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

Edwina, List, my point was, that a token is embodied, but a molecule has no clear borders (of it´s body), as it contains electrons, whose orbitals are borderless, and the gravitation (and other fields) of the molecule also is borderless. Borders in physical-chemical- world are defined by humans,

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

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Gene - I would agree with your D.H. Lawrence quote. And as I often quote from Peirce, "Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely

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

Dear Edwina, Thanks, but it was not so perfectly. The last Peirce phrase should be “reasonableness energizing in the world.” Not “universe.” I’m glad you thought my words expressed what you were trying to say, given that I am not an atheist, perhaps something closer to a “religious atheist,”

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

John Sowa: “But every kind of Thirdness must be learned by abduction. Observation can only detect post hoc. Propter hoc is an abduction. An infant observes patterns in the parents' babbling, imitates the babbling, and discovers that certain patterns bring rewards.” The expectations for

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

Gary F., List: GF: In Baldwin’s Dictionary, Peirce defined “symbol” as “A SIGN (q.v.) which is constituted a sign merely or mainly by the fact that it is used and understood as such, whether the habit is natural or conventional, and without regard to the motives which originally governed its

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

John S., Helmut, Edwina, List: JFS: Anything that can affect our sense organs is a mark. Those marks could be interpreted and classified as tokens of types. Technically anything that can affect our sense organs is a *replica *of a Qualisign/Mark, the peculiar kind of Sinsign/Token that

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

John S., Helmut, List: Of course, Peirce famously argued for the *Reality *of God, not the *existence *of God. He explained why in one of the manuscript drafts of "A Neglected Argument." CSP: Thus, He is so much like a mind, and so little like a singular Existent (meaning by an Existent, or

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

Edwina, List: ET: Nowhere in this section does Peirce write that the purpose of Reason is the 'growth of knowledge about both God and the universe'. I did not suggest that this was "the purpose of Reason," but that it is "God's purpose" as "the development of Reason." CP 1.615 (1903)

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

Jon Alan, The notion of a non-conventional symbol shouldn’t be too difficult. In Baldwin’s Dictionary, Peirce defined “symbol” as “A SIGN (q.v.) which is constituted a sign merely or mainly by the fact that it is used and understood as such, whether the habit is natural or conventional, and

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

Helmut, list - isn't the instantiation of a natural law - a token of that law, showing the law itself at work. I don't get your point. A type is a general that governs existents; the token is the existent. So- I'm unsure of your point. I don't see that there are 'no tokens' [existents]

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

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon, list: And here is a key difference. Jon wrote: "As I mentioned in the other thread, I take it to be the summum bonum--the "development of Reason," which is the growth of knowledge about both God and the

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

On 4/8/2017 2:59 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: I would say, that the instantiation of a law is not it´s token, but the law itself at work. I agree. So law is all type, there are no tokens of it in inanimate world of efficient causation. Is my guess. For a law of science, the proposition that

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

John, List, Speaking of inanimate reactions, and assumed, that there are natural laws existing governing them, whether or not they have been thoroughly analyzed by humans, I would say, that the instantiation of a law is not it´s token, but the law itself at work. That is so, because in inanimate

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

Jon and Edwina, Jon I am still trying to figure out how to classify that real aspect/ regularity as a Sign itself, if in fact it is legitimate to treat reality as consisting entirely of Signs. Anything that can affect our sense organs is a mark. Those marks could be interpreted and

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

Gary F., List: There is much to digest here. As you quoted, Peirce called the universe "a great symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities" (CP 5.119; 1903). This suggests to me that "God's purpose" is the Object of the universe as Symbol, and "living realities"

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

Edwina, Jon S, List, Edwina wrote: Yes, in my view, all three categories were present from the very beginning of our existing universe. BUT, I define them all therefore, as primordial, because I cannot see that any category/thing..was prior to the existential emergence of the Universe. That

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

Edwina, Gary F., List: GF: Now, “that Universe being precisely an argument” (EP2:194), the laws of nature would have to be the “leading principles” which are “working out its conclusions in living realities” (EP2:193). These are clearly symbols, though not conventional, and (as constituents of

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; } And here we still have a sticking point. Jon wrote: "So I agree with Gary that 3ns as continuity is primordial overall, but I think that both of us agree with Edwina that all three Categories were present from

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

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon, list - hmm - that is interesting and I'd agree; the Dynamic Object of a law of nature [which is Thirdness] is also Thirdness. This enables individual organisms, when they interact with another external organism, to

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

Edwina, John S., List: JFS: Any law of science or even an informal rule of thumb that makes reliable predictions reflects something real about the world. That real aspect of the world is some kind of regularity. But it isn't stated as a law until somebody states it as such. I agree, and I am

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

Gary R., Edwina, Clark, List: Indeed, Peirce defined "potential" as "indeterminate yet capable of determination in any special case" (CP 6.185; 1898), but wrote that "Ideas, or Possibles"--i.e., the constituents of the Universe of 1ns, "whatever has its Being in itself alone"--are "incapable of

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce archive MSS 1 to 1641 online

List, I've dug around and found some old information about the Humboldt U. Peirce archive. It was built with the cooperation of the Peirce Edition Project. From PEP head André De Tienne's report to the Charles S. Peirce Society 21 February 2013

[PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Edwina, Jon S., As John has already pointed out, the key idea in the Peirce quote I supplied is “that there is something in nature to which the human reason is analogous.” If all thought is in signs, all reasoning and all knowledge is in signs. If we ask what kind of sign the laws of nature

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

Thanks for the references. John Collier Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Friday, 07 April 2017 6:30 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: