Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Jerry C., List:

JLRC: ... I suggest that you may be misreading the meaning of the sentence
that you cited.


That is why I asked for clarification. Unfortunately, I remain puzzled.

JLRC: ... *all three terms* are composed terms coined by CSP for his
specific usage as the base for semiosis.


Yes, but he abandoned them not long after introducing them, replacing them
(in most cases) with tone/token/type.

JLRC: The meaning of the sentence in question is constrained to a small
fraction of the totality of scientific epistemology and relates
specifically to the syntax and semantics of experience of a sinsign, that
is, perceptions of natural processes (in the sense of Whitehead.)


Sinsigns/tokens are not limited to natural processes, they also include any
concrete embodiments of qualisigns/tones and legisigns/types, such as these
words conveyed as recognizable combinations of pixels on a screen.

JLRC: As a professional chemist, CSP grounded these terms in mathematical
calculations that generate molecular structures from atomic formula and
molecular formula and the grammars of combinatorics that relate atomic
sentences to molecular sentences.


This is an interesting hypothesis, but are there any passages in Peirce's
writings that *explicitly *support it? The quotations below do not say
anything whatsoever about molecular structures or atomic formulas. On the
contrary, the trichotomy of qualsign/sinsign/legisign or tone/token/type is
*identified *within speculative grammar as the first branch of the
normative science of logic as semeiotic, using principles furnished by
phaneroscopy, and is then *applied *within the special science of chemistry.

JLRC: With regard to the “arrow” symbols, these are used in the sense of
traditional chemical usage.  That is, the implication is obligatory with
respect to the parts of the wholes of the antecedent and consequent.


Sorry, I do not see how a qualisign/tone *implies *a sinsign/token,
which *implies
*a legisign/type. Instead, my understanding from Peirce is that a
legisign/type *involves *sinsigns/tokens, which *involve *qualisigns/tones.

Regards,

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

On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 11:08 PM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

>
> List, Jon:
>
> In response to your post of August 4, 2021(copied below) I suggest that
> you may be misreading the meaning of the sentence that you cited.
>
> In particular, the three terms are not general linguistic propositional
> terms derived from historical Greek or Latin roots, but *all three terms*
> are composed terms coined by CSP for his specific usage as the base for
> semiosis. Thus, if the nine terms of the trichotomy are indeed a set of
> connected meanings such that a logical proposition is formed, then a
> coherent correspondence to pragmatic realism is necessarily asserted.
>
> The meaning of the sentence in question is constrained to a small fraction
> of the totality of scientific epistemology and relates specifically to the
> syntax and semantics of experience of a sinsign, that is, perceptions of
> natural processes (in the sense of Whitehead.)
>
> The logic CSP asserts is composed from step-by-step paths among the nine
> terms and their pragmatic interconnectedness (in the sense of
> Wittgenstein).  As a professional chemist, CSP grounded these terms in
> mathematical calculations that generate molecular structures from atomic
> formula and molecular formula and the grammars of combinatorics that relate
> atomic sentences to molecular sentences.
>
> The pragmatic interconnectedness of sinsigns, prior to the discovery of
> the nuclear atom in 1912, was deciphered from “wet chemistry” methods that
> were based on the mass of the legi-signs and the collections of
> quali-signs. The assertions were composed from the meanings of any
> legi-signs under compositions of chemical elements.
>
> With regard to the “arrow” symbols, these are used in the sense of
> traditional chemical usage.  That is, the implication is obligatory with
> respect to the parts of the wholes of the antecedent and consequent.
>
> But, note that the traditional chemical arrow specifies a set of triadic
> illations among attributes, diagrammatic identity, and formal semantics of
> natural objects. In other words, quali-signs, sin-sign and legi-sign.
>
> Yes, this is cyclic logic.  This cyclic logic is necessitated by
> compositional logic of part-whole illations and whole-part illations.  A
> critical component of the demonstration is CSP assertion that the the
> mapping from the icon to a rhema is comparable to a chemical radical. (I do
> not have the book on graph theory at hand but is occurs in the first few
> pages.)
>
> I will not develop the multiple propositions necessary to develop the
> illations between quali-signs, sin-signs and legsi-signs here.  The logic
> follows 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List, Jon:

In response to your post of August 4, 2021(copied below) I suggest that you may 
be misreading the meaning of the sentence that you cited.

In particular, the three terms are not general linguistic propositional terms 
derived from historical Greek or Latin roots, but all three terms are composed 
terms coined by CSP for his specific usage as the base for semiosis. Thus, if 
the nine terms of the trichotomy are indeed a set of connected meanings such 
that a logical proposition is formed, then a coherent correspondence to 
pragmatic realism is necessarily asserted.

The meaning of the sentence in question is constrained to a small fraction of 
the totality of scientific epistemology and relates specifically to the syntax 
and semantics of experience of a sinsign, that is, perceptions of natural 
processes (in the sense of Whitehead.)  

