Re: Frederik Stjernfelt
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13886
Frederik,
Yes, the orthogonality or independence of descriptive and normative sciences is noted by McCulloch
in his opening lines. The thing that struck me like a lightning synapse when I first read
Does this mean the cows are home now?
No more, please!
gary f.
-Original Message-
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net]
Sent: 4-Sep-14 8:40 AM
Re: Gary Fuhrman
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13894
Sorry, Dudes, I couldn't resist ...
No, it means that sometimes somebuddy's jes gotta go out and round up the cows
...
Head 'em up, Move 'em out, Rawhide ...
Jon
Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Does this mean the cows are home now?
No more, please!
gary f.
-Original Message-
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net]
Sent:
Dear Stan, list -
My claim certainly does not entail that physics be entirely mechanistic. My
observation is just that sign concepts are widespread in biology, not so in
physics. This gives us the idea that biology studies real semiotic processes,
while physics, including QM, does not. This
Dear Jon, list -
I also remarked that in McCulloch.
You're right about the less than straightforward relation between logical
consequence and temporal sequence … If the two were identical, mental processes
probably would be unable to address contents different from those processes …
Best
F
Den
On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt stj...@hum.ku.dk
mailto:stj...@hum.ku.dk wrote:
Let me redescribe my claim. Physics, taken in itself, does not study
cognition and communication processes - biology does.
and
On Sep 4, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt
In reply to Howard- see my comments:
At 04:47 PM 9/3/2014, Frederik wrote:
Adding semiotic concepts to your description of physical events can be
done, but it does not really add to our understanding of them - while in our
understanding of biological events, semiotic concepts are
I think this outline below by Frederik is excellent. But I'd like to add a few
comments.
Physics as a scientific endeavour does not study cognitive and communication
processes, but, yes, physics in itself functions with the realities of
semiosis. That is, my view is that semiosis - as an
In CP 5.488 Peirce makes a crucial distinction: all this universe is perfused
with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs. Only the latter idea -
that the universe consists exclusively of signs - is properly termed
pansemiotics. The former idea - that the universe is perfused with
Dear John, list -
We have discussed these issues at several occasions, as John writes. Now, our
different positions are clearly expressed again - and, what is more, unchanged.
So rather than taking yet another turn in that eternal circle, John, would'nt
you like to take a shot at my first
Perhaps I am misreading your post, John, but it seems to me an argument over
semantics. You seem to reject the term 'pansemiosis' - and I'm not sure why-
other than that you understand the term to mean that 'the universe is NOT
composed exclusively of signs..and I don't understand how you come
Sun and earth do communicate, but resulting directly dyadic rather than triadic
relations, and with no involvement of cognition. The point can be generalized:
communication is broader than cognition.
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 15:02
To:
Re: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Relation_theory
The article on k-adic relations deals with a higher level of generality than we usually need for
triadic relations and sign relations, but it does provide a theoretical context for discussing the
latter special cases and it
Frederik:
While I heartily agree with you that one of the principle objectives of
Peircian logic is to chain together a sequence of natural propositions, but I
am puzzled by this paragraph.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt stj...@hum.ku.dk wrote:
The main idea of the first
On Sep 4, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt stj...@hum.ku.dk wrote:
Interaction seems to me to be a far wider concept than communication. Any
possible empirical event involves energy exchange, that is, interaction. To
me, it dilutes the concept of communication almost to
Frederik:
On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt stj...@hum.ku.dk wrote:
Let me redescribe my claim. Physics, taken in itself, does not study
cognition and communication processes - biology does.
Perhaps you are seeking to express a more metaphysical argument about the
On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:36 PM, Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com wrote:
Edwina, Pansemiotics carries the connotation of panpsychism. Physiosemiosis
has no such connotation. And the term “pansemiosis” carries just the
opposite of what you attribute, namely, the idea that the universe IS
composed
17 matches
Mail list logo
