g. cell language), principles, laws and concepts (e.g. 
conformons, IDS’s) are briefly reviewed and summarized in the form of a set of 
five laws of ‘molecular semiotics’ (synonyms include ‘microsemiotics’, 
‘cellular semiotics’, or ‘cytosemiotics’)—the study of signs mediating 
measurement, computation, and communication on the cellular and molecular 
levels. Hopefully, these laws will find practical applications in designing 
DNA-based computing systems. 

All rights reserved. Keywords: Molecular computer; Cell language; Cell model; 
Molecular semiotics; Cytosemiotics; Microsemiotics; Conformons

 

© 1999 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd

 

All the best.

 

Sung

 

 

 

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Ozzie <ozzie...@gmail.com> wrote:

Stephen ~

At the close of your posting on DNA, you wrote: "Anyone else interested in 
exploring this further? There seems to be a reluctance for people to step 
beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps for fear of ridicule."

 

Following that invitation, I commented on the role played by DNA in Pragmatic 
logic.  Your response (below): "Your explanation is an example of those 
self-consistent narratives that people construct in order to rationalize their 
assumptions."

 

I am not the first to suggest that DNA is a polymer, so I'm not rationalizing 
my assumptions.  It's a common view among experts:  "DNA is a polymer." 
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/molecular_graphics/dna_structure/dna_tutorial.html.  
I simply explained how to interpret the DNA polymer in terms consistent with 
Pragmatic logic:  DNA memorializes evolutionarily successful "habits" in the 
polymer, and those habits are later engaged (as "instinct") when 
electrochemical changes in the environment trigger the polymer/habit into 
action.  I also suggested an empirical test for your view DNA that 
"communicates" at a distance.

 

DNA as Pragmatic logic:  Successive generations of humans experience "random" 
variations in their genes.  People with those variations are (mainly) unaware 
of it, and go on living their lives.  However, in Pragmatic logic those 
variations are functionally equivalent to abducted hypotheses about superior 
habits that would generate greater survivability.   Life experiences following 
the abducted hypotheses are functionally equivalent to inductive activities 
(tests).  A gene variation that eventually proves to have greater survival 
value represents a new/superior version of the human gene: The offspring of the 
hybrid-human expand to dominate the population.  That updated gene functionally 
corresponds to a deductive model (in the polymer) on how to successfully 
navigate the environment.  Subsequent generations will carry that habit. Then 
the process begins anew:  Deduction, abduction, induction, deduction, 
abduction, induction ...

 

Regards,

Tom Wyrick

 

 


On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Tom, your explanation is an example of those self-consistent narratives that 
people construct in order to rationalize their a

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”If a polymer is cut in two, I am not familiar with any rule of polymers that 
>prevents each segment from reacting to a common field of electrochemical 
>energy.  The "correlation" that exists between the segments is due to the 
>common field (of electrochemical energy) they share.  Why not separate the two 
>DNA strands (or neurons if you prefer) and immerse them in different 
>electrochemical environments?   If they're still communicating or their 
>behavior is still correlated after that, then your hypothesis has empirical 
>support.“

Tom, your suggestion to separate the two DNA strands and test them, as 
described, is interesting. But I have no idea about how to go about stimulating 
one, and testing for a response from the other. I cited the experiment by Pizzi 
et al, because this kind of experiment does what you suggest, but from a 
systemic perspective from which we can only infer DNA entanglement as likely 
but not conclusive. As do some other experiments.

When I first heard of Cleve Backster years ago, he suggested an analogous 
experimental approach. In one his earliest experiments, he removed some cells 
from a female subject (maybe saliva, or a biopsy, can’t remember), and 
connected them to his EEG equipment. As she was walking around outside, the 
blips on his EEG correlated with her experiences outside. The following video 
clip on Backster’s work describes the same kind of experiment, beginning at 
5:44:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7V6D33HGt8 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7V6D33HGt8=youtu.be> =youtu.be

As I see it, there can only be one mechanism that can elicit this kind of 
reaction... DNA entanglement. But there is good reason to be sceptical of 
Backster’s experiments, especially when he ventures into the topic of plants 
having feelings, and his experiments involving eggs and yoghurt [cue 
eye-rolls]. Was he a fraud? Or was he simply too keen to interpret spurious 
results as evidence that supported his agenda? I think that his biopsy-human 
experiments (testing a culture of biopsied cells for responses to the 
experiences of the host subject) are worth having a closer look at... this kind 
of experiment is not costly, and could provide compelling evidence to suggest 
DNA entanglement.