The logic CSP asserts is composed from step-by-step paths among the nine terms 
and their pragmatic interconnectedness (in the sense of Wittgenstein).  As a 
professional chemist, CSP grounded these terms in mathematical calculations 
that generate molecular structures from atomic formula and molecular formula 
and the grammars of combinatorics that relate atomic sentences to molecular 
sentences.

The pragmatic interconnectedness of sinsigns, prior to the discovery of the 
nuclear atom in 1912, was deciphered from “wet chemistry” methods that were 
based on the mass of the legi-signs and the collections of quali-signs. The 
assertions were composed from the meanings of any legi-signs under compositions 
of chemical elements.  

With regard to the “arrow” symbols, these are used in the sense of traditional 
chemical usage.  That is, the implication is obligatory with respect to the 
parts of the wholes of the antecedent and consequent.

But, note that the traditional chemical arrow specifies a set of triadic 
illations among attributes, diagrammatic identity, and formal semantics of 
natural objects. In other words, quali-signs, sin-sign and legi-sign.

Yes, this is cyclic logic.  This cyclic logic is necessitated by compositional 
logic of part-whole illations and whole-part illations.  A critical component 
of the demonstration is CSP assertion that the the mapping from the icon to a 
rhema is comparable to a chemical radical. (I do not have the book on graph 
theory at hand but is occurs in the first few pages.)

I will not develop the multiple propositions necessary to develop the illations 
between quali-signs, sin-signs and legsi-signs here.  The logic follows from 
the definitions of CSP and the obligatory logics atomic and molecular sentences 
as applied to the semiotic attributes of chemical elements. 


However, the references necessary to compose the propositions and the 
grammatical compositions include the following quotes :
1905-12-20 | The Logic Notebook | MS [R] 339:267r
“Philosophy” has 2 principal meanings
The cream of the science, – synthetic or positive philosophy
Cenoscopy, the study of the experience already acquired. 

"Next, passing to Class II, philosophy, whose business it is to find out all 
that can be found out from those universal experiences which confront every man 
in every waking hour of his life, must necessarily have its application in 
every other science. For be this science of philosophy that is founded on those 
universal phenomena as small as you please, as long as it amounts to anything 
at all, it is evident that every special science ought to take that little into 
account before it begins work with its microscope, or telescope, or whatever 
special means of ascertaining truth it may be provided with.”

1896 [c.] | Lessons of the History of Science | CP 1.65
There are in science three fundamentally different kinds of reasoning, 
Deduction (called by Aristotle {synagögé} or {anagögé}), Induction (Aristotle’s 
and Plato’s {epagögé}) and Retroduction (Aristotle’s {apagögé}, but 
misunderstood because of corrupt text, and as misunderstood usually translated 
abduction). Besides these three, Analogy (Aristotle’s {paradeigma}) combines 
the characters of Induction and Retroduction.

All that makes knowledge applicable comes to us viâ abduction.

"The first step of inference usually consists in bringing together certain 
propositions which we believe to be true, but which, supposing the inference to 
be a new one, we have hitherto not considered together, or not as united in the 
same way. This step is called colligation. The compound assertion resulting 
from colligation is a conjunctive proposition, that is, it is a proposition 
with a composite icon, as well as usually with a composite index. Colligation 
is a very important part of reasoning, calling for genius perhaps more than any 
other part of the process. Many logicians refuse the name of reasoning to an 
inferential act of which colligation forms no part. Such an inferential act 
they call an immediate inference. This term may be accepted; but although 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Jon:

The sentence you cite is merely the top row of CSP table of the trichotomy.

If you wish to play word games, count me out.

Cheers
Jerry


> On Aug 4, 2021, at 10:31 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt  
> wrote:
> 
> Jerry C., List:
> 
> JLRC: CSP assertion of Quali-sign —> Sinsign —> Legi-sign forms the logical 
> and semantic grounding for the chemical sciences.
> 
> Please provide an exact quotation for the particular "CSP assertion" that you 
> have in mind. What relation are the arrows from qualisign to sinsign and from 
> sinsign to legisign supposed to represent?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt 
>  - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 9:35 AM Jerry LR Chandler 
> mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote:
> Helmut:
> 
> As a footnote to the exceedingly curious developments of scientific 
> terminologies, I would note that:
>  
> 1. Robert Rosen denied the role of chemical emergence in his category-theory 
> based book, Life Itself.
> 2. The Scandia school of Biosemiotics adopts the evolutionary theory while 
> rejecting the chemical theory.
> 3. The formal logic advocates ignore emergence and evolution but nevertheless 
> assert the implication sign as symbolic anticipation!.
> 
> CSP assertion of Quali-sign —> Sinsign —> Legi-sign forms the logical and 
> semantic grounding for the chemical sciences.
> Consequently, his syntactical trichotomy for the relative logics of the 
> chemical table of elements also grounds the abstractions for the numerical 
> logics of atomic and molecular sentences.
> 
> Thus, by vague conjecture, CSP was motivated to develop the concept of the 
> phanoscopy differs from the Husserl’s notion of phenomenology by the modal 
> logics of conscious feelings.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jerry
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . 
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in 
> the body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Jerry C., List:

