Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1: overview

List: > On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:06 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Kirsti, >> Possibilities may be real, but they do not exist until they >> become actual. > > In that sentence, three words raise debatable issues: 'real', > 'exist', and 'actual'. To analyze the issues, I suggested Quine's > dictum

Re: LEM Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.8

List, John: Comments on “technical” aspects of Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) are inserted. > On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:15 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Jerry and Kirstima, > > Jerry >> the issue of the "Law of the Excluded Middle” is a red herring to me. > > Kirstima >> LEM presents one of the three

LEM Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.8

List , John: I wrote: "Because it violates the common sense of the meaning of natural language terms in the premise.” John, your introducing the issue of the "Law of the Excluded Middle” is a red herring to me. Let me add a word or two to clarify my intent. My concern is rather esoteric from

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.8

List, John: > On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:17 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Since a contradiction is always false, a contradiction implies > everything. Everything? While this assertion is widely repeated in the literature, I think it is highly problematic. Because it violates the common sense of the

[PEIRCE-L] "Naming Logics" A Challenge to Mathematicians and Scientists and Logicians.

List: One deep issue regarding CSP’s works is the relevance of his writings to today’s world and the decaying intellectual climate that is often exemplified in today’s writings in the philosophical and mathematical communities. At least one group of logicians is facing these issues head-on, as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretations of the Meaning of Pragmatisism (edited)

Though what I have just written here > will only appear in the next chapter I have not yet written. > Best, > Helmut > > 25. September 2017 um 21:44 Uhr > "Jerry LR Chandler" > wrote: > > [PEIRCE-L] Re: Interpretations of the Meaning of Pragmatisism (edit

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Interpretations of the Meaning of Pragmatisism (edited)

(The composition of this message was interrupted by events and was inadvertently sent prematurely. Several edits widen the scope of the message and contain additional concepts.) > On Sep 25, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > List: > > Earlier in the sum

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

> On Sep 25, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > since you originally defined Peirce's style as possibly a 'hubris style, a > bragging style, a sophist style'. Edwinia: Your assertion is not true. Jerry - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "

[PEIRCE-L] Interpretations of the Meaning of Pragmatisism

List: I have been pursing the emanative causality CP2.230 (1910) that stands behind the subjective meanings of the putative logical terms of “quail-sign, sin-sign and legi-signs”. As most readers know, these terms were coined by CSP as the origins of his logical of synthesis of propositions f

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

> On Sep 25, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I consider that the initial quotation was simply Peirce's general > Introduction to his anticipated analysis, explaining that he was going to > explore fallacious logic, using a key example. I don't think that one can > discuss an int

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

List, Gary: Thanks, Gary for initiating a fresh informative stream. It seems that how one interprets this opening rhetoric stance (“hook”) is rather dependent on the number of symbols systems ( linguistic, musical, mathematical, chemical … ) one can use to communicate with others. This rheto

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

Tommi, List: Your post bring to the front (at least for me) a central problem of philosophy, especially of synthetic philosophy in contrast to retrospective philosophy. EP 2:372. > On Aug 28, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Tommi Vehkavaara wrote: > > > CP 1.232 "Now if we are to classify the sciences, it

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

List, John: > On Aug 16, 2017, at 10:15 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > In his late writings on the logic of pragmatism, he emphasized the > multiple cycles of observations, induction, abduction, deduction, > testing (actions) and repeat. Do you have specific citations? (BTW, these steps are essent

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

Thus he dis not use the TERM (which is just a name for a theoretical concept) in the sense (meaning) it is used nowadays. I have studied some early cybernetics, then Bertallanffy and Luhman in more detail. I wrote Jerry LR Chandler CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-

CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

Armando, List: Consider the meaning of the chromaticity (spectra) of 1,2,3… A, B, C,… H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F, Ne,… A, B, C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C,… (musical scales) nad A, nad B, and nad C, etc, (genetic symbols with closure over a set of genetic symbols that represen

Re: [PEIRCE-L] just test

Chromatic scales of Tarski’s meta-languages: a,b,c,... 1,2,3,… H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F, Ne,… The symbolic (predicate?) logic of each symbol system is different. :-) JLRC > On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Armando - wrote: > > 123 abc > > - > PEIRCE-L subscribe

