subject:"\[PEIRCE\-L\] Asymmetry of Logic and Time \(was multiple\-valued logic\)"

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-20 Thread Skaggs,Steven

Right.

SxS



On Dec 20, 2020, at 6:44 PM, Jerry Rhee 
mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.
Dear Steven,

I suppose it makes about as much sense as talking about a "final interpretant" 
that is a moral community.. or some Supreme End.
Any Supreme End will do, of course.

With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:37 PM Skaggs,Steven 
mailto:s.ska...@louisville.edu>> wrote:
Jerry,

My opinion is that Peirce leads to a "convergence toward", but much art 
produces a "divergence from". So, for example, what sense does it make to talk 
about the “final interpretant” of a Rothko?

SxS



On Dec 20, 2020, at 4:26 PM, Skaggs,Steven 
mailto:s.ska...@louisville.edu>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.
"CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to be 
known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality depends 
on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it is, only by 
virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value as thought 
identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the existence of thought 
now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has only a potential 
existence, dependent on the future thought of the community. (CP 5.316, EP 
1:54-55, 1868)"

Although this quote goes a long way toward envisioning an empirical process or 
an ontology (i.e. the process of science and an understanding of what and how 
what is is), it seems almost completely inapplicable to the process of making 
art or a poem. This is a major shortcoming, it seems to me, in Peirce, a 
shortcoming Dewey, for one, addressed.

SxS


On Dec 20, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.
Gary F., List:

I suggest that we interpret that particular statement in light of what comes 
right before it.

CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to be 
known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality depends 
on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it is, only by 
virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value as thought 
identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the existence of thought 
now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has only a potential 
existence, dependent on the future thought of the community. (CP 5.316, EP 
1:54-55, 1868)

Note that Peirce wrote the article in which these quotes appear ("Some 
Consequences of Four Incapacities") at age 28, not 18. He is contrasting the 
individual human, "apart from his fellows," with "the community" whose 
collective thought would "be in the ideal state of complete information" after 
infinite inquiry and thus would know "what anything really is." This is the 
telos of the ongoing process of semiosis that Richard Kenneth Atkins calls 
"cognitive welding" in his 2016 book, Peirce and the Conduct of Life: Sentiment 
and Instinct in Ethics and Religion.

To the extent that each of us suffers from "ignorance and error," we have a 
"separate existence" from the continuum of Truth that is represented in 
existential graphs by the sheet of assertion. Again, whether this "negation" is 
"symmetrical by composition" or unsymmetrical depends on whether excluded 
middle holds, such that every proposition is either true or false; and Peirce 
states plainly, "This assumption ... I consider utterly unwarranted, and do not 
believe it" (NEM 3:758, 1893). That is why "Triadic Logic does not conflict 
with Dyadic Logic; only, it recognizes, what the latter does not" such that 
"Triadic Logic is universally true" (R 339:515[344r], 1909).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
 - 
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-20 Thread Jerry Rhee

Dear Steven,

I suppose it makes about as much sense as talking about a "final
interpretant" that is a moral community.. or some Supreme End.
*Any* Supreme End will do, of course.

With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:37 PM Skaggs,Steven 
wrote:

> Jerry,
>
> My opinion is that Peirce leads to a "convergence toward", but much art
> produces a "divergence from". So, for example, what sense does it make to
> talk about the “final interpretant” of a Rothko?
>
> SxS
>
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2020, at 4:26 PM, Skaggs,Steven 
> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not
> click links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's
> email address and know the contents are safe.
> "CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to
> be known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality
> depends on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it
> is, only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value
> as thought identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the
> existence of thought now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has
> only a potential existence, dependent on the future thought of the
> community. (CP 5.316, EP 1:54-55, 1868)"
>
> Although this quote goes a long way toward envisioning an empirical
> process or an ontology (i.e. the process of science and an understanding
> of what and how what is is), it seems almost completely inapplicable to the
> process of making art or a poem. This is a major shortcoming, it seems to
> me, in Peirce, a shortcoming Dewey, for one, addressed.
>
> SxS
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not
> click links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's
> email address and know the contents are safe.
> Gary F., List:
>
> I suggest that we interpret that particular statement in light of what
> comes right before it.
>
> CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to
> be known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality
> depends on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it
> is, only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value
> as thought identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the
> existence of thought now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has
> only a potential existence, dependent on the future thought of the
> community. (CP 5.316, EP 1:54-55, 1868)
>
>
> Note that Peirce wrote the article in which these quotes appear ("Some
> Consequences of Four Incapacities") at age 28, not 18. He is contrasting
> the *individual *human, "apart from his fellows," with "the community"
> whose *collective *thought would "be in the ideal state of complete
> information" after infinite inquiry and thus would know "what anything
> really is." This is the *telos *of the ongoing process of semiosis that
> Richard Kenneth Atkins calls "cognitive welding" in his 2016 book, *Peirce
> and the Conduct of Life: Sentiment and Instinct in Ethics and Religion*.
>
> To the extent that each of us suffers from "ignorance and error," we have
> a "separate existence" from the continuum of Truth that is represented in
> existential graphs by the sheet of assertion. Again, whether this
> "negation" is "symmetrical by composition" or unsymmetrical depends on
> whether excluded middle holds, such that every proposition is either true
> or false; and Peirce states plainly, "This assumption ... I consider
> utterly unwarranted, and do not believe it" (NEM 3:758, 1893). That is why
> "Triadic Logic does not *conflict *with Dyadic Logic; only, it
> recognizes, what the latter does not" such that "Triadic Logic is
> universally true" (R 339:515[344r], 1909).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
> 
> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
> 
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:59 AM  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Jon Alan, I thin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-20 Thread Skaggs,Steven

Jerry,

My opinion is that Peirce leads to a "convergence toward", but much art 
produces a "divergence from". So, for example, what sense does it make to talk 
about the “final interpretant” of a Rothko?

SxS



On Dec 20, 2020, at 4:26 PM, Skaggs,Steven 
mailto:s.ska...@louisville.edu>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.
"CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to be 
known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality depends 
on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it is, only by 
virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value as thought 
identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the existence of thought 
now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has only a potential 
existence, dependent on the future thought of the community. (CP 5.316, EP 
1:54-55, 1868)"

Although this quote goes a long way toward envisioning an empirical process or 
an ontology (i.e. the process of science and an understanding of what and how 
what is is), it seems almost completely inapplicable to the process of making 
art or a poem. This is a major shortcoming, it seems to me, in Peirce, a 
shortcoming Dewey, for one, addressed.

SxS


On Dec 20, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.
Gary F., List:

I suggest that we interpret that particular statement in light of what comes 
right before it.

CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to be 
known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality depends 
on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it is, only by 
virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value as thought 
identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the existence of thought 
now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has only a potential 
existence, dependent on the future thought of the community. (CP 5.316, EP 
1:54-55, 1868)

Note that Peirce wrote the article in which these quotes appear ("Some 
Consequences of Four Incapacities") at age 28, not 18. He is contrasting the 
individual human, "apart from his fellows," with "the community" whose 
collective thought would "be in the ideal state of complete information" after 
infinite inquiry and thus would know "what anything really is." This is the 
telos of the ongoing process of semiosis that Richard Kenneth Atkins calls 
"cognitive welding" in his 2016 book, Peirce and the Conduct of Life: Sentiment 
and Instinct in Ethics and Religion.

To the extent that each of us suffers from "ignorance and error," we have a 
"separate existence" from the continuum of Truth that is represented in 
existential graphs by the sheet of assertion. Again, whether this "negation" is 
"symmetrical by composition" or unsymmetrical depends on whether excluded 
middle holds, such that every proposition is either true or false; and Peirce 
states plainly, "This assumption ... I consider utterly unwarranted, and do not 
believe it" (NEM 3:758, 1893). That is why "Triadic Logic does not conflict 
with Dyadic Logic; only, it recognizes, what the latter does not" such that 
"Triadic Logic is universally true" (R 339:515[344r], 1909).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
 - 
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:59 AM mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca>> 
wrote:
Thanks, Jon Alan, I think I’m aboard this train of thought, although it’s 
taking me into unfamiliar territory.
I hadn’t really considered that a relation of negation can be either 
symmetrical or asymmetrical. I wonder which case applies to this early (18) 
remark of Peirce’s: “The individual man, since his separate exis

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-20 Thread Jerry Rhee

Dear Steven, list,


You said:

*‘seems’, ‘almost’, ‘completely’..  ‘inapplicable’.*


You must agree with me that *your* use of such terms makes *my*
interpreting *your* position on this matter extremely vague,

don’t you think?