No word games, just a simple request and a sincere question as I try to
understand your claim as quoted. I am well aware of
qualisign/sinsign/legisign as Peirce's 1903 division of all signs according
to the nature of the sign itself, which he later changes to
tone/token/type. I am asking what specific relation you are expressing with
the arrows between them, and what specific passage(s) from Peirce's
writings you can cite to support your interpretation.

Thanks again,

Jon S.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 2:50 PM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> Jon:
>
> The sentence you cite is merely the top row of CSP table of the trichotomy.
>
> If you wish to play word games, count me out.
>
> Cheers
> Jerry
>
> On Aug 4, 2021, at 10:31 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
> Jerry C., List:
>
> JLRC: CSP assertion of Quali-sign —> Sinsign —> Legi-sign forms the
> logical and semantic grounding for the chemical sciences.
>
>
> Please provide an exact quotation for the particular "CSP assertion" that
> you have in mind. What relation are the arrows from qualisign to sinsign
> and from sinsign to legisign supposed to represent?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
>  - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 9:35 AM Jerry LR Chandler <
> jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> Helmut:
>>
>> As a footnote to the exceedingly curious developments of scientific
>> terminologies, I would note that:
>>
>> 1. Robert Rosen denied the role of chemical emergence in his
>> category-theory based book, Life Itself.
>> 2. The Scandia school of Biosemiotics adopts the evolutionary theory
>> while rejecting the chemical theory.
>> 3. The formal logic advocates ignore emergence and evolution but
>> nevertheless assert the implication sign as symbolic anticipation!.
>>
>> CSP assertion of Quali-sign —> Sinsign —> Legi-sign forms the logical and
>> semantic grounding for the chemical sciences.
>> Consequently, his syntactical trichotomy for the relative logics of the
>> chemical table of elements also grounds the abstractions for the numerical
>> logics of atomic and molecular sentences.
>>
>> Thus, by vague conjecture, CSP was motivated to develop the concept of
>> the phanoscopy differs from the Husserl’s notion of phenomenology by the
>> modal logics of conscious feelings.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Helmut:

As a footnote to the exceedingly curious developments of scientific 
terminologies, I would note that:
 
1. Robert Rosen denied the role of chemical emergence in his category-theory 
based book, Life Itself.
2. The Scandia school of Biosemiotics adopts the evolutionary theory while 
rejecting the chemical theory.
3. The formal logic advocates ignore emergence and evolution but nevertheless 
assert the implication sign as symbolic anticipation!.

CSP  assertion of Quali-sign —> Sinsign —> Legi-sign forms the logical and 
semantic grounding for the chemical sciences.
Consequently, his syntactical trichotomy for the relative logics of the 
chemical table of elements also grounds the abstractions for the numerical 
logics of atomic and molecular sentences.

Thus, by vague conjecture, CSP was motivated to develop the concept of the 
phanoscopy differs from the Husserl’s notion of phenomenology by the modal 
logics of conscious feelings.


Cheers

Jerry
 

> On Aug 4, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
> 
> Jerry, List
>  
> Thank you, Jerry. Very interesting. And emergence-evolution-anticipation 
> sounds like a categorial triad. Maybe it is related to the steps 
> physicochemical-, organisms`-, brain animals` realm, in the sense of what may 
> happen there?
>  
> Best,
> Helmut
>  
>  
>  04. August 2021 um 04:17 Uhr
>  "Jerry LR Chandler" 
> wrote:
>  
> List, Helmut,
>  
> On Aug 3, 2021, at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien  > wrote:
>  
> "Emergence" for me seems to be a not yet logically fully explained 
> phenomenon. My temporal assumption (not belief, in which I don´t believe) is, 
> that it is individuation and downscaling.
>  
> You may wish to consider the opposite if you originate your analysis from the 
> opposite perspective, namely, the history of science perspective.
>  
> J S Mills introduced the term “heteropathy” ( in contrast to “homeopathy") to 
> point to the accretion of attributes by the compounding of chemical elements. 
>  This accretion of attributes differs from the simple change of attributes of 
> other abstract quantities, such as by addition or multiplication where the 
> regularity of the operations is simple and consistent, that is, homopathic.
>  
> The index case used by J S Mills (ca 1843) was the combination of hydrogen 
> and oxygen to form water.  Similarly, for sodium and chlorine to form salt.
> This dramatic mutation of attributes remains unexplained to this day.  
> Neither thermodynamics nor quantum theory address this transformation of 
> matter into novel forms with semantic attributes UNRELATED to the semantic 
> and quantitative attributes of the elements.  
>  
> The phenomena of heteropathic transformation was termed “emergence” about 
> 1870 (in contrast with submergence) and was a hot topic in British philosophy 
> in the first quarter of the 20th Century.  Excellent books are available on 
> the topic. A nice collection of historical papers by Alicia Juarrero (sp?) 
> exists.  A steady stream of papers on the concept of emergence continue, 
> often under the topic of “complexity”. 
>  
> Thus, in terms of today’s semantics, we see the notion of the categorical 
> paths of chemical “heteropathy” morph into the notion of inorganic into 
> organic, emergence into evolution, evolution into anticipation.  Of course, 
> from the perspective of natural philosophy and CSP, the 9-fold terminology of 
> the semiosis of signs that relate the realisms of natural philosophical logic 
> to reality is merely an inquiry into emergence of legi-signs from sin-signs. 
>  
> I suspect that this is what Edwinia was alluding to in her posts. 
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Jerry 
>  
>  
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . 
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in 
> the body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List, Helmut,