But if you can suggest an experiment that more directly and conclusively tests 
for entanglement, this would be most interesting. But I know nothing about 
polymers and the experimental approach that you are suggesting. Is there a way 
of somehow providing an input to one DNA molecule and testing for a response 
from the other? My own guess is that such experiments can only be done in a 
living context, such as suggested in Pizzi and Backster above.

sj

PS: Imagine the implications if we can turn DNA entanglement to a practical 
application. Like having a vial of saliva from a subject that is connected to a 
detector... maybe as an alternative to EEG for detecting when someone is lying, 
or maybe as a baby-monitor to detect when one’s infant, in another location, is 
in crisis. Nothing like a practical application to bring a theory to life!

 

From: Ozzie [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2015 6:31 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen ~

At the close of your posting on DNA, you wrote: "Anyone else interested in 
exploring this further? There seems to be a reluctance for people to step 
beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps for fear of ridicule."





Following that invitation, I commented on the role played by DNA in Pragmatic 
logic.  Your response (below): "Your explanation is an example of those 
self-consistent narratives that people construct in order to rationalize their 
assumptions."





I am not the first to suggest that DNA is a polymer, so I'm not rationalizing 
my assumptions.  It's a common view among experts:  "DNA is a polymer." 
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/molecular_graphics/dna_structure/dna_tutorial.html.  
I simply explained how to interpret the DNA polymer in terms consistent with 
Pragmatic logic:  DNA memorializes evolutionarily successful "habits" in the 
polymer, and those habits are later engaged (as "instinct") when 
electrochemical changes in the environment trigger the polymer/habit into 
action.  I also suggested an empirical test for your view DNA that 
"communicates" at a distance.

 

DNA as Pragmatic logic:  Successive generations of humans experience "random" 
variations in their genes.  People with those variations are (mainly) unaware 
of it, and go on living their lives.  However, in Pragmatic logic those 
variations are functionally equivalent to abducted hypotheses about superior 
habits that would generate greater survivability.   Life experiences following 
the abducted hypotheses are functionally equivalent to inductive 

[PEIRCE-L] Bucket of bugs

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

Here is something that resonates with my "bucket of bugs" (BOB) thesis
(analogous to the container housing bees that we call a beehive):
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/biologists_discover_bacteria_communica
te_like_neurons_in_the_brain

What BOB suggests is this:

1.   The functional specialisations in the brain are not established in
any DNA "blueprint." Neurons/glia are individual, autonomous critters just
like bacteria are, and this implies that the functional specialisations of
the brain arise not from any genocentric blueprint, but from social
experience (complex adaptive systems are dynamic and social). Just like
cities of people do;

2.   Bugs, like people, have to "know how to be";

3.   In accordance with the principle of neuroplasticity, the brain
starts "wiring" itself (apologies for the infotech terminology... that's not
my doing) pretty much from the moment of conception, like when neurons begin
to experience heart-muscle demands, for example, to set the development of
the medulla oblongata;

4.   The idea that experience wires the neuroplastic brain was given a
boost in Norman Doidge's book "The brain that changes itself";

5.   The role of DNA needs to be seriously re-examined... existing
infotech narratives have long exceeded their use-by date;

6.   Of course this relates to semiotics and biosemiotics and the role
of meaning in wiring [ugh, that word again] the neuroplastic brain.


sj


-
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] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Thanks Tom, for your clarification. I’m about to bolt out the door, I’ll take a 
closer look at this tomorrow. Cheers, sj

 

From: Ozzie [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2015 6:31 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen ~

At the close of your posting on DNA, you wrote: "Anyone else interested in 
exploring this further? There seems to be a reluctance for people to step 
beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps for fear of ridicule."