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Helmut, Kirsti, List: > On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > But composition is just a matter different from classification. Therefore a > sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no matter what a > sini- or a legisign is composed of. > On Aug 3, 2017, at 4:

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Kirsti: > On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:34 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > > I have never found sign classifications of much use, even though I spent a > lot of time once, long ago, with reading CSP's own writings on those issues. In my view, the conceptualization of classes / categories lies at

[PEIRCE-L] My apologies to the list

List Moderators: My last post was a private message to Kirsti. Please delete it from the files. Cheers Jerry - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Hi Kirsti: You wrote: >> Logic is not linguistics, and shluld not be replaced, not even partly, by >> lingquitics. I awoke in the middle of the night, feeling that I may have mis-read your meaning. Did you mean, linguistics as the study of languages… Or, that logic ITSELF, whatever that may

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

ions record the meanings visually. Cheers Jerry > > Best Kirsti > > > > > > > Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 12.6.2017 17:55: >> List: >>> On Jun 12, 2017, at 6:50 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: >>> ERGO present just the THEN part. >>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Gary: > On Jun 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > but as Peirce always said, logic is a positive science while mathematics is > not. Computability is not the core issue, when you define logic pragmatically > as “the science of the laws of the stable establishment of beliefs” (C

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

List: > On Jun 12, 2017, at 8:25 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > After those debates, they came to the conclusion that all three were > equivalent in computational power. In John Sowa’s context, how does one relate such assertions to semiotics in light of 3.468-3.475? Is computation power relevan

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

List: > On Jun 12, 2017, at 6:50 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > ERGO present just the THEN part. from Wikipedia (sorry!) Ergo may refer to: A Latin word meaning "therefore" as in Cogito ergo sum . A Greek word έργο meaning "work", used as a prefix ergo-, for example, in ergonomics

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason

> On Jun 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > The big thing that classification maniacs tend to forget about > types of signs in a sign relational theory of signs is that they > are always interpretive and relative never essential and absolute. The chemical table of elements is based on

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

List: Kirsti’s very solid post is worthy of a very careful read, although I not state the case so forcefully. In general, although I have not studied Sheldrake’s work as closely as she, I have followed it for several decades from the perspective of biochemical dose-response relationships. I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Open questions to the list: The following quote, posted by gnox (Thanks, Gary) appears to be a deep conundrum from several perspectives of 21 st Century logic. > On Jun 9, 2017, at 8:44 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Peirce, CP 3.440 (1896): > [[ I have maintained since 1867 that there is b

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

List, Edwinia If you have watched Sheldrake’s talk, how would you describe his 10 categories? Consider and contrast the meanings of the following terms: dogma doctrine concept idea conjecture axiom postulate theorem argument habit belief judgment conclusion Which is appropriate? Was Sheldrake

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

Kirsti, List: Could you expand your intervention to give some examples of how YOU assign tangible meaning to CP 1.501? Other comments will have to wait, but for one. A Euclidian geometric line has continuity. A Euclidian geometric line is continuous. A Continuum is continuous. Do you agree wit

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Resources of placing CSP's scientific writings in context.

propositions.) > On May 26, 2017, at 1:06 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 5/25/2017 6:36 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> In recent weeks I have found references that give insights into >> the state of the logics of chemistry in the CSP era. > > Could you please copy th

[PEIRCE-L] Resources of placing CSP's scientific writings in context.

