Russell Standish put it well. But let me try a further comment. You wrote,
C. S. Peirce would point out that if you truly behave AS IF something is
the case, then you believe it to be the case. To Peirce, that’s just what
belief IS.
According to that would Peirce say that animals have beliefs?
FYI.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Santa Fe Institute de...@santafe.edu
Date: April 9, 2012 8:39:47 AM MDT
To: inho...@santafe.edu, activities-annou...@santafe.edu, lectu...@santafe.edu
Subject: [Lectures] SFI Community Lecture — Tonight, April 9, 2012 •
7:30 p.m. • James A. Little Theater
I object to the snarkiness of the term *Inner Sanctum*. But that aside, I
now have 2 points.
- It struck me this morning that the position you attribute to Peirce
(and that you accept yourself?) imports teleology into biology (or even
physics if it applies to matter as well). If a
Well, relation to a relation is my way of talking, not Peirce's. he uses
the word sign, but he uses that term in such contorted and ephemeral ways
that I have started to try to understand him WITHOUT using it.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be snarky. It is inner and it is a kind of
sanctum,
Let's say you are a phd student. Let's say you go to your orals committee
and propose a dissertation topic. Let's say, they ask you, why are you
interested in that? You reply, it just interests me. Do you get the
degree?
Or let's say you apply for a prestigious NSF fellowship. On the
Nick,
Please see below.
*-- Russ *
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson
nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:
Well, “relation to a relation” is my way of talking, not Peirce’s. he uses
the word “sign”, but he uses that term in such contorted and ephemeral ways
that I have started
Russ,
A am at least tempted by what I see in Peirce as a weird kind of reductive
panpsychist: Mind is everywhere, but it consists in the that fact that one
entity stands in relation to a relation between two other entities.
This is not, however, something that I am prepared to go to
This is presumably a response to a note I wrote about a thousand
emails ago, in which I claimed for Owen (and me) the right to be
interested in star populations and the evolution of sentience just
simply because we're interested in it, and I didn't like your
challenging us and asking for
Hi, everybody,
Somebody (whom I respect greatly) has eldered me, writing to say that I am
in danger of driving everybody nuts with my new found interest in the logic
of scientific inquiry. So I will give it a rest, and lurk for a month. If
anybody wants to talk off line about any of the