Following that invitation, I commented on the role played by DNA in Pragmatic 
logic.  Your response (below): "Your explanation is an example of those 
self-consistent narratives that people construct in order to rationalize their 
assumptions."





I am not the first to suggest that DNA is a polymer, so I'm not rationalizing 
my assumptions.  It's a common view among experts:  "DNA is a polymer." 
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/molecular_graphics/dna_structure/dna_tutorial.html.  
I simply explained how to interpret the DNA polymer in terms consistent with 
Pragmatic logic:  DNA memorializes evolutionarily successful "habits" in the 
polymer, and those habits are later engaged (as "instinct") when 
electrochemical changes in the environment trigger the polymer/habit into 
action.  I also suggested an empirical test for your view DNA that 
"communicates" at a distance.

 

DNA as Pragmatic logic:  Successive generations of humans experience "random" 
variations in their genes.  People with those variations are (mainly) unaware 
of it, and go on living their lives.  However, in Pragmatic logic those 
variations are functionally equivalent to abducted hypotheses about superior 
habits that would generate greater survivability.   Life experiences following 
the abducted hypotheses are functionally equivalent to inductive activities 
(tests).  A gene variation that eventually proves to have greater survival 
value represents a new/superior version of the human gene: The offspring of the 
hybrid-human expand to dominate the population.  That updated gene functionally 
corresponds to a deductive model (in the polymer) on how to successfully 
navigate the environment.  Subsequent generations will carry that habit. Then 
the process begins anew:  Deduction, abduction, induction, deduction, 
abduction, induction ...

 

Regards,

Tom Wyrick










On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Tom, your explanation is an example of those self-consistent narratives that 
people construct in order to rationalize their assumptions. We all do it on 
occasion, some more than others, and we all have to be on guard against this 
predisposition. One of the ways we might do so is to formalize our thinking in 
terms of axioms – a framework of best guesses. Within the context of my 
axiomatic framework, your explanation does not work. Within an infinite 
universe, minute, complex structures might stumble into existence according to 
the laws of chance... and then blink out again just as quickly. With all the 
forces of entropy arrayed against them, the minutest, most complex structures 
won’t last. It is their persistence across time that is the deal-breaker. Of 
course I could be wrong, but then I do emphasize that my axiomatic framework is 
a best guess. Yours is a rationalization... a “just so” story... that is absent 
of an axiomatic framework to anchor to. sj

 

From: Ozzie [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:09 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen ~ 

DNA is a polymer that represents habits that persisted and experienced 
evolutionary success.  That is an exercise in Pragmatic logic.  The polymer is 
later activated by electrochemical energy in its immediate environment.  That 
is Pragmatic logic, too. 

 

The knowing-how-to-be behavior you emphasize may be the result of the DNA a 
polymer expressing itself as instinct. No computer is required for polymers to 
work, so the absence of a computer is not evidence of anything (other than a 
confused analysis).  The logic involving the polymer has already been performed 
(perhaps millions of years previously), so it responds to a trigger from the 
environment -- a logical "abduction" that the situation has changed. 

 

If a polymer is cut in two, I am not familiar with any rule of polymers that 
prevents each segment from reacting to a common field of electrochemical 
energy.  The "correlation" that exists between the segments is due to the 
common field (of electrochemical energy) they share.  Why not separate the two 
DNA strands (or neurons if you prefer) and immerse them in different 
electrochemical environments?   If they're still communicating or their 
behavior is still correlated 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina, I hope we can avoid returning to the innate-vs-NOTInnate controversy, 
as we have zero chance of agreement there J

No, I’m not reducing causality to only one... far from it. I started writing 
out a spiel of exceptions and interpretations and realized that it would 
culminate in a blather that no-one would want to read. So for the sake of 
brevity, I have left out a lot. I assumed that most of us here are sufficiently 
well-versed on the topic that we don’t need to labour over the detail. But yes, 
strictly speaking, you are correct, of course there ARE other causalities.

So what is it that you are suggesting about how a tree develops from a seed 
into a tree? Is it in the DNA? We both agree, I assume, that DNA is very 
important. All I am doing is suggesting that there is something else going on, 
and it is not the infotech theory of DNA. It CANNOT be the infotech version, 
impossible, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. I could, however, 
be persuaded if someone showed me the computer that processes the tree’s DNA 
software.