List: In recent weeks I have found references that give insights into the state of the logics of chemistry in the CSP era. These references have more depth and hence allow on to speculate how CSP’s works contribute to the advancement of the sciences. Elements of Chemical Physics, J P Cooke (1

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

List: > On May 15, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > In a broad sense, Sir William Rowan Hamilton anticipated Einstein's idea that > space and time can be conceived as parts of a four dimensional continuum. In > fact, he used the algebra of quaternions to articulate a forma

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

List, Charles: > On Apr 30, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Charles Pyle wrote: > > Many years ago linguists chewed over the issue of whether the semantic > analysis of three place predicates can be broken down into a series of two > place predicates and discovered that the two are not semantically or > gr

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

List: > On Apr 29, 2017, at 10:41 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Re mathematical category theory: Many mathematicians believe that > the term 'category theory' was a poor choice. The focus of category > theory is on the mappings or morphisms. The things that are mapped > could be mathematical str

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

the three trichotomies simply in order to puzzle philosophers for the next Century? With each passing month, the posters to this list are adding to a simple proposition: Inquiry into the meanings of CSP’s writings depends on the meanings of symbols. Cheers Jerry > Thanks, > > Jon

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

Jeff, List: > On Apr 26, 2017, at 10:48 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > I wonder why this relation of determination of one being determined after > another seemed to him to be so important. The answer to your question is very very simple, but rather technical for this list. Histori

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

(This post corrects and adds to the previous post) JLRC ) Helmut, List: > On Apr 21, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Helmut Raulien > wrote: > > I am not so sure, if thirdness is about any triadic relation. The categories > in Peirces "new list" of them are quality, relation, repr

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

Helmut, List: > On Apr 21, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > I am not so sure, if thirdness is about any triadic relation. The categories > in Peirces "new list" of them are quality, relation, representation. Maybe > "representation" is a very special kind of triadic relation. A sim

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

ic / engineering discourse, the scientific and engineering symbols infer metrological potentials. In the “CSP-speak” of frequent posters to this list, such metrological considerations are often excluded. IMHO, of course. Cheers Jerry > Thanks, > > Jon S. > > On Wed, Apr 19,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

cally expressed only in the symbol system that the interpreter has a competency. Cheers jerry > > Cheers, > > Kirsti > > Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 19.4.2017 17:33: >> List, Jon: >>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 8:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt >>> wrote:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrot

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

List, Jon: > On Apr 18, 2017, at 8:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > If not, how else can we explain why it must be the case that the Object > determines the Sign, which determines the Intepretant? I am puzzled about why this question is of import to you. Are you rejecting the necessary hy

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed?

List, Edwina > On Apr 13, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Now- what am I missing in this view? I do not understand how your question(s) relate to the concept of identity. Perhaps if you can clearly state the premises and the conclusions of your arguments, I might be able to decip

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed?

List: (This post is rather technical and the contents may be intractably perplex for many readers of this list. One purpose of this post is to crisply separate the fundamental philosophical concept of identity from the mathematical concept of identity. To differentiate CSP view of lines of id

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs and the principle of individuation

List: The following quote deserves rigorous study. It is deeply relevant to three critical aspects of CSP’s philosophy of science: 1. issues that relate realism to idealism 2. issues that relate the physical sciences to the chemical sciences and 3. issues that relate the sciences to the relatio

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 violates the laws >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Jon, Clark, List: > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:40 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > What kind of diagram does the universal "red" specify, or the universal > "lion"? How do we relate a particular instance of redness, or a particular > lion, to such a diagram? > With regard to the “differences t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

List, Clark: > On Mar 26, 2017, at 4:52 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote: > > >> On Mar 26, 2017, at 1:45 PM, Jon Awbrey > > wrote: >> >> So, yes, I would have to say that Peirce was a realist about >> possibilities, and patterns of possibilities, from the start. >> That much is s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Clark, List: Your post touches on several issues which may overlap with some of our previous interventions on the pragmatic differentiation of CSP's scientific philosophy and its relations to modern physical conjectures about the nature of “truth” in its many linguistic descriptors (coherence,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

nd the syntaxes? > So is it ok to say, that Peirce had a belief similar to what later was > called Bayesianism? Thomas Bayes, 1702-1761. > > Cheers jerry > > 17. März 2017 um 16:42 Uhr > "Jerry LR Chandler" wrote: > > John, List > > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Super-Order and the Logic of Continuity (was Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

Jeff: Parallelograms of forces about interacting electrical charges require a spherical mode of description. Correspondingly, an explanation of spherical forces requires categorial illations. Can the diagram be extended to spheres? Cheers Jerry > On Mar 17, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Jeffrey Brian

