Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recovery from blindness (was Phaneroscopy and logic

[John F Sowa]

On 4/8/2019 11:29 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose wrote:

Nothing material is innate at least here. If we go with what
wisdom and the experience of many validate we are spirits/souls
that continue occupying a material frame.


Peirce didn't see any conflict between science and religion.
Note his writings in CP vol. 6, pp. 283-389.

If anybody asked him how he would reconcile Darwin and the Bible,
he would very likely say "Being omniscient, God wisely chose the
evolutionary method of system design."

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recovery from blindness (was Phaneroscopy and logic

[Dan Everett]

Great points, John. 

I call Peirce’s notion of “innate” “phylogentic habits.” (I think he says 
something similar)

But unlike what a number of people mean by “innate” today, Peirce’s philosophy 
doesn’t require innate conceptual content. That would not be in great conflict 
with his system, if evidence were there, but his system requires only general 
kinds of emotions, recognitions, general biases, to work.

Yes, too bad Kant couldn’t have read Darwin. I imagine he would have done great 
things with those ideas. 

Dan

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 9, 2019, at 9:51 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> Jeff and Dan,
> 
> We have to distinguish "a priori" in a logical sense from "innate" in
> a biological sense.  Peirce interpreted the word 'innate' as learned
> from the experience of previous generations.  That may be a priori
> for an individual, but it's a posteriori for the species.
> 
> JBD
>> It is worth noting that from early on (e.g., see "Questions Concerning
>> Certain Faculties Claimed for Man"), Peirce interprets Kant's account
>> of our experience of space in a similar way
> 
> Yes, but he was critical about assuming synthetic a priori assumptions
> without any justification.  Note the footnote on EP 1:14,
>> Kant's successors, however, have not been content with his doctrine.
>> Nor ought they to have been... The problem is... how universal propo-
>> sitions appearing to be synthetical can be evolved by thought alone.
> 
> In a letter to William James in 1905 (NEM 3:813-814), he wrote
>> our notion of time as a _single_ continuum, so that tomorrow morning
>> is a sort of proper name (which daily changes its denotation).  How
>> fundamental Kant made this circumstance in his philosophy without
>> the slightest attempt to analyze it! ... What more did Kant mean
>> by calling time _Anschauung_? ... he never that I remember offers the
>> least proof of it; and I should like to know how he supposed himself
>> to know this.
> 
> DE
>> Kant's notion of a priori categories are perhaps best translated in
>> my terms into the idea of an inborn ability of humans to generalize
>> and learn by any means.
> 
> Yes.  But in reading Kant and Peirce, it's important to remember
> Darwin (1859).  Kant published his Critique in 1787, and Peirce
> wrote those criticisms in 1868 and 1905.
> 
> Does Smyth say anything about these issues?
> 
> John
> 
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recovery from blindness (was Phaneroscopy and logic

[John F Sowa]

Jeff and Dan,

We have to distinguish "a priori" in a logical sense from "innate" in
a biological sense.  Peirce interpreted the word 'innate' as learned
from the experience of previous generations.  That may be a priori
for an individual, but it's a posteriori for the species.

JBD

It is worth noting that from early on (e.g., see "Questions Concerning
Certain Faculties Claimed for Man"), Peirce interprets Kant's account
of our experience of space in a similar way


Yes, but he was critical about assuming synthetic a priori assumptions
without any justification.  Note the footnote on EP 1:14,

Kant's successors, however, have not been content with his doctrine.
Nor ought they to have been... The problem is... how universal propo-
sitions appearing to be synthetical can be evolved by thought alone.


In a letter to William James in 1905 (NEM 3:813-814), he wrote

our notion of time as a _single_ continuum, so that tomorrow morning
is a sort of proper name (which daily changes its denotation).  How
fundamental Kant made this circumstance in his philosophy without
the slightest attempt to analyze it! ... What more did Kant mean
by calling time _Anschauung_? ... he never that I remember offers the
least proof of it; and I should like to know how he supposed himself
to know this.