> On Aug 3, 2021, at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
> 
> "Emergence" for me seems to be a not yet logically fully explained 
> phenomenon. My temporal assumption (not belief, in which I don´t believe) is, 
> that it is individuation and downscaling.

You may wish to consider the opposite if you originate your analysis from the 
opposite perspective, namely, the history of science perspective.

J S Mills introduced the term “heteropathy” ( in contrast to “homeopathy") to 
point to the accretion of attributes by the compounding of chemical elements.  
This accretion of attributes differs from the simple change of attributes of 
other abstract quantities, such as by addition or multiplication where the 
regularity of the operations is simple and consistent, that is, homopathic.

The index case used by J S Mills (ca 1843) was the combination of hydrogen and 
oxygen to form water.  Similarly, for sodium and chlorine to form salt.
This dramatic mutation of attributes remains unexplained to this day.  Neither 
thermodynamics nor quantum theory address this transformation of matter into 
novel forms with semantic attributes UNRELATED to the semantic and quantitative 
attributes of the elements.  

The phenomena of heteropathic transformation was termed “emergence” about 1870 
(in contrast with submergence) and was a hot topic in British philosophy in the 
first quarter of the 20th Century.  Excellent books are available on the topic. 
A nice collection of historical papers by Alicia Juarrero (sp?) exists.  A 
steady stream of papers on the concept of emergence continue, often under the 
topic of “complexity”. 

Thus, in terms of today’s semantics, we see the notion of the categorical paths 
of chemical “heteropathy” morph into the notion of inorganic into organic, 
emergence into evolution, evolution into anticipation.  Of course, from the 
perspective of natural philosophy and CSP, the 9-fold terminology of the 
semiosis of signs that relate the realisms of natural philosophical logic to 
reality is merely an inquiry into emergence of legi-signs from sin-signs. 

I suspect that this is what Edwinia was alluding to in her posts. 

Cheers

Jerry 


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[John F. Sowa]

Edwina, 
I agree with you.  The question of how life emerged is
important, and it's important to explore all the possible ways in which it
might have emerged on earth and on other planets or moons in the solar
system, galaxy, or universe.
I also implied that Peirce would have
approved of the word 'emergence' as a hypostatic abstraction of the verb
'emerge.'  And I said that Jon A's objection to the word 'emergence' is
similar to Moliere's objection to the term 'dormitive virtue'.
But I
added the point that much more analysis and study needs to be
done.
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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list

No-one is denying that 'emergence' is only the beginning of a
complex study. But, as with any situation in the phaneron, what we
observe is,  so to speak', 'what we observe' - and we have to
acknowledge its reality as an observation...before we can begin to
explain what-is-going-on.

So- we have to accept that, for example, we observe that a
biological entity will emerge in a certain manner in X-situation, and
emerge differently or not at all in Y-situation. We have to examine
the critical threshold when a population will split into smaller
groups...and so on.

Objective observation is, after all, a primary requirement - and
collating vast observations - without explanation - is hardly a
deprecating endeavour. And I don't see that such observations are
comparable to 'virtus dormitiva' - since no explanation is offered.
Indeed - it is vital to gather such observations - before analysis -
within an abductive method.

The abstract of an article forthcoming in BioSystems, which began
this thread, did indeed suggest several areas to explore regarding
the emergence of life forms. So- I continue to be puzzled by any
suggestion that discussion of the topic is problematic or 'weasel' or
tautological. 

Edwina. 
 On Tue 03/08/21  5:04 PM , "John F. Sowa" s...@bestweb.net sent:
Edwina> All [the word emergence] means in my reference is 'coming
into being'; i.e., becoming a morphology, a form, whether in the mode
of being of  1ns,2ns,3ns.

Yes.  That is all it means.  Jon A called it a 'weasel word' as a
sign of deprecation because it names a phenomenon without explaining
it.  In a sense, he was making the same criticism that Moliere made
about the term 'dormitive virtue'.