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

John, List > On Mar 16, 2017, at 1:49 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > But if we use some language with a finite alphabet and limit > the theories to a finite specification, there are at most > a countable number of theories. > > But there are two ways for a theory expressed in discrete signs > to de

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Jon S. I was not aware of this text. Perhaps it is the source of Val's comment. Perhaps he will chime in and reveal his opinion. Cheers Jerry Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > Hi Jon A, Val Daniel, Jon S, John S, List, > > Let me ask a co

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

inkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > List: > > I am a bit puzzled by this suggestion. > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

List: I am a bit puzzled by this suggestion. Concordance? “Order” (inferring numerical order and mathematics? “Index" as a categorization? Are propositions inferred by “concordances”? Or what is the glue that binds the three concepts together? Can anyone expand on this proposal? Cheers Jerr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

;http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > List, Jeff: > > I concur with your elegantly phrased comments. > > When I posted my request, I was hoping that the enumeration wo

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

ment of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > > From: Jon Alan Schmidt > Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 1:06 PM > To: Jerry LR Chandler > Cc: Peirce List > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich > points. >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Eugene Halton wrote: > > In your post you say, “Doing mathematics in a more scientific spirit > requires, it seems, an understanding of the purposes that govern the > activities and the methods that should be employed.” Why? Who cares, as long > as the math is go

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

List: In her book, Charles Peirces’s Pragmatic Pluralism, Rosenthal states: … the literature on Peirce contains “no fewer than thirteen distinct interpretations of Peirce’s views on the nature of truth”, attributing the account to Robert Almeder. She apparently intends contrast CSP’s concept

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

s Professor and Senior Research Associate > Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal > http://web.ncf.ca/collier <http://web.ncf.ca/collier> > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 08 March 2017 6:51 PM > To: Peirce List > Cc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

List, John: I’m rather pressed for time so only brief responses to your highly provocative post. Clearly, your philosophy of mathematics is pretty main stream relative to mine. But this is neither the time nor the place to develop these critical differences. My post was aimed directly at th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

List, John: > On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > I am having a hard time following your thought process here, Yes, you certainly do. And, I can identify several conjectures why this is the case. At the top of the list of conjectures are the modes of explanation of abst

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

toms. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > Jon, List: >> On Mar 2, 2017, at 7:36 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

Ben: > On Mar 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > In the sense that the regulatory principle itself is a continuum, it will not > harbor or have room for Boscovichian points (point masses that can physically > attract and repel), since it is not a physical continuum in the first pl

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

t; Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

List, Ben: Your recent posts contribute to a rather curious insight into CSP’s beliefs about the relationships between mathematics, chemistry and logic of scientific hypotheses. > On Mar 2, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > from MS 647 (1910) which appeared in Sandra B. Rosenthal

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

List, Jon: > On Mar 1, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > I have argued for years that just as science is perceived as an especially > systematic way of knowing, likewise engineering could be conceived as an > especially systematic way of willing; and if this is really the case, th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Logic of Mathematics: missing pages - in Relation to Perplex Number System

List, Jeff, Jon, Ben, Clark: Jeff’s questions are well-posed. It seems to me that the logic of the questions, from a physical-chemical perspective of the 21 st Century, is rather straight forward. Without going into any detail, this question is closely related to the reasons that I have devoted

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - ???

osition > of aspects and their relations, present in the consciousness all at the same > time. > Best, > Helmut > > > 22. Februar 2017 um 21:40 Uhr > "Jerry LR Chandler" > > > John, List: > > On Feb 16, 2017, at 7:17 AM, John Collier &l

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - ???