As for

*“This is a major shortcoming, it seems to me, in Peirce, *

*a shortcoming Dewey, for one, addressed”.*


To which, I must say, *meh*..


For

besides these two, each man possesses opinions about the future,

which go by the general name of “expectations”;

and of these, that which precedes pain bears the special name of “fear,”

and that which precedes pleasure the special name of “confidence”;

and in addition to all these there is “calculation,”

pronouncing which of them is good, which bad;


and “calculation,”

when it has become the public decree of the State,

is named “law.”


Hth.

With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 3:26 PM Skaggs,Steven 
wrote:

> "CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to
> be known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality
> depends on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it
> is, only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value
> as thought identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the
> existence of thought now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has
> only a potential existence, dependent on the future thought of the
> community. (CP 5.316, EP 1:54-55, 1868)"
>
> Although this quote goes a long way toward envisioning an empirical
> process or an ontology (i.e. the process of science and an understanding
> of what and how what is is), it seems almost completely inapplicable to the
> process of making art or a poem. This is a major shortcoming, it seems to
> me, in Peirce, a shortcoming Dewey, for one, addressed.
>
> SxS
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not
> click links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's
> email address and know the contents are safe.
> Gary F., List:
>
> I suggest that we interpret that particular statement in light of what
> comes right before it.
>
> CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to
> be known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality
> depends on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it
> is, only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value
> as thought identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the
> existence of thought now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has
> only a potential existence, dependent on the future thought of the
> community. (CP 5.316, EP 1:54-55, 1868)
>
>
> Note that Peirce wrote the article in which these quotes appear ("Some
> Consequences of Four Incapacities") at age 28, not 18. He is contrasting
> the *individual *human, "apart from his fellows," with "the community"
> whose *collective *thought would "be in the ideal state of complete
> information" after infinite inquiry and thus would know "what anything
> really is." This is the *telos *of the ongoing process of semiosis that
> Richard Kenneth Atkins calls "cognitive welding" in his 2016 book, *Peirce
> and the Conduct of Life: Sentiment and Instinct in Ethics and Religion*.
>
> To the extent that each of us suffers from "ignorance and error," we have
> a "separate existence" from the continuum of Truth that is represented in
> existential graphs by the sheet of assertion. Again, whether this
> "negation" is "symmetrical by composition" or unsymmetrical depends on
> whether excluded middle holds, such that every proposition is either true
> or false; and Peirce states plainly, "This assumption ... I consider
> utterly unwarranted, and do not believe it" (NEM 3:758, 1893). That is why
> "Triadic Logic does not *conflict *with Dyadic Logic; only, it
> recognizes, what the latter does not" such that "Triadic Logic is
> universally true" (R 339:515[344r], 1909).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
> 
> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-20 Thread Skaggs,Steven

"CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to be 
known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality depends 
on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it is, only by 
virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value as thought 
identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the existence of thought 
now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has only a potential 
existence, dependent on the future thought of the community. (CP 5.316, EP 
1:54-55, 1868)"

Although this quote goes a long way toward envisioning an empirical process or 
an ontology (i.e. the process of science and an understanding of what and how 
what is is), it seems almost completely inapplicable to the process of making 
art or a poem. This is a major shortcoming, it seems to me, in Peirce, a 
shortcoming Dewey, for one, addressed.

SxS


On Dec 20, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.
Gary F., List:

I suggest that we interpret that particular statement in light of what comes 
right before it.

CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to be 
known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality depends 
on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it is, only by 
virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value as thought 
identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the existence of thought 
now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has only a potential 
existence, dependent on the future thought of the community. (CP 5.316, EP 
1:54-55, 1868)

Note that Peirce wrote the article in which these quotes appear ("Some 
Consequences of Four Incapacities") at age 28, not 18. He is contrasting the 
individual human, "apart from his fellows," with "the community" whose 
collective thought would "be in the ideal state of complete information" after 
infinite inquiry and thus would know "what anything really is." This is the 
telos of the ongoing process of semiosis that Richard Kenneth Atkins calls 
"cognitive welding" in his 2016 book, Peirce and the Conduct of Life: Sentiment 
and Instinct in Ethics and Religion.

To the extent that each of us suffers from "ignorance and error," we have a 
"separate existence" from the continuum of Truth that is represented in 
existential graphs by the sheet of assertion. Again, whether this "negation" is 
"symmetrical by composition" or unsymmetrical depends on whether excluded 
middle holds, such that every proposition is either true or false; and Peirce 
states plainly, "This assumption ... I consider utterly unwarranted, and do not 
believe it" (NEM 3:758, 1893). That is why "Triadic Logic does not conflict 
with Dyadic Logic; only, it recognizes, what the latter does not" such that 
"Triadic Logic is universally true" (R 339:515[344r], 1909).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
 - 
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:59 AM mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca>> 
wrote:
Thanks, Jon Alan, I think I’m aboard this train of thought, although it’s 
taking me into unfamiliar territory.
I hadn’t really considered that a relation of negation can be either 
symmetrical or asymmetrical. I wonder which case applies to this early (18) 
remark of Peirce’s: “The individual man, since his separate existence is 
manifested only by ignorance and error, so far as he is anything apart from his 
fellows, and from what he and they are to be, is only a negation” (EP1:55, CP 
5.317). Either? Both? Neither?
Gary f.
} Judge not, that ye be not judged. [Matthew 7:1] {
https://gnusystems.ca/wp/

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-18 Thread Helmut Raulien

 

 
 

supplement: The missing line break has been there before, I think. So, I guess, that I should delete the impressum copies except the first?



 

(test2:) Oh no, deleting both impressum tails leads to no line break! Now I have only deleted the second impressum tail, the one that my post has caused.
 

Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Dezember 2020 um 10:52 Uhr
Von: "Helmut Raulien" 
An: baud...@gmail.com
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Betreff: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)



Thank you, Ben! This is just a test, to see, whether it is my email program, that produces the junk-stuff.

Best, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 2020 um 22:04 Uhr
Von: "Ben Udell" 
An: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)


Hi, all.  Here's an example. I've pruned off all the extra stuff (most of the 439 KB of the previous message).  Please continue from here.  

Best regards,
Ben Udell
Co-manager with Gary Richmond
PEIRCE-L

On 12/17/2020 3:55 PM, Skaggs,Steven wrote:


H&E,

Differences in how far we extend words and categories and metaphorical uses of them is often a problem in discourse. Perhaps we experience some of that here?

I really appreciate Helmut’s contributions as he tries to reconcile E and my views. Perhaps we are not complete antagonists, just have different thresholds for the use of certain terms.

SxS

On Dec 17, 2020, at 1:40 PM, Skaggs,Steven <s.ska...@louisville.edu> wrote:


Thanks, Edwina. A lot of the problem has to do with discerning scales and other kinds of boundaries, i.e. phylogenic from ontogenic. The division of scales of any sort, even splitting the rainbow into 4, 6 or 8 colors, is difficult. I agree with what you're saying about adaptation, a word that sits more comfortably for me here than inductive reasoning. It is local in the sense of being an interactive feedback response between organism and environmental context, both of which may change through time. Don’t know about "reject random mutation as a means of dealing with environmental challenge", though. Seems that pressure from threatening conditions would greatly favor those individuals that differ in ways that defer or blunt the pressure. And, short of conscious agency (for example, on the part of social groups who could indeed use inference), most biological forms would probably blindly fall into the sweet spot — or become extinct. —SxS

On Dec 17, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 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.

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-18 Thread Helmut Raulien

 

(test2:) Oh no, deleting both impressum tails leads to no line break! Now I have only deleted the second impressum tail, the one that my post has caused.
 

Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Dezember 2020 um 10:52 Uhr
Von: "Helmut Raulien" 
An: baud...@gmail.com
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Betreff: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)



Thank you, Ben! This is just a test, to see, whether it is my email program, that produces the junk-stuff.

Best, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 2020 um 22:04 Uhr
Von: "Ben Udell" 
An: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)


Hi, all.  Here's an example. I've pruned off all the extra stuff (most of the 439 KB of the previous message).  Please continue from here.  

Best regards,
Ben Udell
Co-manager with Gary Richmond
PEIRCE-L

On 12/17/2020 3:55 PM, Skaggs,Steven wrote:


H&E,

Differences in how far we extend words and categories and metaphorical uses of them is often a problem in discourse. Perhaps we experience some of that here?

I really appreciate Helmut’s contributions as he tries to reconcile E and my views. Perhaps we are not complete antagonists, just have different thresholds for the use of certain terms.