But Peirce made the point that such names, which he called
hypostatic abstractions, are useful in recognizing that there is
something that is worth studying and analyzing.

In summary, emergence is worth analyzing, but it's important to
remember that it's only the beginning of a complex study.

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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[John F. Sowa]

Edwina> All [the word emergence] means in my reference is 'coming
into being'; i.e., becoming
a morphology, a form, whether in the mode of being of 
1ns,2ns,3ns.
Yes.  That is all it means.  Jon A called it a 'weasel
word' as a sign of deprecation because it names a phenomenon without
explaining it.  In a sense, he was making the same criticism that Moliere
made about the term 'dormitive virtue'.
But Peirce made the point
that such names, which he called hypostatic abstractions, are useful in
recognizing that there is something that is worth studying and
analyzing.
In summary, emergence is worth analyzing, but it's
important to remember that it's only the beginning of a complex
study.
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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, Helmut, Jon, list

I must admit that I'm baffled over the various comments about the
use of the term 'emergence'.

I am obviously missing some nuance of meaning!

All it means in my reference is 'coming into being'; i.e., becoming
a morphology, a form, whether in the mode of being of  1ns,2ns,3ns.

The various sciences are examining the emergence of physical forms,
chemical forms, biological forms..etc...and their relations with
other forms of matter. We can also examine the emergence of
linguistic terms and the emergence of certain societal forms of
behaviour - whether it be the use of money rather than barter or the
development of common law..etc. 

So, I don't understand your reference to it within 'logic'. 

Are you referring to the emergence of these forms, seeking an answer
to WHY they have emerged?? ..that's a completely different issue.
..and I'm not sure it has anything to do with logic.

Edwina
 On Tue 03/08/21  4:18 PM , "John F. Sowa" s...@bestweb.net sent:
Helmut>  "Emergence" for me seems to be a not yet logically fully
explained phenomenon. 

That's true.  There are various hypotheses, but none of them are
sufficient to explain the result.  That is typical for most unsolved
problems.

In short, the word emergence is a placeholder to be replaced when
more information becomes available.  Until then, the best that can be
done is to point to various incomplete studies about various
hypotheses.

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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[John F. Sowa]

Helmut>  "Emergence" for me seems to be a not yet
logically fully explained phenomenon. 
That's true.  There are
various hypotheses, but none of them are sufficient to explain the
result.  That is typical for most unsolved problems.
In short, the
word emergence is a placeholder to be replaced when more
information becomes available.  Until then, the best that can be done is
to point to various incomplete studies about various
hypotheses.
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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[John F. Sowa]

Edwina, Helmut, Jon A, List,
The term 'weasel word' for emergence
has negative connotations.  I wouldn't suggest the negativity, but I admit
that it hides a wide range of interpretants that deserve to be analyzed in
more detail.
I agree that the early stages of interpretation are so
rapid (fractions of a second) that detailed logical deduction is not
possible.  However, the initial steps of classifying a sensation (by the
categories) and detecting various elements (relations and hypoicons) could
be done in milliseconds.
The more complex processing by the
normative sciences would require more time (seconds).
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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Edwina Taborsky]

Helmet, list  - I’m not sure of your point. What’s problematic about saying 
that emergence is a fact of reality; ie it’s not a part of logic but of 
empirical observation.

Now, to move on from this empirical observation of WHAT is observed to a 
hypothesis of WHY this is occurring is a completely separate step. And of 
course, has to be taken, if we wish to understand the world. 

I admit I didn’t understand Jon Aubrey’s reference to weasel and he didn’t 
explain.