>”Furthermore, societal forms, such as the type of work you do, have nothing to 
>do with genes but with learning - and our species is, by definition, heavily 
>focused around learning.“

I get a bd feeling about this. Innate-vs-NOTInnate... nooo!

Edwina, all I’m trying to do is, in the spirit of brainstorming, to introduce 
the question into our narrative. I’m not even proposing definitive answers. 
You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 2:35 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - I disagree; you are reducing causality to only one - efficient 
causality (i.e., proximate). A tree doesn't 'know how to be' merely and only if 
it is growing next to another similar tree.  Furthermore, societal forms, such 
as the type of work you do, have nothing to do with genes but with learning - 
and our species is, by definition, heavily focused around learning. 

 

Edwina

 

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Peirce-L' <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:34 AM

Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

List,

The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion that 
it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not have all 
the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for expanding 
our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA entanglement).

The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature?

Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... with 
no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. SHOW US 
THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric paradigm). It’s 
that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in semiotics, because 
ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA function are semiotic in 
character.

In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations 
between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an 
initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the 
following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort 
of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic 
level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons utilize the quantum 
information to synchronize.”

Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in which 
correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the DNA 
molecules within the neurons .

Other similar experiments in biophysics arrive at similar or analogous 
conclusions. And the most common question raised among researchers in quantum 
biology, including Pizzi et al above, is along the lines of... how do 
mechanisms within the cell utilize entanglement? I would suggest that they have 
their reasoning back-to-front. It is not the mechanisms that utilize 
entanglement, but entangleme

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
>natural law!”

Excellent! This means that you will be able to do one of two things:

1) You will be able to pinpoint the computer, where it lies, and explain how it 
works; OR

2) You will be able to provide a laboratory demonstration/simulation/proof 
outlining Tom’s (Ozzie) explanation just posted.

I await your account with eager anticipation! Thanking you in advance J

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:03 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - YOU consider that 

 

"You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.
"

But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law! So, as usual, you and I continue to disagree.

 

As for our species being heavily based around learning - yes, but our innate 
capacity for reasoning and logic enables us to learn.

 

Edwina

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Edwina Taborsky' <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>  ; 'Peirce-L' 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:50 AM

Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Edwina, I hope we can avoid returning to the innate-vs-NOTInnate controversy, 
as we have zero chance of agreement there J

No, I’m not reducing causality to only one... far from it. I started writing 
out a spiel of exceptions and interpretations and realized that it would 
culminate in a blather that no-one would want to read. So for the sake of 
brevity, I have left out a lot. I assumed that most of us here are sufficiently 
well-versed on the topic that we don’t need to labour over the detail. But yes, 
strictly speaking, you are correct, of course there ARE other causalities.

So what is it that you are suggesting about how a tree develops from a seed 
into a tree? Is it in the DNA? We both agree, I assume, that DNA is very 
important. All I am doing is suggesting that there is something else going on, 
and it is not the infotech theory of DNA. It CANNOT be the infotech version, 
impossible, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. I could, however, 
be persuaded if someone showed me the computer that processes the tree’s DNA 
software.

>”Furthermore, societal forms, such as the type of work you do, have nothing to 
>do with genes but with learning - and our species is, by definition, heavily 
>focused around learning.“

I get a bd feeling about this. Innate-vs-NOTInnate... nooo!

Edwina, all I’m trying to do is, in the spirit of brainstorming, to introduce 
the question into our narrative. I’m not even proposing definitive answers. 
You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 2:35 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - I disagree; you are reducing causality to only one - efficient 
causality (i.e., proximate). A tree doesn't 'know how to be' merely and only if 
it is growing next to another similar tree.  Furthermore, societal forms, such 
as the type of work you do, have nothing to do with genes but with learning - 
and our species is, by definition, heavily focused around learning. 

 

Edwina

 

----- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Peirce-L' <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:34 AM

Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

List,

The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion that 
it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not have all 
the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for expanding 
our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA entanglement).