SxS

On Dec 17, 2020, at 1:40 PM, Skaggs,Steven <s.ska...@louisville.edu> wrote:


Thanks, Edwina. A lot of the problem has to do with discerning scales and other kinds of boundaries, i.e. phylogenic from ontogenic. The division of scales of any sort, even splitting the rainbow into 4, 6 or 8 colors, is difficult. I agree with what you're saying about adaptation, a word that sits more comfortably for me here than inductive reasoning. It is local in the sense of being an interactive feedback response between organism and environmental context, both of which may change through time. Don’t know about "reject random mutation as a means of dealing with environmental challenge", though. Seems that pressure from threatening conditions would greatly favor those individuals that differ in ways that defer or blunt the pressure. And, short of conscious agency (for example, on the part of social groups who could indeed use inference), most biological forms would probably blindly fall into the sweet spot — or become extinct. —SxS

On Dec 17, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 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.

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-18 Thread Helmut Raulien

(test:) Yes, it always adds the impressum tail again. Now I have deleted both impressum tails before sending. Should I always do so?

 
 

Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Dezember 2020 um 10:52 Uhr
Von: "Helmut Raulien" 
An: baud...@gmail.com
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Betreff: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)



Thank you, Ben! This is just a test, to see, whether it is my email program, that produces the junk-stuff.

Best, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 2020 um 22:04 Uhr
Von: "Ben Udell" 
An: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)


Hi, all.  Here's an example. I've pruned off all the extra stuff (most of the 439 KB of the previous message).  Please continue from here.  

Best regards,
Ben Udell
Co-manager with Gary Richmond
PEIRCE-L

On 12/17/2020 3:55 PM, Skaggs,Steven wrote:


H&E,

Differences in how far we extend words and categories and metaphorical uses of them is often a problem in discourse. Perhaps we experience some of that here?

I really appreciate Helmut’s contributions as he tries to reconcile E and my views. Perhaps we are not complete antagonists, just have different thresholds for the use of certain terms.

SxS

On Dec 17, 2020, at 1:40 PM, Skaggs,Steven <s.ska...@louisville.edu> wrote:


Thanks, Edwina. A lot of the problem has to do with discerning scales and other kinds of boundaries, i.e. phylogenic from ontogenic. The division of scales of any sort, even splitting the rainbow into 4, 6 or 8 colors, is difficult. I agree with what you're saying about adaptation, a word that sits more comfortably for me here than inductive reasoning. It is local in the sense of being an interactive feedback response between organism and environmental context, both of which may change through time. Don’t know about "reject random mutation as a means of dealing with environmental challenge", though. Seems that pressure from threatening conditions would greatly favor those individuals that differ in ways that defer or blunt the pressure. And, short of conscious agency (for example, on the part of social groups who could indeed use inference), most biological forms would probably blindly fall into the sweet spot — or become extinct. —SxS

On Dec 17, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:












_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-18 Thread Helmut Raulien

Thank you, Ben! This is just a test, to see, whether it is my email program, that produces the junk-stuff.

Best, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 2020 um 22:04 Uhr
Von: "Ben Udell" 
An: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)


Hi, all.  Here's an example. I've pruned off all the extra stuff (most of the 439 KB of the previous message).  Please continue from here.  

Best regards,
Ben Udell
Co-manager with Gary Richmond
PEIRCE-L

On 12/17/2020 3:55 PM, Skaggs,Steven wrote:


H&E,

Differences in how far we extend words and categories and metaphorical uses of them is often a problem in discourse. Perhaps we experience some of that here?

I really appreciate Helmut’s contributions as he tries to reconcile E and my views. Perhaps we are not complete antagonists, just have different thresholds for the use of certain terms.

SxS

On Dec 17, 2020, at 1:40 PM, Skaggs,Steven <s.ska...@louisville.edu> wrote:


Thanks, Edwina. A lot of the problem has to do with discerning scales and other kinds of boundaries, i.e. phylogenic from ontogenic. The division of scales of any sort, even splitting the rainbow into 4, 6 or 8 colors, is difficult. I agree with what you're saying about adaptation, a word that sits more comfortably for me here than inductive reasoning. It is local in the sense of being an interactive feedback response between organism and environmental context, both of which may change through time. Don’t know about "reject random mutation as a means of dealing with environmental challenge", though. Seems that pressure from threatening conditions would greatly favor those individuals that differ in ways that defer or blunt the pressure. And, short of conscious agency (for example, on the part of social groups who could indeed use inference), most biological forms would probably blindly fall into the sweet spot — or become extinct. —SxS

On Dec 17, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 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.

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-17 Thread Edwina Taborsky

Steven - no, I don't think the problem is semantic. I think that we
differ theoretically!

Edwina
On Thu 17/12/20 8:55 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu
sent:
H&E,
Differences in how far we extend words and categories and
metaphorical uses of them is often a problem in discourse. Perhaps we
experience some of that here?
I really appreciate Helmut’s contributions as he tries to
reconcile E and my views. Perhaps we are not complete antagonists,
just have different thresholds for the use of certain terms.
SxS
On Dec 17, 2020, at 1:40 PM, Skaggs,Steven wrote:
Thanks, Edwina. A lot of the problem has to do with discerning
scales and other kinds of boundaries, i.e. phylogenic from ontogenic.
The division of scales of any sort, even splitting the rainbow into 4,
6 or 8 colors, is difficult. I agree with what you're saying about
adaptation, a word that sits more comfortably for me here than
inductive reasoning. It is local in the sense of being an interactive
feedback response between organism and environmental context, both of
which may change through time. Don’t know about "reject random
mutation as a means of dealing with environmental challenge",
though. Seems that pressure from threatening conditions would greatly
favor those individuals that differ in ways that defer or blunt the
pressure. And, short of conscious agency (for example, on the part of
social groups who could indeed use inference), most biological forms
would probably blindly fall into the sweet spot — or become
extinct. —SxS
.

Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'s.ska...@louisville.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-17 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

Helmut - You are, I think, assuming that all biologists are 'pure
neo-Darwinian' - and that's not the case. There is a huge and
developing research on developmental biology[and biosemiotics]  which
rejects simple neo-Darwinian concepts. And these are NOT creationists
or Lamarkian.

I did suggest that you look into the journals BioSystems and the
Physics of Life. And I suggested a few other authors - you will find
more, if you are interested, in the articles in these journals. I
consider that these views on adaptation and evolution are firmly part
of the Peircean infrastructure. 

I disagree that abduction is 'weak emergence' - and disagree that a
'beak becoming larger' is inductive. I do agree that abduction is not
gradual but completely novel. And I disagree that the seed shells
'gradually become harder.

I also disagree that consciousness is required for abduction - and
follow Peirce's view on both consciousness and reasoning - and again,
reasoning does NOT require, according to Peirce, consciousness. 
 On Thu 17/12/20  3:45 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
 Edwina, I suggest leaving the question about mutation to the
biologists. I mean the vast majority of them, which is not the
creationist fraction, and also not the only-lamarckist-anti-darwinist
fraction or whoever. Mind appears in the work of bees and crystals,
but it is not the single bee´s or the single crystal´s mind. If
there is abduction, it is weak emergence, universal mind, which you
can always suggest. Induction has to do with counting, numerical,
graduality, like a beak becoming bigger. Abduction is not gradual,
but saltatory, like a completely new, not just amplified, hypothesis
about something really (saltatorily too) surprising, not about
something that merely gradually increases, like the hardness of seed
shells. I think, consciousness is required for abduction. If the
acting individual is the one who abducts, it has consciousness and a
brain or at least some neurons, and it is strong-emergence-abduction.
To investigate how mind works, and how and where it is being
individuated, it is not helpful to always answer, that mind is there
everywhere anyway, and so it is futile to have a closer look at it.
It is everywhere OK, but nevertheless is it not a sin against the
universe or against Peirce to want to get a more detailed analysis.
Best, Helmut  17. Dezember 2020 um 20:22 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" 
 wrote:  

Steven - I don't consider that adaptation is akin to induction. It's
akin to abduction. 

1] And I disagree with your comment about random mutation - which
you seem to suggest is sufficient to provide a species with an
adaptive capacity. As I pointed out, for the reasons of both
statistical viability and conservation of energy, I consider that
random offerings, so to speak, are insufficient and indeed, even
dangerous, as a means of dealing with environmental pressures. 

2] I will repeat yet again, Peirce's dictum. 4.551 

"thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in
the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical
world". 

that is - my point is that the biological organism - without a brain
- let's just say a paramecium, much less a bird - is in informational
interaction with its environment - and as such, comes up with
constructive solutions to environmental challenges, within its
organic and inorganic composition. 