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 3, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
> 
> Edwina, List
>  
> I am absolutely not against using the term, but against stopping at for 
> example: "Life has emerged due to nature´s intention to form higher 
> complexity". This would be using something, in this case "intention", that is 
> a trait of life. So it is a tautology, like Peirce´s opium-example. But if 
> you either add, that saying this is not meant to be an already complete 
> explanation, or if you investigate this nature´s intention, e.g with the 
> semiosic method, I think it is justified and not a weasel-word. And I think, 
> that the semiosic investigation is not completed, that´s why I think, that 
> the phenomenon emergence is not fully explained. Partly so, because "habit" 
> is such a word too, I suspect, that should not just be taken for granted, but 
> itself further investigated.
>  
> Best,
> Helmut
>  
>  
>  03. August 2021 um 14:46 Uhr
>  "Edwina Taborsky" 
> wrote:
> Helmut - how is the term of 'emergence' used to explain something else? What 
> is this 'something else' that is being explained? And are you saying that 
> 'emergence' is a 'not fully explained phenomenon'?
> 
> The abductive reality is: that a novel form of life 'emerges' as a discrete 
> actuality, a 'mode of being' in 2ns.  This can be a new beak form on a bird; 
> a new plant; even...the emergence of multi-celled organisms. Or even, within 
> the symbolic realm, a new word. So- one has to ask: How does this happen? 
> It's a legitimate question and certainly can't be answered with the old 
> methods of: 'The Gods did it', or the later method of: 'Random accidents'.  
> There could be a semiosic method!!
> 
> Edwina
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue 03/08/21 4:24 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
> 
>  
> Jon, Edwina, List
>  
> It becomes a weasel, if people use it for explaining something else, instead 
> of treating it as a yet not fully explained phenomenon. Then it is like the 
> "dormative virtue" of Opium (Peirce). A pseudo-explanation.
>  
> Best
> Helmut
>  
> 02. August 2021 um 18:48 Uhr
>  "Jon Awbrey"
> wrote:
>  
> Edwina,
> 
> It is what one calls a "weasel word".
> People who invoke "emergence" almost
> always say they know what the basics
> are ... and then a miracle occurs ...
> or some threshold is crossed ... and
> then higher order somewhats or other
> "emerge" from the lower order stuffs.
> In regard to signs, emergence rumors
> would have you believe symbols arise
> from the primordial muck and ooze of
> icons and indices -- there's the rub!
> Triadic Relation Irreducibility says
> triadic relations are the primordial
> stuff -- if not there from the first,
> there is no way they can ever emerge.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jon
> 
> On 8/2/2021 12:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> >
> > Jon - could you explain? I don't see any reductionism when one uses the 
> > term 'emergence'.
> >
> > You are perhaps associating the term with a mechanical process where 
> > a,b,c,d mix up and might produce a large A.
> >
> > But, using the categorical processes of chemical and cellular modes
> > in 1ns and 3ns, you can arrive at a totally novel instantiation, 2ns.
> >
> >
> > Edwina
> > On Mon 02/08/21 12:04 PM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
> > Hi Edwina,
> > I find talk of “emergence” is almost invariably a kind of backhanded 
> > reductionism.
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> .
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in 
> the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and 
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . 
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in 
> the body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Helmut - how is the term of 'emergence' used to explain something
else? What is this 'something else' that is being explained? And are
you saying that 'emergence' is a 'not fully explained phenomenon'?

The abductive reality is: that a novel form of life 'emerges' as a
discrete actuality, a 'mode of being' in 2ns.  This can be a new beak
form on a bird; a new plant; even...the emergence of multi-celled
organisms. Or even, within the symbolic realm, a new word. So- one
has to ask: How does this happen? It's a legitimate question and
certainly can't be answered with the old methods of: 'The Gods did
it', or the later method of: 'Random accidents'.  There could be a
semiosic method!!

Edwina
 On Tue 03/08/21  4:24 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Jon, Edwina, List   It becomes a weasel, if people use it for
explaining something else, instead of treating it as a yet not fully
explained phenomenon. Then it is like the "dormative virtue" of Opium
(Peirce). A pseudo-explanation.   Best Helmut02. August 2021 um
18:48 Uhr
  "Jon Awbrey" 
 wrote:   Edwina,
 It is what one calls a "weasel word".
 People who invoke "emergence" almost
 always say they know what the basics
 are ... and then a miracle occurs ...
 or some threshold is crossed ... and
 then higher order somewhats or other
 "emerge" from the lower order stuffs.
 In regard to signs, emergence rumors
 would have you believe symbols arise
 from the primordial muck and ooze of
 icons and indices -- there's the rub!
 Triadic Relation Irreducibility says
 triadic relations are the primordial
 stuff -- if not there from the first,
 there is no way they can ever emerge.
 Cheers,
 Jon
 On 8/2/2021 12:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
 >
 > Jon - could you explain? I don't see any reductionism when one
uses the term 'emergence'.
 >
 > You are perhaps associating the term with a mechanical process
where a,b,c,d mix up and might produce a large A.
 >
 > But, using the categorical processes of chemical and cellular
modes
 > in 1ns and 3ns, you can arrive at a totally novel instantiation,
2ns.
 >
 >
 > Edwina
 > On Mon 02/08/21 12:04 PM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
 > Hi Edwina,
 > I find talk of “emergence” is almost invariably a kind of
backhanded reductionism.
 > Cheers,
 > Jon
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to
REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
 ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of
the message and nothing in the body. More at
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html [1] .
 ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.


Links:
--
[1] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon

I think we are not talking about the same thing. 

Icons, indexes and symbols are, in my view, terms used to define the
nature of the morphological relations within the semiosic triad;
specifically in this case - that between the mediative node, the
Representamen and the Object. The relation can be one of iconic
mimesis or indexical contact or learned code. This has absolutely
Nothing to do with emergence.

What I understand by 'triadic relation' is that the full Sign [and
I'm not the only person who calls the full triad a Sign] - the full
Sign is an irreducible triad of three basic Relations: that between
the R and Object; the of the R in itself; and that between the R and
the Interpretant. This triad is irreducible in that the semiosic
action requires these three - operating in various categorical modes.
Nothing to do with emergence. 