The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in n

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Tom, your explanation is an example of those self-consistent narratives that 
people construct in order to rationalize their assumptions. We all do it on 
occasion, some more than others, and we all have to be on guard against this 
predisposition. One of the ways we might do so is to formalize our thinking in 
terms of axioms – a framework of best guesses. Within the context of my 
axiomatic framework, your explanation does not work. Within an infinite 
universe, minute, complex structures might stumble into existence according to 
the laws of chance... and then blink out again just as quickly. With all the 
forces of entropy arrayed against them, the minutest, most complex structures 
won’t last. It is their persistence across time that is the deal-breaker. Of 
course I could be wrong, but then I do emphasize that my axiomatic framework is 
a best guess. Yours is a rationalization... a “just so” story... that is absent 
of an axiomatic framework to anchor to. sj

 

From: Ozzie [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:09 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen ~ 

DNA is a polymer that represents habits that persisted and experienced 
evolutionary success.  That is an exercise in Pragmatic logic.  The polymer is 
later activated by electrochemical energy in its immediate environment.  That 
is Pragmatic logic, too. 

 

The knowing-how-to-be behavior you emphasize may be the result of the DNA a 
polymer expressing itself as instinct. No computer is required for polymers to 
work, so the absence of a computer is not evidence of anything (other than a 
confused analysis).  The logic involving the polymer has already been performed 
(perhaps millions of years previously), so it responds to a trigger from the 
environment -- a logical "abduction" that the situation has changed. 

 

If a polymer is cut in two, I am not familiar with any rule of polymers that 
prevents each segment from reacting to a common field of electrochemical 
energy.  The "correlation" that exists between the segments is due to the 
common field (of electrochemical energy) they share.  Why not separate the two 
DNA strands (or neurons if you prefer) and immerse them in different 
electrochemical environments?   If they're still communicating or their 
behavior is still correlated after that, then your hypothesis has empirical 
support. 

 

This is a good illustration for my observation yesterday that any deeper 
analysis of logic must be grounded in physical reality. 

 

Regards,

Tom Wyrick

 

 

 


On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

List,

The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion that 
it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not have all 
the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for expanding 
our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA entanglement).

The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature?

Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... with 
no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. SHOW US 
THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric paradigm). It’s 
that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in semiotics, because 
ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA function are semiotic in 
character.

In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations 
between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an 
initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the 
following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort 
of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic 
level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons utilize the quantum 
information to synchronize.”

Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in which 
correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the DNA 
molecules within the neurons .

Other similar experiments in biophysics arrive at similar or analogous 
conclusions. And the most common question raised among researchers in quantum 
biology, including Pizzi et al above, is al

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Excellent question Sung, and a most important one!

The mechanism of DNA entanglement requires rethinking existing assumptions. I 
was hoping to initiate conversation around this theme in a spirit of 
brainstorming, but it seems that the forum is not overly receptive to this 
style of conversation... with due fairness, perhaps they’re right, as it 
diverges considerably from the established Peircean narrative. If you are 
interested, we can take the conversation further, offline from the forum.

sj

 

From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Sungchul Ji
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 8:14 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen J,

 

What is the mechanism of DNA entanglement ?

Without any realistic mechanism to go with it, wouldn't it be just a name ?

 

Sung

 

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

List,

The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion that 
it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not have all 
the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for expanding 
our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA entanglement).

The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature?

Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... with 
no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. SHOW US 
THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric paradigm). It’s 
that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in semiotics, because 
ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA function are semiotic in 
character.

In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations 
between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an 
initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the 
following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort 
of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic 
level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons utilize the quantum 
information to synchronize.”

Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in which 
correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the DNA 
molecules within the neurons .

Other similar experiments in biophysics arrive at similar or analogous 
conclusions. And the most common question raised among researchers in quantum 
biology, including Pizzi et al above, is along the lines of... how do 
mechanisms within the cell utilize entanglement? I would suggest that they have 
their reasoning back-to-front. It is not the mechanisms that utilize 
entanglement, but entanglement that is the source for the mechanisms, 
properties and predispositions. And this reframes the problem as one that 
relates principally to semiotics.