3] And no- this is not consciousness. Again, as Peirce pointed out,
"consciousness is a special and not a universal, accompaniment of
mind" 7.366 

4]What is Mind? 

"Mind has its universal mode of action, namely by final
causationthe motions of a little creature show any purpose. If
so, there is mind there. 1.269  

I note that there is no concept here of 'consciousness'. Rather,
Peirce continues: "Passing from the little to the large, natural
selection is the theory of how forms come to be adaptive, that is, to
be governed by a quasi purpose. It suggests a machinery of efficiency
to bring about the end"...and this end is the purpose or final cause.


That is, my view is that ALL matter [and I include the
physic-chemical realm, but will refer here only to the biological'] 
functions within MIND, which is to say - matter functions logically,
rationally, with a purpose, which is...to be matter, to not
dissipate, to increase in complexity and diversity. 

Therefore - adaptation and evolution are not random happenings, but
MIND-produced actions, produced by local organisms in informational
interaction with their local environment, to enable constructive
continuity of that matter - whether in that particular form or in
another form. Informational interaction does not require a brain nor
consciousness. After all, trees are in constant informational
interaction with their environment, producing pheromones when, for
example, attacked by pests, that wil

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-17 Thread Ben Udell

*Hi, all.  Here's an example. I've pruned off all the extra stuff (most 
of the 439 KB of the previous message).  Please continue from here. **

*

*Best regards,**
**Ben Udell**
**Co-manager with Gary Richmond**
**PEIRCE-L**
*

On 12/17/2020 3:55 PM, Skaggs,Steven wrote:


H&E,

Differences in how far we extend words and categories and metaphorical uses of 
them is often a problem in discourse. Perhaps we experience some of that here?

I really appreciate Helmut’s contributions as he tries to reconcile E and my 
views. Perhaps we are not complete antagonists, just have different thresholds 
for the use of certain terms.

SxS

On Dec 17, 2020, at 1:40 PM, Skaggs,Steven 
mailto:s.ska...@louisville.edu>> wrote:

Thanks, Edwina. A lot of the problem has to do with discerning scales and other kinds of 
boundaries, i.e. phylogenic from ontogenic. The division of scales of any sort, even 
splitting the rainbow into 4, 6 or 8 colors, is difficult. I agree with what you're 
saying about adaptation, a word that sits more comfortably for me here than inductive 
reasoning. It is local in the sense of being an interactive feedback response between 
organism and environmental context, both of which may change through time. Don’t know 
about "reject random mutation as a means of dealing with environmental 
challenge", though. Seems that pressure from threatening conditions would greatly 
favor those individuals that differ in ways that defer or blunt the pressure. And, short 
of conscious agency (for example, on the part of social groups who could indeed use 
inference), most biological forms would probably blindly fall into the sweet spot — or 
become extinct. —SxS

On Dec 17, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Edwina Taborsky 
mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-17 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina,

I suggest leaving the question about mutation to the biologists. I mean the vast majority of them, which is not the creationist fraction, and also not the only-lamarckist-anti-darwinist fraction or whoever. Mind appears in the work of bees and crystals, but it is not the single bee´s or the single crystal´s mind. If there is abduction, it is weak emergence, universal mind, which you can always suggest. Induction has to do with counting, numerical, graduality, like a beak becoming bigger. Abduction is not gradual, but saltatory, like a completely new, not just amplified, hypothesis about something really (saltatorily too) surprising, not about something that merely gradually increases, like the hardness of seed shells. I think, consciousness is required for abduction. If the acting individual is the one who abducts, it has consciousness and a brain or at least some neurons, and it is strong-emergence-abduction. To investigate how mind works, and how and where it is being individuated, it is not helpful to always answer, that mind is there everywhere anyway, and so it is futile to have a closer look at it. It is everywhere OK, but nevertheless is it not a sin against the universe or against Peirce to want to get a more detailed analysis.

Best, Helmut

17. Dezember 2020 um 20:22 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Steven - I don't consider that adaptation is akin to induction. It's akin to abduction.

1] And I disagree with your comment about random mutation - which you seem to suggest is sufficient to provide a species with an adaptive capacity. As I pointed out, for the reasons of both statistical viability and conservation of energy, I consider that random offerings, so to speak, are insufficient and indeed, even dangerous, as a means of dealing with environmental pressures.

2] I will repeat yet again, Peirce's dictum. 4.551

"thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical world".

that is - my point is that the biological organism - without a brain - let's just say a paramecium, much less a bird - is in informational interaction with its environment - and as such, comes up with constructive solutions to environmental challenges, within its organic and inorganic composition.

3] And no- this is not consciousness. Again, as Peirce pointed out, "consciousness is a special and not a universal, accompaniment of mind" 7.366

4]What is Mind?

"Mind has its universal mode of action, namely by final causationthe motions of a little creature show any purpose. If so, there is mind there. 1.269

I note that there is no concept here of 'consciousness'. Rather, Peirce continues: "Passing from the little to the large, natural selection is the theory of how forms come to be adaptive, that is, to be governed by a quasi purpose. It suggests a machinery of efficiency to bring about the end"...and this end is the purpose or final cause.

That is, my view is that ALL matter [and I include the physic-chemical realm, but will refer here only to the biological'] functions within MIND, which is to say - matter functions logically, rationally, with a purpose, which is...to be matter, to not dissipate, to increase in complexity and diversity.

Therefore - adaptation and evolution are not random happenings, but MIND-produced actions, produced by local organisms in informational interaction with their local environment, to enable constructive continuity of that matter - whether in that particular form or in another form. Informational interaction does not require a brain nor consciousness. After all, trees are in constant informational interaction with their environment, producing pheromones when, for example, attacked by pests, that will attract birds etc to come to attack those pests. Producing sap to close water evaporation gaps, and so on.

Adaptive responses, requiring deeper biological changes, are, in my view, the result of information interactions with the environment, where the species will produce a new form - not randomly which is a waste of time and energy - but functionally, ie, one that will fulfil that 'final cause' function - and thus, change the beak size.

Edwina

On Thu 17/12/20 6:40 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu sent:

Thanks, Edwina. A lot of the problem has to do with discerning scales and other kinds of boundaries, i.e. phylogenic from ontogenic. The division of scales of any sort, even splitting the rainbow into 4, 6 or 8 colors, is difficult. I agree with what you're saying about adaptation, a word that sits more comfortably for me here than inductive reasoning. It is local in the sense of being an interactive feedback response between organism and environmental context, both of which may change through time. Don’t know about "reject random mutation as a means of dealing with environmental challenge", though. Seems that pressure from threatening conditions would greatly favor those individ

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-17 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

Steven - I don't consider that adaptation is akin to induction. It's
akin to abduction.

1] And I disagree with your comment about random mutation - which
you seem to suggest is sufficient to provide a species with an
adaptive capacity. As I pointed out, for the reasons of both
statistical viability and conservation of energy, I consider that
random offerings, so to speak, are insufficient and indeed, even
dangerous, as a means of dealing with environmental pressures.

2] I will repeat yet again, Peirce's dictum. 4.551

"thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in
the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical
world".

that is - my point is that the biological organism - without a brain
- let's just say a paramecium, much less a bird - is in informational
interaction with its environment - and as such, comes up with
constructive solutions to environmental challenges, within its
organic and inorganic composition. 

3] And no- this is not consciousness. Again, as Peirce pointed out,
"consciousness is a special and not a universal, accompaniment of
mind" 7.366

4]What is Mind?

"Mind has its universal mode of action, namely by final
causationthe motions of a little creature show any purpose. If
so, there is mind there. 1.269  

I note that there is no concept here of 'consciousness'. Rather,
Peirce continues: "Passing from the little to the large, natural
selection is the theory of how forms come to be adaptive, that is, to
be governed by a quasi purpose. It suggests a machinery of efficiency
to bring about the end"...and this end is the purpose or final cause.

That is, my view is that ALL matter [and I include the
physic-chemical realm, but will refer here only to the biological'] 
functions within MIND, which is to say - matter functions logically,
rationally, with a purpose, which is...to be matter, to not
dissipate, to increase in complexity and diversity.

Therefore - adaptation and evolution are not random happenings, but
MIND-produced actions, produced by local organisms in informational
interaction with their local environment, to enable constructive
continuity of that matter - whether in that particular form or in
another form. Informational interaction does not require a brain nor
consciousness. After all, trees are in constant informational
interaction with their environment, producing pheromones when, for
example, attacked by pests, that will attract birds etc to come to
attack those pests. Producing sap to close water evaporation gaps,
and so on. 