DE

Kant's notion of a priori categories are perhaps best translated in
my terms into the idea of an inborn ability of humans to generalize
and learn by any means.


Yes.  But in reading Kant and Peirce, it's important to remember
Darwin (1859).  Kant published his Critique in 1787, and Peirce
wrote those criticisms in 1868 and 1905.

Does Smyth say anything about these issues?

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recovery from blindness (was Phaneroscopy and logic

[Dan Everett]

al questions about the formal 
> relations that are necessary for making valid inferences.
> 
> Having said that, I acknowledge that Peirce is keen to provide explanations 
> in philosophy that (a) fit with our common sense and (b) can be tested in the 
> special sciences such as biology.
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 523-8354
> From: Dan Everett 
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 8:33:28 AM
> To: John F Sowa
> Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recovery from blindness (was Phaneroscopy and logic
>  
> John,
> 
> Great stuff. 
> 
> There is a huge amount of information that Kant was wrong about these things. 
> Someone today mentioned Michael Polyani’s work on personal knowledge/tacit 
> knowledge. And, at the risk of being a bore, there is my book, Dark Matter of 
> the Mind: 
> https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matter-Mind-Articulated-Unconscious/dp/022607076X 
> <https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matter-Mind-Articulated-Unconscious/dp/022607076X>,
>  in which I survey a lot of the literature, proposing my own theories (not as 
> much interaction with Peirce as there should have been, I am sure). 
> 
> There is also a point that Kant missed entirely and that Peirce had little 
> chance to observe: cross-cultural variation. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>> On Apr 8, 2019, at 11:17 AM, John F Sowa > <mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> This morning, I remembered some case studies of people who were
>> blind from early childhood and later recovered their sight.
>> 
>> Those studies cast doubt on Kant's claim that people have a
>> complete innate theory of space and time.  The brain may have
>> innate structure that facilitates learning about space and time,
>> but a lot of experience is necessary to fill in the details.
>> 
>> For example, Sydney Bradford lost his sight at age 10 months,
>> went to a school for the blind, and had a successful career
>> as a machinist.  He lived independently, could make his way
>> through traffic, and took public transportation to work.
>> 
>> Then at age 52, he had an operation that restored his sight.
>> Instead of being a confident, independent blind man, he became
>> a fearful, depressed man, who was terrified of crossing a street
>> in traffic, even with a friend holding his arm.
>> 
>> For a Wikipedia article about Sydney B. and others, see
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_from_blindness 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_from_blindness>
>> 
>> For a 44-page article with much more detail about SB, see
>> http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/recovery_blind/recovery-from-early-blindness.pdf
>> 
>> By the way, that site has links to other articles by Richard G.
>> For example, see the attached "impossible" figure.  But it's
>> possible to construct an actual 3D object that looks like that.
>> See the article 
>> http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/brainmodels/illusions-and-brain-models_all.htm
>> 
>> Peirce wrote a lot about illusions, and he would have loved to see
>> that object.  It has implications about form, index, and percepts.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> -
>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to 
>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but 
>> to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
>> the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recovery from blindness (was Phaneroscopy and logic

[Jeffrey Brian Downard]

John, Dan, List,


In holding that our presentation of space as a whole has an a priori in 
character, I do not believe that Kant was arguing in the first Critique that we 
have a biological instinct to see things in a Euclidean way. Again, I believe 
that Smyth's Forms of Intuition: an Historical Introduction to the 
Transcendental Aesthetic provides an interpretation that is sensitive to the 
texts and the sources from which Kant was drawing in developing these 
arguments. It is worth noting that from early on (e.g., see "Questions 
Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man"), Peirce interprets Kant's 
account of our experience of space in a similar way and points out in a long 
footnote that his own remarks about our perceptions involving spatiality and 
temporality should not be interpreted as contrary to Kant's views on the main 
points.