With regard to the categories - do they emerge? Well, if we read
Peirce's cosmological development [see A Guess at the Riddle,
1.412..], he outlines the emergence of mattervia the principle of
Firstness..and  Thirdness..and Secondness. As he says [1.409] 'three
elements are active in the world: first, chance; second, law; and
third, habit-taking". And in 1.408 he outlines that even these
categories 'evolve' from an original indeterminacy. But, from my
readings, he seems to consider that all three categorical modes are
'basic' to life - and are not emergent or dependent on each other. 

So- what am I referring to with the term of Emergence? What is meant
by this term, is the emergence of novel morphologies, novel forms of
matter. Surely you can acknowledge that such events have and are
continuing to take place! Evolution and adaptation are basic modes of
reality! So, one has to ask: how does this happen? Is it pure
randomness or is it an informed action? If it's either - and
particularly the latter, it's a semiosic action.

Edwina
 On Mon 02/08/21 12:48 PM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
 Edwina, 
 It is what one calls a "weasel word". 
 People who invoke "emergence" almost 
 always say they know what the basics 
 are ... and then a miracle occurs ... 
 or some threshold is crossed ... and 
 then higher order somewhats or other 
 "emerge" from the lower order stuffs. 
 In regard to signs, emergence rumors 
 would have you believe symbols arise 
 from the primordial muck and ooze of 
 icons and indices -- there's the rub! 
 Triadic Relation Irreducibility says 
 triadic relations are the primordial 
 stuff -- if not there from the first, 
 there is no way they can ever emerge. 
 Cheers, 
 Jon 
 On 8/2/2021 12:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: 
 >  
 > Jon - could you explain? I don't see any reductionism when one
uses the term 'emergence'. 
 >  
 > You are perhaps associating the term with a mechanical process
where a,b,c,d mix up and might produce a large A. 
 >  
 > But, using the categorical processes of chemical and cellular
modes 
 > in 1ns and 3ns, you can arrive at a totally novel instantiation,
2ns. 
 >  
 >  
 > Edwina 
 > On Mon 02/08/21 12:04 PM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net [1] sent: 
 > Hi Edwina, 
 > I find talk of “emergence” is almost invariably a kind of
backhanded reductionism. 
 > Cheers, 
 > Jon 


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jawb...@att.net\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Jon Awbrey]

Edwina,

It is what one calls a "weasel word".
People who invoke "emergence" almost
always say they know what the basics
are ... and then a miracle occurs ...
or some threshold is crossed ... and
then higher order somewhats or other
"emerge" from the lower order stuffs.
In regard to signs, emergence rumors
would have you believe symbols arise
from the primordial muck and ooze of
icons and indices -- there's the rub!
Triadic Relation Irreducibility says
triadic relations are the primordial
stuff -- if not there from the first,
there is no way they can ever emerge.


Cheers,

Jon

On 8/2/2021 12:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:


Jon - could you explain? I don't see any reductionism when one uses the term 
'emergence'.

You are perhaps associating the term with a mechanical process where a,b,c,d 
mix up and might produce a large A.

But, using the categorical processes of chemical and cellular modes
in 1ns and 3ns, you can arrive at a totally novel instantiation, 2ns.


Edwina
On Mon 02/08/21 12:04 PM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
Hi Edwina,
I find talk of “emergence” is almost invariably a kind of backhanded 
reductionism.
Cheers,
Jon
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon - could you explain? I don't see any reductionism when one uses
the term 'emergence'. 

You are perhaps associating the term with a mechanical process where
a,b,c,d mix up and might produce a large A.

But, using the categorical processes of  chemical and cellular modes
in 1ns and 3ns, you can arrive at a  totally novel instantiation, 2ns.


Edwina
 On Mon 02/08/21 12:04 PM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
 Hi Edwina, 
 I find talk of “emergence” is almost invariably a kind of
backhanded reductionism. 
 Cheers, 
 Jon 
 On 8/2/2021 11:55 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: 
 >
 >  
 >  Here's an interesting abstract of a forthcoming article in 
 > BioSystems journal [coming in October]. 
 >  
 >  Scroll down for the abstract. 
 >  
 >  Title is: Code Biology and the Problem of Emergence 
 >  
 >  Author is Arran Gare. 
 >  
 >  ag...@swin.edu.au [1] [1] 
 >  
 >  I am personally against Barbieri's 'code system; he is NOT 
 > supportive of Peirce, by the way, and has developed his code
system 
 > to deal with what he feels are Peirce's failures. My view is that
he 
 > simply doesn't understand Peirce and doesn't understand the 
 > categories. 
 >  
 >  And it shouldn't be 'introducing 'semantics' but introducing 
 > 'semiotics'. But there are several areas to focus on: 
 >  
 >  1] a key focus is the development of 'constraints', which we, as 
 > Peirceans, would understand as the development of 'habits'. 
 >  
 >  2] the concept of 'potentialities' - which is a vital and often 
 > unexamined area, with its notion of active information-seeking and

 > anticipation; ..a mixture of 1ns and 3ns 
 >  
 >  3] actualization, or 'individuation; an action of 2ns. 
 >  
 >  An interesting outline. 
 >  
 >  Edwina 
 >   "It should now be recognized that codes are central to life and
to 
 > understanding its more complex forms, including human culture. 
 > Recognizing the ‘conventional’ nature of codes provides solid 
 > grounds for rejecting efforts to reduce life to  biochemistry  and

 > justifies according a place to semantics in life. The question I
want 
 > to consider is whether this is enough. Focussing on Eigen's
paradox of 
 > how a complex code could originate, I will argue that along with 
 > Barbieri's efforts to account for the origins of life based on the

 > ribosome and then to account for the refined codes through a
process 
 > of ambiguity reduction, something more is required. Barbieri has
not 
 > provided an adequate account of emergence, or the basis for
providing 
 > such an account. I will argue that Stanley Salthe has clarified to

 > some extent the nature of emergence by conceptualizing it as the 
 > interpolation of new enabling constraints. Clearly, codes can be
seen 
 > as enabling constraints. How this actually happens, though, is
still 
 > not explained. Stuart Kauffman has grappled with this issue and
shown 
 > that it radically challenges the assumptions of mainstream science

 > going back to Newton. He has attempted to reintroduce real 
 > possibilities or potentialities into his ontology, and argued that

 > radically new developments in nature are associated with realizing

 > adjacent possibles. This is still not adequate. What is also 
 > involved, I will suggest, utilizing concepts developed by the
French 
 > natural philosopher Gilbert Simondon, is ‘transduction’ as
part 
 > of ‘ontogenesis’ of individuals in a process of 
 > ‘individuation’, that is, the emergence of ‘individuals’
from 
 > preindividual fields or milieux. " 
 >  
 >  
 > Links: 
 > -- 
 > [1] ag...@swin.edu.au [2] 
 >  
 >  


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'ag...@swin.edu.au\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'ag...@swin.edu.au\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Role of Semiotics in Life

[Jon Awbrey]

Hi Edwina,

I find talk of “emergence” is almost invariably a kind of backhanded 
reductionism.

Cheers,

Jon

On 8/2/2021 11:55 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
  


Here's an interesting abstract of a forthcoming article in
BioSystems journal [coming in October].

Scroll down for the abstract.

Title is: Code Biology and the Problem of Emergence

Author is Arran Gare.

ag...@swin.edu.au [1]

I am personally against Barbieri's 'code system; he is NOT
supportive of Peirce, by the way, and has developed his code system
to deal with what he feels are Peirce's failures. My view is that he
simply doesn't understand Peirce and doesn't understand the
categories.

And it shouldn't be 'introducing 'semantics' but introducing
'semiotics'. But there are several areas to focus on:

1] a key focus is the development of 'constraints', which we, as
Peirceans, would understand as the development of 'habits'.

2] the concept of 'potentialities' - which is a vital and often
unexamined area, with its notion of active information-seeking and
anticipation; ..a mixture of 1ns and 3ns

3] actualization, or 'individuation; an action of 2ns.

An interesting outline.

Edwina
  "It should now be recognized that codes are central to life and to
understanding its more complex forms, including human culture.
Recognizing the ‘conventional’ nature of codes provides solid
grounds for rejecting efforts to reduce life to  biochemistry  and
justifies according a place to semantics in life. The question I want
to consider is whether this is enough. Focussing on Eigen's paradox of
how a complex code could originate, I will argue that along with
Barbieri's efforts to account for the origins of life based on the
ribosome and then to account for the refined codes through a process
of ambiguity reduction, something more is required. Barbieri has not
provided an adequate account of emergence, or the basis for providing
such an account. I will argue that Stanley Salthe has clarified to
some extent the nature of emergence by conceptualizing it as the
interpolation of new enabling constraints. Clearly, codes can be seen
as enabling constraints. How this actually happens, though, is still
not explained. Stuart Kauffman has grappled with this issue and shown
that it radically challenges the assumptions of mainstream science
going back to Newton. He has attempted to reintroduce real
possibilities or potentialities into his ontology, and argued that
radically new developments in nature are associated with realizing
adjacent possibles. This is still not adequate. What is also
involved, I will suggest, utilizing concepts developed by the French
natural philosopher Gilbert Simondon, is ‘transduction’ as part
of ‘ontogenesis’ of individuals in a process of
‘individuation’, that is, the emergence of ‘individuals’ from
preindividual fields or milieux. "


Links:
--
[1] mailto:ag...@swin.edu.au


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.