Adaptive responses, requiring deeper biological changes, are, in my
view, the result of information interactions with the environment,
where the species will produce a new form - not randomly which is a
waste of time and energy - but functionally, ie, one that will fulfil
that 'final cause' function - and thus, change the beak size. 

Edwina
 On Thu 17/12/20  6:40 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu
sent:
Thanks, Edwina. A lot of the problem has to do with discerning
scales and other kinds of boundaries, i.e. phylogenic from ontogenic.
The division of scales of any sort, even splitting the rainbow into 4,
6 or 8 colors, is difficult. I agree with what you're  saying about
adaptation, a word that sits more comfortably for me here than
inductive reasoning. It is local in the sense of being an interactive
feedback response between organism and environmental context, both of
which may change through time. Don’t know about "reject random
mutation as a means of dealing with environmental  challenge",
though. Seems that pressure from threatening conditions would greatly
favor those individuals that differ in ways that defer or blunt the
pressure. And, short of conscious agency (for example, on the part of
social groups who could indeed use inference),  most biological forms
would probably blindly fall into the sweet spot — or become
extinct. —SxS 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-17 Thread Helmut Raulien

Supplement: In this respect (emergence) we have to distinguish between weak and strong emergence. I would say, the beginning of a weak emergence is somewhat blurred. Its effect is imposed from a bigger scale to a smaller scale, e.g. from species evolution (DNA) to the individual. Strong emergence means, that the individual itself has taken over the capability that influences it (self-control). So I would claim, that abduction/anticipation as a weak emergence may occur from DNA and epigenes to the individual, but abduction/anticipation as strong, clear emergence, a noncontinuous, distinct step, is the evolution/creation/occurence of neurons.

Edwina, Steven, List,

Thank you, Steven! I make an attempt to combine your, Edwina´s view with yours, Steven, and mine: The universe has a ("quasi-") mind, and is capable of all three kinds of inference. But to do so on small scales too, it has to hand down this capabilities to smaller units. Causa efficiens is what the inanimate parts of nature can perform, and its representation deduction is a narrative of its. This deduction is self-narrating, as physicochemical reactions are viewable, audible, tangible... Organisms can perform causa finalis, whose representation is an estimation, induction. Organisms induct (induce?). E.g. in the tip of a root is a little stone, and the cells on which this stone pulls due to gravitation multiply faster than the others. (Nonreligious) Causa exemplaris can be performed by brain animals, and its representation is anticipation, abduction. To represent ab example, a neoronic network is required. The emergence steps are narration-estimation-anticipation, or deduction-induction-abduction.

But I admit, that this view may be wrong, and anticipatory/abductive reasoning may, besides by neurons, also be performed by DNA and epigenetic mechanisms.

Best, Helmut

17. Dezember 2020 um 14:15 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Yes, I consider that the universe includes chance events. That's basic Peircean Firstness, the concept of freedom and deviation - and nothing to do with abduction, which is the generation of a new hypothesis, or set-of-laws.

Edwina

On Thu 17/12/20 6:38 AM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu sent:

Edwina,

Do you consider that the universe includes chance events, or are all events tests of abductions?

SxS

On Dec 16, 2020, at 5:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.

Steven - yes, I consider that the universe reasons - and I do consider, therefore, that abduction, as a reasoning process, does indeed happen in 'sub-elements' [what on earth does that mean and imply???] - in birds and bills.

And yes, the universe is, in my view, an inference, which is to say, a 'thinking' system [most certainly NOT a machine] - and this view is hardly unique to me - but held among many who view the universe as a self-organized complex-adaptive-system.

Edwina

On Wed 16/12/20 9:48 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu sent:

Edwina,

Thanks for the response, but whether or not one believes that the whole system (cosmos) reasons, there would be no evolutionary abduction happening in sub-elements such as the birds and their bills. And if you make the cosmos an inference machine, then you certainly paint yourself into an extreme position, one that cannot be tested.

SxS

—

On Dec 16, 2020, at 2:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.

Steven - thanks for your comments.

Yes, abduction is the suggestion of a hypothesis to explain a set of observations.

Your examples are obviously set up as deductive, inductive, abductive, but, these are purely intellectual exercises.

You are ignoring that the natural world also reasons - and since you are new here, I'll repeat, for the zillionth time, a key selection from Peirce. 4.551:

"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical world".

Therefore - the development by a finch species, in the biological world, of a beak capable of dealing with the new harder shells of seeds - is a result of MIND, of thought - and, an action of abduction.

Edwina

On Wed 16/12/20 7:14 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu sent:

Edwina and Helmut,

I have only recently joined the Peirce List and find this interesting thread. Excuse me putting in a word into your conversation about abduction — especially as it concerns how far the concept might be stretched.

Abduction is a hunch, an hypothesis. It focuses a set of tests, or it is a t

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-17 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina, Steven, List,

But I admit, that this view may be wrong, and anticipatory/abductive reasoning may, besides by neurons, also be performed by DNA and epigenetic mechanisms.

Best, Helmut

17. Dezember 2020 um 14:15 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Edwina

On Thu 17/12/20 6:38 AM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu sent:

Edwina,

Do you consider that the universe includes chance events, or are all events tests of abductions?

SxS

On Dec 16, 2020, at 5:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.

Edwina

On Wed 16/12/20 9:48 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu sent:

Edwina,

SxS

—

On Dec 16, 2020, at 2:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.

Steven - thanks for your comments.

Yes, abduction is the suggestion of a hypothesis to explain a set of observations.

Your examples are obviously set up as deductive, inductive, abductive, but, these are purely intellectual exercises.

You are ignoring that the natural world also reasons - and since you are new here, I'll repeat, for the zillionth time, a key selection from Peirce. 4.551:

"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical world".

Edwina

On Wed 16/12/20 7:14 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu sent:

Edwina and Helmut,

Abduction is a hunch, an hypothesis. It focuses a set of tests, or it is a tentative, suggested solution to a problem, a reaching out and grasping at a potentially successful explanation. It is a Case in search of a Paradigm.

An example with beans.

1) I’m a beanologist: I know what beans are. I’ve never seen a blue one before, but here is something in front of me that has a bean structure but is blue. Note that as a beanologist I hold the color to be an accidental trait of beans, and structure to be essential. So I deduce without doubt that the object in front of me is a bean.

2) I’m not a beanologist: I have seen a lot of things in my lifetime called beans, but none of them have ever been blue. This object in fr

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-17 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

Yes, I consider that the universe includes chance events. That's
basic Peircean Firstness, the concept of freedom and deviation -  and
nothing to do with abduction, which is the generation of a new
hypothesis, or set-of-laws. 

Edwina
 On Thu 17/12/20  6:38 AM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu
sent:
Edwina, 
  Do you consider that the universe includes chance events, or are
all events tests of abductions? 
  SxS 
 On Dec 16, 2020, at 5:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote: 
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do
not click links, open  attachments, or respond unless you recognize
the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.   

Steven - yes, I consider that the universe reasons - and I do
consider, therefore, that abduction, as a reasoning process, does
indeed happen in 'sub-elements' [what on earth does that mean and
imply???] - in birds and bills.  

And yes, the universe is, in my view, an inference, which is to say,
a 'thinking' system [most certainly NOT a machine] - and this view is
hardly unique to me - but held among many who view the universe as a
self-organized complex-adaptive-system. 

Edwina
 On Wed 16/12/20 9:48 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu
[2] sent:
   Edwina, 
  Thanks for the response, but whether or not one believes that the
whole system (cosmos) reasons, there would be no evolutionary
abduction happening in sub-elements such as the birds and their
bills. And if you make the cosmos an inference machine,  then you
certainly paint yourself into an extreme position, one that cannot be
tested. 
  SxS 
  — 
 On Dec 16, 2020, at 2:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote: 
 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do
not click links, open attachments, or respond  unless you recognize
the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.

Steven -  thanks for your comments. 

Yes, abduction is the suggestion of a hypothesis to explain a set of
observations. 

Your examples are obviously set up as deductive, inductive,
abductive, but, these are purely intellectual exercises. 

You are ignoring that the natural world also reasons - and since you
are new here, I'll repeat, for the zillionth time, a key selection
from Peirce. 4.551: 

"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in
the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical
world". 

Therefore - the development by a finch species, in the biological
world, of a beak capable of dealing with the new harder shells of
seeds - is a result of MIND, of thought - and, an action of
abduction. 

