Aw: [biosemiotics:8730] Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and philosophy ?
Dear Edwina, I meant, that time is reversed virtually, not really, and with virtually I meant as represented by the mind. But now I suspect, that the term virtually is not proper. I just meant, that the sequence of the real events (1. smelling, 2. eating) is the other way round than the sequence of the representations of these events in the rangers mind: He/she first has a representation of eating in his/her mind (due to perception), and then a representation of smelling (due to interpretation): 1. repres.(eating), 2. repres.(smelling). This mirror-wiseness in time I thought to be the reason why people call it reflection. Best, Helmut Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca wrote: Sorry, Helmut - Ive no idea what you are talking about. I dont think that time is reversed when the ranger thinks about the wolfhaving smelledthe rabbit before it caught the rabbit. Because one thinks about what has taken place before -now, doesnt mean that TIME is itself reversed! Time isnt physically connected to an event. And I dont know what your reference to the categories implies; I think that you often have a confused understanding of the categories - but- I wont go into them. Edwina - Original Message - From: Helmut Raulien To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-L Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 2:58 PM Subject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and philosophy ? Thank you, Edwina! Sorry for my mistake: When in reality a wolf smells a rabbit, and then eats it, and a ranger sees the eating wolf and thinks: The wolf must have smelled the rabbit, time is virtually reversed somehow, but not the categories. Best, Helmut Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca wrote: Helmut - try EP:2, pp 480-481. And the CP, Vol. 8, ..all the parts to Lady Welby. See also an interesting article: http://see.library.utoronto.ca/SEED/Vol6-1/Farias_Queiroz.pdf Edwina - Original Message - From: Helmut Raulien To: Sungchul Ji Cc: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-L Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 12:11 PM Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and philosophy ? Sung, I am glad, that my post you did not find too inadequate, as I have not yet read your attachment (with my old computer that cannot read DOCX- So I will go to the internet-cafe). I am not sure about what I wrote- that reflexion turns time around (virtually, in the mind), and also provides the possibility that there is a secondness and thirdness of firstness (in a virtual way or system: A mind). So now I am asking: Does anybody know about the ten classes of signs in a semiosis with immediate object (object of the mind)? I sometimes have read, that Peirce has written about these, and that the ten classes with immediate object are different. But I havent found the text by Peirce. All the best, Helmut Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote: Helmut, Thanks for your thought-provoking ideas, and I am glad you brought up Peirce. To me, Peirce is connected with the diagram in at least two ways: (1) Peirce used numbers and matrices in expressing logical statements [14], which justifies including semiotics as a target of Step e in the diagram. (I would love to hear from Jon what he thinks about this step.) The modified diagram is attached to this email. (2) Physics, biology, and philosophy may be viewed as an example of the irreducible triad of Peirce. If so, the set of physics, biology, and philosophy may be considered as constituting a category (or a commutative triangle): f Physics - Biology g h V V Philosophy or, more conveniently, fg Physics --- Biology --- Philosophy ^ __ h Figure A. The postulate that physics, biology, and philosophy constitute an irreducible triad of Peirce. The commutative conditions, f x g = h, is thought to be satisfied in many universes of discourse. f = origin of life, evolution (natural processes) g = origin of mind (mental processes) h = constraining influence of natural laws; information flow One way to express the content of Figure A in words would be: Physics determines biology and biology determines philosophy(062715-1) in such a way that philosophy becomes consistent with physics. Statement (062715-1) may not be valid under all circumstances but only under some carefully prescribed contexts. All the best. Sung On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote: Sung, Lists, I think, in medieval time it was
Aw: [biosemiotics:8730] Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and philosophy ?
Dear Edwina, I meant, that time is reversed virtually, not really, and with virtually I meant as represented by the mind. But now I suspect, that the term virtually is not proper. I just meant, that the sequence of the real events (1. smelling, 2. eating) is the other way round than the sequence of the representations of these events in the rangers mind: He/she first has a representation of eating in his/her mind (due to perception), and then a representation of smelling (due to interpretation): 1. repres.(eating), 2. repres.(smelling). This mirror-wiseness in time I thought to be the reason why people call it reflection. Best, Helmut Supplement: In order to de-deviate back to the topic: In physics this reflection is documented in reports of experiments, but in teaching books, physical events are mostly described along with their real sequence. In philosophy this is not always possible, because there is more than one model, and philosophers have to explain all the time, why they prefer one model over the other, so they always have to show their thoughts in the sequence as they happen. I thought, this was so, because philosophy is abduction in the first place, looking for induction and deduction to confirm. In this respect I suggested abduction, firstness, to be in the first place (as the main category), and induction, secondness, and deduction, thirdness to be subcategories of firstness in this case. But that was wrong. Best, Helmut Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca wrote: Sorry, Helmut - Ive no idea what you are talking about. I dont think that time is reversed when the ranger thinks about the wolfhaving smelledthe rabbit before it caught the rabbit. Because one thinks about what has taken place before -now, doesnt mean that TIME is itself reversed! Time isnt physically connected to an event. And I dont know what your reference to the categories implies; I think that you often have a confused understanding of the categories - but- I wont go into them. Edwina - Original Message - From: Helmut Raulien To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-L Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 2:58 PM Subject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and philosophy ? Thank you, Edwina! Sorry for my mistake: When in reality a wolf smells a rabbit, and then eats it, and a ranger sees the eating wolf and thinks: The wolf must have smelled the rabbit, time is virtually reversed somehow, but not the categories. Best, Helmut Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca wrote: Helmut - try EP:2, pp 480-481. And the CP, Vol. 8, ..all the parts to Lady Welby. See also an interesting article: http://see.library.utoronto.ca/SEED/Vol6-1/Farias_Queiroz.pdf Edwina - Original Message - From: Helmut Raulien To: Sungchul Ji Cc: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-L Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 12:11 PM Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and philosophy ? Sung, I am glad, that my post you did not find too inadequate, as I have not yet read your attachment (with my old computer that cannot read DOCX- So I will go to the internet-cafe). I am not sure about what I wrote- that reflexion turns time around (virtually, in the mind), and also provides the possibility that there is a secondness and thirdness of firstness (in a virtual way or system: A mind). So now I am asking: Does anybody know about the ten classes of signs in a semiosis with immediate object (object of the mind)? I sometimes have read, that Peirce has written about these, and that the ten classes with immediate object are different. But I havent found the text by Peirce. All the best, Helmut Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote: Helmut, Thanks for your thought-provoking ideas, and I am glad you brought up Peirce. To me, Peirce is connected with the diagram in at least two ways: (1) Peirce used numbers and matrices in expressing logical statements [14], which justifies including semiotics as a target of Step e in the diagram. (I would love to hear from Jon what he thinks about this step.) The modified diagram is attached to this email. (2) Physics, biology, and philosophy may be viewed as an example of the irreducible triad of Peirce. If so, the set of physics, biology, and philosophy may be considered as constituting a category (or a commutative triangle): f Physics - Biology g h V V Philosophy or, more conveniently, fg Physics --- Biology --- Philosophy ^ __ h Figure A. The postulate that physics, biology, and philosophy
