Martin, List,
Thanks for joining our 10 minute thesis presentation this past Saturday and
for your post to Peirce-L today.
I think that your suggestion that "there’s a. . . fundamental and urgent
question to ask ourselves about how to insinuate realism in a
nominalist/individualist world" points
Thank you for your 10-minute presentations Gary, Jon and Gary.
What a fascinating phenomenon, a zoom conference with Powerpoint
representations of Peirce’s trichotomies, synechism, and Kaina Stoichea!
I supposed it was seeing each other, and hearing each other’s voices, that
spark my wanting
Gary F., List:
I still do not see a problematic inconsistency, let alone a contradiction,
because indeterminacy/generality and indefiniteness/vagueness are not
mutually exclusive. As I understand Peirce's mature topical conception of
continuity, the whole is general (3ns) and the parts are
List,
I agree with both Jon and Gary Fuhrman as to the nature and purpose of
Peirce-L. Because of its relevance, over the years I have had occasion to
post the same quotation by Joe Ransdell that Jon did today. Especially for
those new to this Peirce forum -- and, perhaps, for everyone here -- it
You’ll have to read your way through the literature.
D
> On Apr 19, 2023, at 2:27 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
>
> Dan, List,
>
> First i apologize for posting unrelated in the main thread.
>
> I appreciate your argument and find it a great insight. Now, is this a
> refutation of
Dan, List,
First i apologize for posting unrelated in the main thread.
I appreciate your argument and find it a great insight. Now, is this a refutation of Chomsky´s theory or not? A computer program perhaps does not need such a module, because it can research and develop language from
ChatGPT simply and conclusively shows that there is no need for any innate
learning module in the brain to learn language. Here is the paper on it that
states this best. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/007180
>From a Peircean perspective, it is important to realize that this works by
>inference
My apologies, Jon,
I should have started a new thread. And to Gary, many thanks for the references.
It is not that I do not learn a great deal from the exegetical discussions. I
certainly do. And the level of discussion is very high and insightful. I much
appreciate it. Nor is it the case that
List:
I agree with Gary F. and will add that anyone is welcome to start a new
Peirce-L thread on any topic, as long as it is legitimately related to
Peirce's thought. Here is how the late Joe Ransdell put it.
Since PEIRCE-L is best thought of as a public forum, which is primarily a
place rather
Dan, it’s true that “there are many contemporary issues that are crying out for
Peircean analysis.” I’ll mention below a few publications and public venues
that carry out this analysis in one way or another. But those are aimed at
venues and audiences other than the community of students and
Dan, List,
What is the "success of ChatGPT over Chomskyan nativist models"? I guess ChatGPT is meant to mimic a human mind, so the innate grammar-module too. And, if Chomsky claims a genetic grammar module, I dont imagine (dont know) he says it stops there, that this module is an arbitrary
I really am enjoying all of this discussion. But the Peirce-L to my mind (maybe
this is its principal function and I have missed that fact) seems largely
concerned with the exegesis of Peirce (which is very important of course). But
there are many contemporary issues that are crying out for
Gary R, Jon et al.,
It might take awhile to explain why I see a difference (if not a contradiction)
between Peirce’s 1898 cosmology, which you quoted at length, and his account of
the origin of things in “Kaina Stoicheia”. This will also explain why I see KS
(written in 1901) as marking a turn
13 matches
Mail list logo