Edwina
 On Wed 16/12/20 7:14 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu
[4] sent:
   Edwina and Helmut, 
  I have only recently joined the Peirce List and find this
interesting thread. Excuse me putting in a word into your
conversation about abduction — especially as it concerns how far
the concept might be stretched.  
  Abduction is a hunch, an hypothesis. It focuses a set of tests, or
it is a tentative, suggested solution to a problem, a reaching out
and grasping at a potentially successful explanation. It is a Case in
search of a Paradigm. 
  An example with beans.  
  1) I’m a beanologist: I know what beans are. I’ve never seen a
blue one before, but here is something in front of me that has a bean
structure but is blue. Note that as a beanologist I hold the color to
be an accidental trait of beans, and structure  to be essential. So I
deduce without doubt that the object in front of me is a bean.  
  2) I’m not a beanologist: I have seen a lot of things in my
lifetime called beans, but none of them have ever been blue. This
object in front of me is like a bean (similarity) but also unlike a
bean (it is blue). Using inductive reasoning, I expand  my sense of
bean-ness to include blue beans.  
  3) I’m a gourmand chef and I love beans. In the market I am
confronted by an unlabeled bin full of objects that look somewhat
beanlike but do not smell or taste like beans I’ve had — and
they’re blue. I abduce that they are a new food item grown  only
locally and I name them “Bleans”, take them back to New York and
make a fortune at my restaurant! 
   I will say that taking the development of a thicker bill to crack
seeds is stretching my notion of abduction.  
  Steven S. 
 On Dec 16, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote: 
 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do
not click links, open attachments, or respond  unless you recognize
the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.  
Edwina, I think this view (intelligent response, informed interacton)
is called Lamarckism, has been refuted for a long time by Darwinism,
but is since shortly restored in a weak form with the discovery of
epigenetics. With "perceived similarity" I meant a knowledge about
similarity or identity of a thing t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-16 Thread Skaggs,Steven

Edwina,

Do you consider that the universe includes chance events, or are all events 
tests of abductions?

SxS



On Dec 16, 2020, at 5:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky 
mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.

Steven - yes, I consider that the universe reasons - and I do consider, 
therefore, that abduction, as a reasoning process, does indeed happen in 
'sub-elements' [what on earth does that mean and imply???] - in birds and bills.

And yes, the universe is, in my view, an inference, which is to say, a 
'thinking' system [most certainly NOT a machine] - and this view is hardly 
unique to me - but held among many who view the universe as a self-organized 
complex-adaptive-system.

Edwina



On Wed 16/12/20 9:48 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" 
s.ska...@louisville.edu sent:

Edwina,

Thanks for the response, but whether or not one believes that the whole system 
(cosmos) reasons, there would be no evolutionary abduction happening in 
sub-elements such as the birds and their bills. And if you make the cosmos an 
inference machine, then you certainly paint yourself into an extreme position, 
one that cannot be tested.

SxS

—



On Dec 16, 2020, at 2:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky 
> 
wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.

Steven -  thanks for your comments.

Yes, abduction is the suggestion of a hypothesis to explain a set of 
observations.

Your examples are obviously set up as deductive, inductive, abductive, but, 
these are purely intellectual exercises.

You are ignoring that the natural world also reasons - and since you are new 
here, I'll repeat, for the zillionth time, a key selection from Peirce. 4.551:

"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of 
bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical world".

Therefore - the development by a finch species, in the biological world, of a 
beak capable of dealing with the new harder shells of seeds - is a result of 
MIND, of thought - and, an action of abduction.

Edwina



On Wed 16/12/20 7:14 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" 
s.ska...@louisville.edu
 sent:

Edwina and Helmut,

I have only recently joined the Peirce List and find this interesting thread. 
Excuse me putting in a word into your conversation about abduction — especially 
as it concerns how far the concept might be stretched.

Abduction is a hunch, an hypothesis. It focuses a set of tests, or it is a 
tentative, suggested solution to a problem, a reaching out and grasping at a 
potentially successful explanation. It is a Case in search of a Paradigm.

An example with beans.

1) I’m a beanologist: I know what beans are. I’ve never seen a blue one before, 
but here is something in front of me that has a bean structure but is blue. 
Note that as a beanologist I hold the color to be an accidental trait of beans, 
and structure to be essential. So I deduce without doubt that the object in 
front of me is a bean.

2) I’m not a beanologist: I have seen a lot of things in my lifetime called 
beans, but none of them have ever been blue. This object in front of me is like 
a bean (similarity) but also unlike a bean (it is blue). Using inductive 
reasoning, I expand my sense of bean-ness to include blue beans.

3) I’m a gourmand chef and I love beans. In the market I am confronted by an 
unlabeled bin full of objects that look somewhat beanlike but do not smell or 
taste like beans I’ve had — and they’re blue. I abduce that they are a new food 
item grown only locally and I name them “Bleans”, take them back to New York 
and make a fortune at my restaurant!

 I will say that taking the development of a thicker bill to crack seeds is 
stretching my notion of abduction.

Steven S.




On Dec 16, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.

Edwina, I think this view (intelligent response, informed interacton) is called 
Lamarckism, has been refuted for a long time by Darwinism, but is since shortly 
restored in a weak form with the discovery of epigenetics.
With "perceived similarity" I meant a knowledge about similarity or identity of 
a thing that surprises, and another thing or class of things known. For 
example, in Peirces example, the similarity expressed with the name "beans" 
between the seen white beans, and the beans known to be in the bag.

Best, Helmut

 15. Dezember 2020 um 21:47 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" 


Helmut - No, the beak is a NEW form, not the old form of the beak, and it 
developed in 'intelligent' response to the

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-16 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

Steven - yes, I consider that the universe reasons - and I do
consider, therefore, that abduction, as a reasoning process, does
indeed happen in 'sub-elements' [what on earth does that mean and
imply???] - in birds and bills. 

And yes, the universe is, in my view, an inference, which is to say,
a 'thinking' system [most certainly NOT a machine] - and this view is
hardly unique to me - but held among many who view the universe as a
self-organized complex-adaptive-system.

Edwina
 On Wed 16/12/20  9:48 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu
sent:
Edwina, 
  Thanks for the response, but whether or not one believes that the
whole system (cosmos) reasons, there would be no evolutionary
abduction happening in sub-elements such as the birds and their
bills. And if you make the cosmos an inference machine,  then you
certainly paint yourself into an extreme position, one that cannot be
tested. 
  SxS 
  — 
 On Dec 16, 2020, at 2:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote: 
 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do
not click links, open attachments, or respond  unless you recognize
the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.

Steven -  thanks for your comments. 

Yes, abduction is the suggestion of a hypothesis to explain a set of
observations. 

Your examples are obviously set up as deductive, inductive,
abductive, but, these are purely intellectual exercises. 

You are ignoring that the natural world also reasons - and since you
are new here, I'll repeat, for the zillionth time, a key selection
from Peirce. 4.551: 

"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in
the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical
world". 

Therefore - the development by a finch species, in the biological
world, of a beak capable of dealing with the new harder shells of
seeds - is a result of MIND, of thought - and, an action of
abduction. 

Edwina
 On Wed 16/12/20 7:14 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu
[2] sent:
   Edwina and Helmut, 
  I have only recently joined the Peirce List and find this
interesting thread. Excuse me putting in a word into your
conversation about abduction — especially as it concerns how far
the concept might be stretched.  
  Abduction is a hunch, an hypothesis. It focuses a set of tests, or
it is a tentative, suggested solution to a problem, a reaching out
and grasping at a potentially successful explanation. It is a Case in
search of a Paradigm. 
  An example with beans.  
  1) I’m a beanologist: I know what beans are. I’ve never seen a
blue one before, but here is something in front of me that has a bean
structure but is blue. Note that as a beanologist I hold the color to
be an accidental trait of beans, and structure  to be essential. So I
deduce without doubt that the object in front of me is a bean.  
  2) I’m not a beanologist: I have seen a lot of things in my
lifetime called beans, but none of them have ever been blue. This
object in front of me is like a bean (similarity) but also unlike a
bean (it is blue). Using inductive reasoning, I expand  my sense of
bean-ness to include blue beans.  
  3) I’m a gourmand chef and I love beans. In the market I am
confronted by an unlabeled bin full of objects that look somewhat
beanlike but do not smell or taste like beans I’ve had — and
they’re blue. I abduce that they are a new food item grown  only
locally and I name them “Bleans”, take them back to New York and
make a fortune at my restaurant! 
   I will say that taking the development of a thicker bill to crack
seeds is stretching my notion of abduction.  
  Steven S. 
 On Dec 16, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote: 
 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do
not click links, open attachments, or respond  unless you recognize
the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.  
Edwina, I think this view (intelligent response, informed interacton)
is called Lamarckism, has been refuted for a long time by Darwinism,
but is since shortly restored in a weak form with the discovery of
epigenetics. With "perceived similarity" I meant a knowledge about
similarity or identity of a thing that surprises, and another thing
or class of things known. For example, in Peirces example, the
similarity expressed with the name "beans" between the seen  white
beans, and the beans known to be in the bag.   Best, Helmut 15.
Dezember 2020 um 21:47 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
Helmut - No, the beak is a NEW form, not the old form of the beak,
and it developed in 'intelligent' response to the NEW harder seed
shell. This is novelty; this is abduction. 