Attributing to Kant the view that the a priori character of the presentation of 
space implies that we have a biologically "instinctive" theory of space that is 
inherently Euclidean in character runs directly at odds with the fact that Kant 
was engaged in close discussions with Lambert who developed a fairly extensive 
system of perspective geometry. In the transcendental aesthetic, Kant is asking 
"what are the formal conditions for mapping in our common sense and our 
scientific cognitions from one temporal or spatial perspective onto another?" 
As far as I am able to determine, Peirce's phenomenological theory is an 
attempt to generalize on this sort of question. For both Kant and Peirce, 
biological explanations of what is or is not instinctive will not answer 
philosophical questions about the formal relations that are necessary for 
making valid inferences.


Having said that, I acknowledge that Peirce is keen to provide explanations in 
philosophy that (a) fit with our common sense and (b) can be tested in the 
special sciences such as biology.


--Jeff



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

From: Dan Everett 
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 8:33:28 AM
To: John F Sowa
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recovery from blindness (was Phaneroscopy and logic

John,

Great stuff.

There is a huge amount of information that Kant was wrong about these things. 
Someone today mentioned Michael Polyani’s work on personal knowledge/tacit 
knowledge. And, at the risk of being a bore, there is my book, Dark Matter of 
the Mind: 
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matter-Mind-Articulated-Unconscious/dp/022607076X, 
in which I survey a lot of the literature, proposing my own theories (not as 
much interaction with Peirce as there should have been, I am sure).

There is also a point that Kant missed entirely and that Peirce had little 
chance to observe: cross-cultural variation.

Dan


On Apr 8, 2019, at 11:17 AM, John F Sowa 
mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> wrote:

This morning, I remembered some case studies of people who were
blind from early childhood and later recovered their sight.

Those studies cast doubt on Kant's claim that people have a
complete innate theory of space and time.  The brain may have
innate structure that facilitates learning about space and time,
but a lot of experience is necessary to fill in the details.

For example, Sydney Bradford lost his sight at age 10 months,
went to a school for the blind, and had a successful career
as a machinist.  He lived independently, could make his way
through traffic, and took public transportation to work.

Then at age 52, he had an operation that restored his sight.
Instead of being a confident, independent blind man, he became
a fearful, depressed man, who was terrified of crossing a street
in traffic, even with a friend holding his arm.

For a Wikipedia article about Sydney B. and others, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_from_blindness

For a 44-page article with much more detail about SB, see
http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/recovery_blind/recovery-from-early-blindness.pdf

By the way, that site has links to other articles by Richard G.
For example, see the attached "impossible" figure.  But it's
possible to construct an actual 3D object that looks like that.
See the article 
http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/brainmodels/illusions-and-brain-models_all.htm

Peirce wrote a lot about illusions, and he would have loved to see
that object.  It has implications about form, index, and percepts.

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .






---

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recovery from blindness (was Phaneroscopy and logic

[Dan Everett]

John,

Great stuff. 

There is a huge amount of information that Kant was wrong about these things. 
Someone today mentioned Michael Polyani’s work on personal knowledge/tacit 
knowledge. And, at the risk of being a bore, there is my book, Dark Matter of 
the Mind: 
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matter-Mind-Articulated-Unconscious/dp/022607076X 
,
 in which I survey a lot of the literature, proposing my own theories (not as 
much interaction with Peirce as there should have been, I am sure). 

There is also a point that Kant missed entirely and that Peirce had little 
chance to observe: cross-cultural variation. 

