[PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:9231] Re: Transcending Scientism - print version ready

Sure, I'll follow up Monday or Tuesday. From: Spooner, Brian J [mailto:spoo...@sas.upenn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:34 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Subject: [biosemiotics:9231] Re: Transcending Scientism - print version ready I would be grateful if

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark, List: CG: For Peirce chance both forms habits but also allows breaks from habit. As I understand him, especially in his late writings, for Peirce chance *does not* form habits, it *only* facilitates breaking them; e.g., small deviations from the laws of nature. The habit-taking

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Icon Index Symbol

thanks jon, that was much better than sending me off to links that are so abstruse, one would expect a novice to walk away sight-unseen. If the point is to accommodate "a way of organizing growing domains of objects, without having to specify in advance all the objects there are", then don't you

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark, Edwina, list: If you know that “Local entropy can (and often does) decrease whereas the universal entropy increases” then perhaps you thought to place this law in context of entities with permeable membranes. It seems to me an important matter to consider if one is going to talk

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Icon Index Symbol

Jerry, List ... There's an earlier version of this material at the Arisbe Gateway: http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/inquiry.htm The discussion of Sign Relations begins at “1.3.4.2 Sign Relations: A Primer” and continues under approximately the same headings as the

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark-list; I'm not saying that biology is reducible to physics Physics doesn't have that self-organization or 'negentropy that biology has. I don't see how or where I am rejecting Peirce's views. I don't see that chance 'enables habit'; it breaks up some habits and allows for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > > “So fundamentally the question is whether Peirce’s view that the universe is > growing to more reasonableness is incompatible with thermodynamics. Clearly > it is. > > > Hmmm… then what’s the semiotic answer to why

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 2:27 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Clark, list: Hmm - it's always interesting to read how others view oneself. > > I hadn't thought that I was saying that " that thinking of all this in the > idealist ways Peirce did is wrong. That is we should

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark, list: Hmm - it's always interesting to read how others view oneself. I hadn't thought that I was saying that " that thinking of all this in the idealist ways Peirce did is wrong. That is we should appropriate Peirce more in a materialistic way" I don't know what the

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark- but isn't the reality of the biological realm, which introduces the non-isolation of a system and self-organization and thus, works against entropy - a natural action? After all, the basic mode of action of semiosis is its non-isolation - and the transformation of energy from one to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Edwina, Clark, list: Clark, you said: “So fundamentally the question is whether Peirce’s view that the universe is growing to more reasonableness is incompatible with thermodynamics. Clearly it is. Hmmm… then what’s the semiotic answer to why spirals in BZ reaction? What did people say of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > I am not sure exactly how this bears on your entropy conversation, except > that entropy is often described as disorder; so from that standpoint, > uniformity and habit-taking both seem to be negentropic in

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Re: Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Agreed - uniformity and habit-taking are negentropic. But Firstness is entropic in nature. The habits are not Mind but are the result of the actions of Mind. Mind has three properties: Firstness, Secondness,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > So- I don't see how Peirce's view is incompatible with the current view - but > I might be missing what you are trying to explain. > Peirce explicitly saw entropy and conservation as not applying universally

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Re: Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Edwina, Clark, List: ET: To the contrary, Mind ends up as generalities. "In endless time, it is destined to think all that it is capable of thinking.a generalization of order" 6.490 Since Mind refers to the 'habit-taking capacity' then, what appears to be the ultimate limit, in my view, is

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Yes - I saw your second post after I had replied... You wrote, with regard to habits: "However as they become more and more habitual they come more and more to take the character of substance. That is substance/matter is simply a reflection of a lack of variation from

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark, List: CG: I suppose this is a very long way of saying that I think signs are only the same sign when both the immediate interpretant and immediate object are the same. I think that Edwina and I came to the same conclusion over the course of our discussion in this thread. We agreed that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 12:22 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Since Mind refers to the 'habit-taking capacity' then, what appears to be the > ultimate limit, in my view, is not matter but habit. Habits don't move toward > more differentiation but towards more generality. > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 3:49 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > It turns out that Short "counts" different Signs based on different Immediate > Interpretants, but not based on different Dynamic Interpretants. This makes > sense, given that the Immediate Interpretant

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Re: Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark, list - at the moment, I'm going to disagree - that is, I'm not entirely convinced by your outline. The way I see it, is that Mind doesn't 'end up in the Final Interpretant phase' as particular instantiations. To the contrary, Mind ends up as generalities. "In endless

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Re: Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > > I know that was all long, but I want to return to Edwina’s initial comment > that firstness is both chance and entropy. For Peirce, I’ve hopefully shown, > those are actually opposed. Firstness is what violates entropy.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Re: Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 3, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > That is - I am also suggesting that Firstness is not simply quality, feeling, > chance - but - is entropy. Could you unpack that a little more? I *think* I understand what you’re getting at — how chance undermines

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was semantic problem with the term)

(Sorry - been swamped so I’ve not said much) > On Apr 1, 2017, at 12:53 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Some new words may be useful, but there's already an overabundance > of terminology from several millennia of philosophy, most of which > Peirce replaced with a new set of terms.

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Icon Index Symbol

Jerry, List ... Just back from travel and it may be a while before I get back in gear, but here's a few links on how I would (and long ago did) begin to get a handle on the issue, with an eye as always to real-world practical applications:

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism and Sign as holon as mind-body as tool

Ah yes Edwina, now I remember… we had this conversation before… perhaps we should quit while we are still friends J But briefly, should others here be interested in exploring where I’m coming from, my reasoning is along the lines of Norman Doidge’s ideas on neural plasticity, and how

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism and Sign as holon as mind-body as tool

Stephen, list - I think this is a bit of 'putting the cart before the horse'; I'm not a fan of Sebeok - and to say that because an organism does not have the physiological equipment for speech means that they will not use speech - is hardly a world-shaking analysis. Perhaps I've missed the

[PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism and Sign as holon as mind-body as tool

List, Allow me to take advantage of this lull in postings to elaborate on the relationship between pragmatism and the mind-body unity. The notion of body-as-tool is a very important one because it sheds light on so many things, from sex differences in most species to gender roles in culture, to