Yes, mutations [new forms]  are the results of abduction.  And
mutations are not necessarily random, but can be the new form
developed as a result of 'informed interaction' by the organism with
the environment. 

I don't understand

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-16 Thread Skaggs,Steven

Edwina,

Thanks for the response, but whether or not one believes that the whole system 
(cosmos) reasons, there would be no evolutionary abduction happening in 
sub-elements such as the birds and their bills. And if you make the cosmos an 
inference machine, then you certainly paint yourself into an extreme position, 
one that cannot be tested.

SxS

—



On Dec 16, 2020, at 2:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky 
mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.

Steven -  thanks for your comments.

Yes, abduction is the suggestion of a hypothesis to explain a set of 
observations.

Your examples are obviously set up as deductive, inductive, abductive, but, 
these are purely intellectual exercises.

You are ignoring that the natural world also reasons - and since you are new 
here, I'll repeat, for the zillionth time, a key selection from Peirce. 4.551:

"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of 
bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical world".

Therefore - the development by a finch species, in the biological world, of a 
beak capable of dealing with the new harder shells of seeds - is a result of 
MIND, of thought - and, an action of abduction.

Edwina



On Wed 16/12/20 7:14 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" 
s.ska...@louisville.edu sent:

Edwina and Helmut,

I have only recently joined the Peirce List and find this interesting thread. 
Excuse me putting in a word into your conversation about abduction — especially 
as it concerns how far the concept might be stretched.

Abduction is a hunch, an hypothesis. It focuses a set of tests, or it is a 
tentative, suggested solution to a problem, a reaching out and grasping at a 
potentially successful explanation. It is a Case in search of a Paradigm.

An example with beans.

1) I’m a beanologist: I know what beans are. I’ve never seen a blue one before, 
but here is something in front of me that has a bean structure but is blue. 
Note that as a beanologist I hold the color to be an accidental trait of beans, 
and structure to be essential. So I deduce without doubt that the object in 
front of me is a bean.

2) I’m not a beanologist: I have seen a lot of things in my lifetime called 
beans, but none of them have ever been blue. This object in front of me is like 
a bean (similarity) but also unlike a bean (it is blue). Using inductive 
reasoning, I expand my sense of bean-ness to include blue beans.

3) I’m a gourmand chef and I love beans. In the market I am confronted by an 
unlabeled bin full of objects that look somewhat beanlike but do not smell or 
taste like beans I’ve had — and they’re blue. I abduce that they are a new food 
item grown only locally and I name them “Bleans”, take them back to New York 
and make a fortune at my restaurant!

 I will say that taking the development of a thicker bill to crack seeds is 
stretching my notion of abduction.

Steven S.




On Dec 16, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.

Edwina, I think this view (intelligent response, informed interacton) is called 
Lamarckism, has been refuted for a long time by Darwinism, but is since shortly 
restored in a weak form with the discovery of epigenetics.
With "perceived similarity" I meant a knowledge about similarity or identity of 
a thing that surprises, and another thing or class of things known. For 
example, in Peirces example, the similarity expressed with the name "beans" 
between the seen white beans, and the beans known to be in the bag.

Best, Helmut

 15. Dezember 2020 um 21:47 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" 


Helmut - No, the beak is a NEW form, not the old form of the beak, and it 
developed in 'intelligent' response to the NEW harder seed shell. This is 
novelty; this is abduction.

Yes, mutations [new forms]  are the results of abduction.  And mutations are 
not necessarily random, but can be the new form developed as a result of 
'informed interaction' by the organism with the environment.

I don't understand what you mean by 'perceived similarity' with regard to 
abduction.

Please remember that Peirce understood 'Mind' as operating within all of the 
Universe, both the inorganic and organic - and most certainly not confined to 
human beings.

Edwina




On Tue 15/12/20 3:20 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:


Edwina, ok, thoug I would say, the strengthening of the beak might also be seen 
as a kind of induction, because both the seed shell, and the beak have been 
there before, so there is no complete novelty nor total surprise. Maybe 
mutations are part of abduction? Though abduction might be seen as a guess with 
a reason, a

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-16 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

Steven -  thanks for your comments.

Yes, abduction is the suggestion of a hypothesis to explain a set of
observations.

Your examples are obviously set up as deductive, inductive,
abductive, but, these are purely intellectual exercises.

You are ignoring that the natural world also reasons - and since you
are new here, I'll repeat, for the zillionth time, a key selection
from Peirce. 4.551:

"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in
the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical
world". 

Therefore - the development by a finch species, in the biological
world, of a beak capable of dealing with the new harder shells of
seeds - is a result of MIND, of thought - and, an action of
abduction.

Edwina
 On Wed 16/12/20  7:14 PM , "Skaggs,Steven" s.ska...@louisville.edu
sent:
Edwina and Helmut, 
  I have only recently joined the Peirce List and find this
interesting thread. Excuse me putting in a word into your
conversation about abduction — especially as it concerns how far
the concept might be stretched.  
  Abduction is a hunch, an hypothesis. It focuses a set of tests, or
it is a tentative, suggested solution to a problem, a reaching out
and grasping at a potentially successful explanation. It is a Case in
search of a Paradigm. 
  An example with beans.  
  1) I’m a beanologist: I know what beans are. I’ve never seen a
blue one before, but here is something in front of me that has a bean
structure but is blue. Note that as a beanologist I hold the color to
be an accidental trait of beans, and structure  to be essential. So I
deduce without doubt that the object in front of me is a bean.  
  2) I’m not a beanologist: I have seen a lot of things in my
lifetime called beans, but none of them have ever been blue. This
object in front of me is like a bean (similarity) but also unlike a
bean (it is blue). Using inductive reasoning, I expand  my sense of
bean-ness to include blue beans.  
  3) I’m a gourmand chef and I love beans. In the market I am
confronted by an unlabeled bin full of objects that look somewhat
beanlike but do not smell or taste like beans I’ve had — and
they’re blue. I abduce that they are a new food item grown  only
locally and I name them “Bleans”, take them back to New York and
make a fortune at my restaurant! 
   I will say that taking the development of a thicker bill to crack
seeds is stretching my notion of abduction.  
  Steven S. 
 On Dec 16, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote: 
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do
not click links, open  attachments, or respond unless you recognize
the sender's email address and know the contents are safe.  
Edwina, I think this view (intelligent response, informed interacton)
is called Lamarckism, has been refuted for a long time by Darwinism,
but is since shortly restored in a weak form with the discovery of
epigenetics. With "perceived similarity" I meant a knowledge about
similarity or identity of a thing that surprises, and another thing
or class of things known. For example, in Peirces example, the
similarity expressed with the name "beans" between the seen  white
beans, and the beans known to be in the bag.   Best, Helmut 15.
Dezember 2020 um 21:47 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
Helmut - No, the beak is a NEW form, not the old form of the beak,
and it developed in 'intelligent' response to the NEW harder seed
shell. This is novelty; this is abduction. 

Yes, mutations [new forms]  are the results of abduction.  And
mutations are not necessarily random, but can be the new form
developed as a result of 'informed interaction' by the organism with
the environment. 

I don't understand what you mean by 'perceived similarity' with
regard to abduction. 

Please remember that Peirce understood 'Mind' as operating within
all of the Universe, both the inorganic and organic - and most
certainly not confined to human beings. 

Edwina 
 On Tue 15/12/20 3:20 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de [3] sent: 
Edwina, ok, thoug I would say, the strengthening of the beak might
also be seen as a kind of induction, because both the seed shell, and
the beak have been there before, so there is no complete novelty nor
total surprise. Maybe mutations are part  of abduction? Though
abduction might be seen as a guess with a reason, a hypothesis based
on a real perceived similarity, while a mutation is rather a wild
guess without a hypothesis? If in a forest there surprisingly occur
carnivores that live on the ground,  and a squirrel has due to a
mutation a skin between its arms and legs, so it can glide from one
tree to the other without going to the ground, it has an advantage.
But the mutation is random. But maybe on a slow evolutuionary scale
this might be interpreted  as hypothesis? Or would such an
interpretation be anthropo- or neurocentrism? Best, Helmut14.
Dezember 2020

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-12-16 Thread Skaggs,Steven

Edwina and Helmut,

I have only recently joined the Peirce List and find this interesting thread. 
Excuse me putting in a word into your conversation about abduction — especially 
as it concerns how far the concept might be stretched.