Dan


> On Apr 8, 2019, at 11:17 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> This morning, I remembered some case studies of people who were
> blind from early childhood and later recovered their sight.
> 
> Those studies cast doubt on Kant's claim that people have a
> complete innate theory of space and time.  The brain may have
> innate structure that facilitates learning about space and time,
> but a lot of experience is necessary to fill in the details.
> 
> For example, Sydney Bradford lost his sight at age 10 months,
> went to a school for the blind, and had a successful career
> as a machinist.  He lived independently, could make his way
> through traffic, and took public transportation to work.
> 
> Then at age 52, he had an operation that restored his sight.
> Instead of being a confident, independent blind man, he became
> a fearful, depressed man, who was terrified of crossing a street
> in traffic, even with a friend holding his arm.
> 
> For a Wikipedia article about Sydney B. and others, see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_from_blindness
> 
> For a 44-page article with much more detail about SB, see
> http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/recovery_blind/recovery-from-early-blindness.pdf
> 
> By the way, that site has links to other articles by Richard G.
> For example, see the attached "impossible" figure.  But it's
> possible to construct an actual 3D object that looks like that.
> See the article 
> http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/brainmodels/illusions-and-brain-models_all.htm
> 
> Peirce wrote a lot about illusions, and he would have loved to see
> that object.  It has implications about form, index, and percepts.
> 
> John
> 
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recovery from blindness (was Phaneroscopy and logic

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

Nothing material is innate at least here. If we go with what wisdom and the
experience of many validate we are spirits/souls that continue occupying a
material frame. THat frame is amazing and wonderful but terminal. I am sure
Peirce would have shrunk form arguing for an afterlife that could be
described. But I am equally certain that he did not deny the possibility as
many binary-thinking folk do. It is part of the mystery which is universal
and which accounts for the degree of humility which is implicit in an arch
way in Peirce's texts.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose


On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:17 AM John F Sowa  wrote:

> This morning, I remembered some case studies of people who were
> blind from early childhood and later recovered their sight.
>
> Those studies cast doubt on Kant's claim that people have a
> complete innate theory of space and time.  The brain may have
> innate structure that facilitates learning about space and time,
> but a lot of experience is necessary to fill in the details.
>
> For example, Sydney Bradford lost his sight at age 10 months,
> went to a school for the blind, and had a successful career
> as a machinist.  He lived independently, could make his way
> through traffic, and took public transportation to work.
>
> Then at age 52, he had an operation that restored his sight.
> Instead of being a confident, independent blind man, he became
> a fearful, depressed man, who was terrified of crossing a street
> in traffic, even with a friend holding his arm.
>
> For a Wikipedia article about Sydney B. and others, see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_from_blindness
>
> For a 44-page article with much more detail about SB, see
>
> http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/recovery_blind/recovery-from-early-blindness.pdf
>
> By the way, that site has links to other articles by Richard G.
> For example, see the attached "impossible" figure.  But it's
> possible to construct an actual 3D object that looks like that.
> See the article
>
> http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/brainmodels/illusions-and-brain-models_all.htm
>
> Peirce wrote a lot about illusions, and he would have loved to see
> that object.  It has implications about form, index, and percepts.
>
> John
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

[PEIRCE-L] Recovery from blindness (was Phaneroscopy and logic

[John F Sowa]

This morning, I remembered some case studies of people who were
blind from early childhood and later recovered their sight.

Those studies cast doubt on Kant's claim that people have a
complete innate theory of space and time.  The brain may have
innate structure that facilitates learning about space and time,
but a lot of experience is necessary to fill in the details.

For example, Sydney Bradford lost his sight at age 10 months,
went to a school for the blind, and had a successful career
as a machinist.  He lived independently, could make his way
through traffic, and took public transportation to work.

Then at age 52, he had an operation that restored his sight.
Instead of being a confident, independent blind man, he became
a fearful, depressed man, who was terrified of crossing a street
in traffic, even with a friend holding his arm.

For a Wikipedia article about Sydney B. and others, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_from_blindness

For a 44-page article with much more detail about SB, see
http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/recovery_blind/recovery-from-early-blindness.pdf

By the way, that site has links to other articles by Richard G.
For example, see the attached "impossible" figure.  But it's
possible to construct an actual 3D object that looks like that.
See the article 
http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/brainmodels/illusions-and-brain-models_all.htm


Peirce wrote a lot about illusions, and he would have loved to see
that object.  It has implications about form, index, and percepts.

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .