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

Clark: > On Apr 5, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > Peirce explicitly saw entropy and conservation as not applying universally > because they only applied to determinate systems. He also saw entropy as a > statistical measure. The question is whether his semiotics

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Laws of Nature as Signs

Jon, List ... I've mentioned the following possibility several times before, but maybe not too recently. A sign relation L is a subset of a cartesian product O×S×I, where O, S, I are the object, sign, interpretant domains, respectively. In a systems-theoretic framework we may think of these

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Jon and Edwina, Jon What class of Sign is a law of nature? I am not referring to how we /describe/ a law of nature in human language, an equation, or other /representation/ of it; I am talking about the law of nature /itself/, the real general that governs actual occurrences. Edwina But a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Edwina, List: I requested that very book from the library yesterday, because I am hoping that it will shed some light on this. Of course, a law of nature is not *itself *a physical or otherwise existent entity, hence a (general) Legisign. I am mainly looking for feedback on the identity of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } I think that Stjernfelt's book Natural Propositions ... on DiciSigns examines the semiosic process in these realms. There are three types of Dicisigns. The Dicent Sinsign [ dicent indexical sinsign]. The Dicent

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

Edwina, list: “We didn't sit down and forge a synthesis. We all knew each other's writings; all spoke with each other. We all had the same goal, which was simply to understand fully the evolutionary process...By combining our knowledge, we managed to straighten out all the conflicts and

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

Stephen J., List ~ A - "The notion of body-as-tool is a very important one because it sheds light on so many things." B- “If Your Only Tool Is a Hammer Then Every Problem Looks Like a Nail” If my body is a tool (hands, feet, eyes, etc.), then how can my ONLY tool be a hammer or any other

[PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

List: With the discussions going on in a couple of threads about semeiosis in the physico-chemical and biological realms, a question occurred to me. What class of Sign is a law of nature? I am not referring to how we *describe* a law of nature in human language, an equation, or other

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

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jerry - is there much difference between standard Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism with regard to how adaptation and evolution emerges and develops? Edwina -- This message is virus free, protected by Primus -

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

Edwina, I put myself forth *as* a biologist before anything else and I object to your classification of mutation/natural selection (rather, descent with modification) as a *neoDarwinian hypothesis*. That’s just terrible. There is a lot that has been contemplated about chance/spontaneity in

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

SM is statistical mechanics. I don’t recall Peirce ever discussing it, though it was well known at his time, and proven beyond a doubt with Einstein’s ex planation of Brownian motion in 1906. Before that many French theorists rejected it because atoms and molecules were not observables. I

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

Clark, list: 1) First - I don't accept the neoDarwinian hypothesis that adaptation and evolution are due to randomness and Natural Selection. I think that adaptation and evolution are actions of Mind; that is, the biological systems adapt to environmental realities - not randomly - but

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

> On Apr 6, 2017, at 12:03 AM, John Collier wrote: > > There is still an understanding gap between QM and SM, largely due to the > fact that the theory of QM is deterministic. I have heard good scientists say > that QM is the basis of entropy, but I don’t find their

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

> On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:34 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > - chance does not form habits but only facilitates breaking them - and since > chance/Firstness is primordial, then, breaking habits is so to speak, > necessary and normal in the universe. Just as habits are

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Icon Index Symbol

Jerry, List ... Looking over my last post, I see I introduced a couple of confusions, mostly by virtue (or vice?) of having forgotten a few technical uses of terms that I concocted those many years ago. I think I was able to correct the problem in my blog rehash of the discussion so far: Post

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

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon, list - actually, I agree with everything you have said below EXCEPT for the notion of 'God'. That is - I certainly agree that: - chance does not form habits but only facilitates breaking them -

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

A few points. Thermodynamics is a specialty of mine since I was an undergraduate, especially the statistical version. I don’t think I agree with Edwina that firstness is entropic, though in some cases it can be. In other cases it is just something like form considered in isolation. I take it