Abduction is a hunch, an hypothesis. It focuses a set of tests, or it is a 
tentative, suggested solution to a problem, a reaching out and grasping at a 
potentially successful explanation. It is a Case in search of a Paradigm.

An example with beans.

1) I’m a beanologist: I know what beans are. I’ve never seen a blue one before, 
but here is something in front of me that has a bean structure but is blue. 
Note that as a beanologist I hold the color to be an accidental trait of beans, 
and structure to be essential. So I deduce without doubt that the object in 
front of me is a bean.

2) I’m not a beanologist: I have seen a lot of things in my lifetime called 
beans, but none of them have ever been blue. This object in front of me is like 
a bean (similarity) but also unlike a bean (it is blue). Using inductive 
reasoning, I expand my sense of bean-ness to include blue beans.

3) I’m a gourmand chef and I love beans. In the market I am confronted by an 
unlabeled bin full of objects that look somewhat beanlike but do not smell or 
taste like beans I’ve had — and they’re blue. I abduce that they are a new food 
item grown only locally and I name them “Bleans”, take them back to New York 
and make a fortune at my restaurant!

 I will say that taking the development of a thicker bill to crack seeds is 
stretching my notion of abduction.

Steven S.




On Dec 16, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Helmut Raulien 
mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click 
links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's email 
address and know the contents are safe.

Edwina, I think this view (intelligent response, informed interacton) is called 
Lamarckism, has been refuted for a long time by Darwinism, but is since shortly 
restored in a weak form with the discovery of epigenetics.
With "perceived similarity" I meant a knowledge about similarity or identity of 
a thing that surprises, and another thing or class of things known. For 
example, in Peirces example, the similarity expressed with the name "beans" 
between the seen white beans, and the beans known to be in the bag.

Best, Helmut

 15. Dezember 2020 um 21:47 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>>


Helmut - No, the beak is a NEW form, not the old form of the beak, and it 
developed in 'intelligent' response to the NEW harder seed shell. This is 
novelty; this is abduction.

Yes, mutations [new forms]  are the results of abduction.  And mutations are 
not necessarily random, but can be the new form developed as a result of 
'informed interaction' by the organism with the environment.

I don't understand what you mean by 'perceived similarity' with regard to 
abduction.

Please remember that Peirce understood 'Mind' as operating within all of the 
Universe, both the inorganic and organic - and most certainly not confined to 
human beings.

Edwina




On Tue 15/12/20 3:20 PM , Helmut Raulien 
h.raul...@gmx.de sent:


Edwina, ok, thoug I would say, the strengthening of the beak might also be seen 
as a kind of induction, because both the seed shell, and the beak have been 
there before, so there is no complete novelty nor total surprise. Maybe 
mutations are part of abduction? Though abduction might be seen as a guess with 
a reason, a hypothesis based on a real perceived similarity, while a mutation 
is rather a wild guess without a hypothesis? If in a forest there surprisingly 
occur carnivores that live on the ground, and a squirrel has due to a mutation 
a skin between its arms and legs, so it can glide from one tree to the other 
without going to the ground, it has an advantage. But the mutation is random. 
But maybe on a slow evolutuionary scale this might be interpreted as 
hypothesis? Or would such an interpretation be anthropo- or neurocentrism?
Best, Helmut

14. Dezember 2020 um 21:12 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Helmut - the point of abduction is the appearance of a novel situation - and 
the adjustment by an organism to that novelty by its development of a new 
hypothesis or law.

The organism - and I maintain this can be a plant, a cell, an insect, a 
human...interacting with the environment, receives input data that is novel to 
its system.[surprising fact is observed].  So- it adapts; it develops a new set 
of habits[ new hypothesis]  such that it can continue to live in that 
environment with that novel situation.

So- a bird adapts to new seeds that have developed harder shells by itself 
developing a harder beak.

I don't see that abduction means an 'awareness of resemblance'.

Edwina






On Mon 14/12/20 2:46 PM , Helmut Raulien 
h.raul...@gmx.de sent:




Supplement: Abduction means

[PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

2020-11-23 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Charles, List:

I would like to offer a few remarks prompted by your interesting post over
the weekend.

CP: Similarly, while many people would not regard it as self-evident that
truth is prior to falsity, I hold that it is, and have argued as such in
various publications. In keeping with the order of this asymmetry truth is
unmarked and falsity is marked.


Helmut later brought up Peirce's entitative graphs, but when several of
those are scribed on the sheet, the claim is merely that at least one of
them is true, while all the others could be false. By contrast, in his
existential graphs, everything scribed on the sheet is asserted to be
(jointly) true. In fact, the *blank *sheet represents the inexhaustible
continuum of true propositions that one could *potentially *assert, perhaps
analogous to the "silence" of truth from a linguistic standpoint. Moreover,
Peirce himself recognizes that deductively inferring one truth from another
is *primitive *as represented in existential graphs by the scroll, while
falsity is an additional concept that is *derived *upon recognizing that
absurdity follows from some propositions as represented by a scroll with a
blackened inner close.

CSP: It was forced upon the logician’s attention that a certain development
of reasoning was possible before, or as if before, the concept of *falsity *had
ever been framed, or any recognition of such a thing as a false assertion
had ever taken place. Probably every human being passes through such a
grade of intellectual life, which may be called the state of paradisaical
logic, when reasoning takes place but when the idea of falsity, whether in
assertion or in inference, has never been recognized. But it will soon be
recognized that not every assertion is true; and that once recognized, as
soon as one notices that if a certain thing were true, every assertion
would be true, one at once rejects the antecedent that leads to that absurd
consequence. (R 669:18-19[16-17], 31 May 1911)


As Peirce notes shortly after the quoted passage, as well as elsewhere in
his writings, a simple cut or shaded area for negation comes about only
when the blackened inner close of a scroll is imagined to be
infinitesimally small. In at least that specific sense, while it may not
quite be self-evident, I agree that "truth is prior to falsity." However, I
must take issue with your statement today that "truth is prior to semiosis"
and that this "is consistent with Peirce's thinking." On the contrary, for
him truth is the *ideal end* of semiosis--that at which it aims, the
ultimate opinion that *would *be affirmed by an infinite community as the
result of infinite inquiry. Logic as semeiotic is a normative science
precisely because it reveals how we *ought *to think, just in case adopting
only true beliefs is our objective in the long run.

CP: For example, the conventional view holds that the past is first, the
present it next, and then comes the future. But to the contrary language
presupposes that the present is first and the past is second. This contrary
view does make sense, however, in that we experience things first in the
present, and then they become past. We take a picture in the present, but
it instantly becomes past. In keeping with this experiential view the
language universal is that the past is marked in relation to the present.
Thus look vs look+ed.


In terms of Peirce's categories, we can certainly observe ways in which the
present corresponds to 1ns, the past to 2ns, and the future to 3ns. In
particular, this matches up directly with how in semiosis the sign itself
corresponds to 1ns, its object to 2ns, and its interpretant to 3ns--not as
metaphysical modes, but as the different correlates of a genuine triadic
relation such that further analysis yields two objects and three
interpretants in accordance with Robert Marty's podium diagram. "The object
and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the sign; the
one being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign" (EP 2:410, 1907).
Relative to the sign, the genuine (dynamical) object is in the past, while
the genuine (final) and degenerate (dynamical) interpretants are in the
future; but the degenerate (immediate) object and doubly degenerate
(immediate) interpretant are present in the sign itself.

Hence both semiosis and time conform to Gary Richmond's categorial vector
of determination (2ns→1ns→3ns), reflecting how the entire universe is
itself a sign, specifically an argument--"a vast representamen, a great
symbol of God’s purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities"
(CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903). I explore this further, as well as how each of
Gary's other five vectors can be applied to different aspects of time, in
my recent "Temporal Synechism" paper (https://rdcu.be/b9xVm).

   - aspiration (2ns→3ns→1ns) - Our experience (2ns) of the past provides
   our knowledge (3ns) at the present, which is our basis for making
   conjectures (1ns) about the future.
   - process

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

[PEIRCE-L] Asymmetry of Logic and Time (was multiple-valued logic)

23 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information