As a tentative description for how this might relate to semiotics, here’s one 
of my conjectures: Entanglement between DNA molecules, I suggest, enables the 
body's cells to access the shared mind-body condition, to be informed by it. In 
this way, DNA entanglement plays a crucial role in knowing how to be. This 
would be analogous to how our telecommunication technologies provide every 
person in a city with immediate access to the city's options, to inform its 
people on how to be. For example, people growing up in working-class or 
middle-class suburbs are more likely to know how to be tradesmen, shopkeepers, 
nurses, police or the unemployed, while people growing up in upper-class 
suburbs are more likely to know how to be professionals, investors, 
office-workers or, simply, the idle rich. This interpretation would be 
consistent with how stem-cells develop, contingent on their location within the 
organs of the body. A stem-cell has to know how to be before it can become a 
productive cell with its role in an organ properly defined. And the stem-cell’s 
proximal/local context is what teases out its predispositions, in order to 
define its ultimate purpose. This line of thinking seems to resonate with 
aspects of David Bohm’s implicate/explicate order. [What I have in mind here is 
also analogous to Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance, where he 
r

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina, if you accept the CAS interpretation as appropriate, while rejecting 
the mainstream’s preference for the infotech narrative, then there is still no 
solid theory, as far as I am aware, of how DNA engages within the context of a 
CAS. So whichever way we look at it, there is no adequate explanation anywhere, 
of how DNA works. For one, the paradigm is broken, while for the other, the 
question is not addressed. sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 9:58 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - maybe you think that the 'existing model' of the Mind is a computer. 
But I don't. I think it's a neurological semiosic networked process, a CAS 
(complex adaptive system). 

 

Edwina

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Edwina Taborsky' <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>  ; 'Peirce-L' 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:52 PM

Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

>”But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
>natural law!”

Excellent! This means that you will be able to do one of two things:

1) You will be able to pinpoint the computer, where it lies, and explain how it 
works; OR

2) You will be able to provide a laboratory demonstration/simulation/proof 
outlining Tom’s (Ozzie) explanation just posted.

I await your account with eager anticipation! Thanking you in advance J

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:03 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - YOU consider that 

 

"You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.
"

But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law! So, as usual, you and I continue to disagree.

 

As for our species being heavily based around learning - yes, but our innate 
capacity for reasoning and logic enables us to learn.

 

Edwina

----- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Edwina Taborsky' <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>  ; 'Peirce-L' 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:50 AM

Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Edwina, I hope we can avoid returning to the innate-vs-NOTInnate controversy, 
as we have zero chance of agreement there J

No, I’m not reducing causality to only one... far from it. I started writing 
out a spiel of exceptions and interpretations and realized that it would 
culminate in a blather that no-one would want to read. So for the sake of 
brevity, I have left out a lot. I assumed that most of us here are sufficiently 
well-versed on the topic that we don’t need to labour over the detail. But yes, 
strictly speaking, you are correct, of course there ARE other causalities.

So what is it that you are suggesting about how a tree develops from a seed 
into a tree? Is it in the DNA? We both agree, I assume, that DNA is very 
important. All I am doing is suggesting that there is something else going on, 
and it is not the infotech theory of DNA. It CANNOT be the infotech version, 
impossible, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. I could, however, 
be persuaded if someone showed me the computer that processes the tree’s DNA 
software.

>”Furthermore, societal forms, such as the type of work you do, have nothing to 
>do with genes but with learning - and our species is, by definition, heavily 
>focused around learning.“

I get a bd feeling about this. Innate-vs-NOTInnate... nooo!

Edwina, all I’m trying to do is, in the spirit of brainstorming, to introduce 
the question into our narrative. I’m not even proposing definitive answers. 
You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 2:35 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - I disagree; you are reducing causality to only one - efficient 
causality (i.e., proximate). A tree doesn't 'know how to be' merely and only if 
it is growing next to another similar tree.  Furthermore, societal forms, such 
as the type of work you do, have nothing to do with genes but with learning - 
and our species is, by definition, heavily focused around learning. 

 

Edwina

 

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>