John, List: > On Feb 16, 2017, at 7:17 AM, John Collier wrote: > > From talking with colleagues, some say they think only in words and others, > like me, say they think mostly in diagrams or in physical feelings that I > attach no words to (and probably couldn’t in many cases). Although I am

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Cyclical Systems and Continuity

List: >From the perspective of modern chemistry, why would CSP even DREAM of a >possible relation (illation?) between continuity and the atomic weight of >oxygen? 4.372 - 4.377 appear to be both relevant and in deep tension with this comparison. See in particular, the role of illative transfor

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" from AI perspective

are exceptional; and those which are > possessed by one person alone-these last are more readily remembered than > others.” ~Aristotle, Rhetoric > > > “But I seem to myself to be the sole depository at present of the completely > developed system, which all hangs together and cannot

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" from AI perspective

Steven, List : > On Feb 10, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > Which makes it more imperative than ever that a way be found to make the > triadic mode more understandable and to say why it is infinitely superior to > binary thinking. Without it we perish. This is NOT an academic matt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

John: > On Feb 11, 2017, at 1:06 PM, John Collier wrote: > > In any case, the recent attempts on this list to try to tie empiricism to the > use of the word are pretty poor examples of scholarship. > This is even more surprising! What is it about the concept of a “word” that bothers you so

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" from AI perspective

List, Mike: Your essay is framed in the context of “AI” (computations), a very wide framework indeed! Nothing is excluded from AI is it? I will be only slightly more focal in responding to your call for comments. You write in your article: "Concepts attempt to embody ideas, and while it is use

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

for the historical emergence of the term in philosophy.I'm sure > someone can answer that. > > Edwina > - Original Message - > From: Jerry LR Chandler > To: Edwina Taborsky > Cc: John Collier ; Peirce-L > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 12:26 PM > Subject

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

results in many eras in our world > history, including modern times. > > Peirce dealt with this with his focus on the freedom of Firstness and his > view that the rules [Thirdness] evolve and adapt. This would enable a society > to have a rule of law, with local variations - so

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - “The union of units unifies the unity”

John, List: > On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:05 AM, John Collier wrote: > > 5. The assertion "Empiricists typically claim that we don't need anything > more to do science.” appears rather problematic to me. > > I don’t see this, Jerry. A typical example of a contemporary empiricist who > argues spec

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

John, List: > On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:05 AM, John Collier wrote: > > 2. Now, for the most important comment. It is almost certain that CSP’s > notion of abduction as a method to generate a possibility space came directly > from the concept of proof of structure. It follows from his notion

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

Ben, List: > On Feb 2, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > It contains (in terms of the three-trichotomy system, and borrowing the > italicized terms from Liszka): > 1. the second division from the _presentative_ trichotomy (sign's relation to > itself), > 2. the second division fro

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

ot;sinsign, index and dicisign" presents a >> trichotomy of signs. Not a triad, but a tree-part division, a >> classification, if you wish. >> >> All triads and triadicity involve mediation. Triadicity also involves >> meaning, not just signs. >> >> K

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

things. Realists have to add something in order to > make their claims. Empiricists typically claim that we don't need anything > more to do science. > > So, logically the consistency of realism entails the consistency of > nominalism. > > > Get Outlook for Android

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between

List: > On Jan 17, 2017, at 5:32 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > But extending the dualism, even dichotomy of "ontology" and "epistemology" to > Aristotle is not just a (big) bone, but a grave misrepresentation. > > This distinction is a modern one. - Still going strong, in spite of all

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs Realism

Edwinia: Your horrendous mis-representation of the meaning of my sentence kills all desire to explore this issue. Cheers Jerry > On Jan 29, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Jerry Chandler - calm down. You are evading the issue, which is, that you > claimed that 'many, if no

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

> On Jan 29, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Jerry - my, I didn't know that you consider all biosemioticians to be > nominalists. Edwinia: Neither did I! Edwinia, this is just plain sloppy usage of language. I wrote: "Nevertheless, it appears to me, that many, if not most, b

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

Eric: > On Jan 28, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > In my view of sytems theory, a system is more than it´s parts, of course, and > what is more, is real and natural. But in my opinion "natural" does not mean > "good for us". A sytem that contains other systems, Beyond statistics

Re: [PEIRCE-L] nominalism

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Keep in mind that for Peirce, "habit" is a much broader term than how we > typically use it in ordinary conversation. This is an important observation. In mathematical /systems science terminology of the 21 st Century, CSP usage of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

f it > will not be the same thing, because there is always us, the ones experiencing > the smoke, either as individuals or as a community, that are also always > involved in the experience. So the smoke remains part of the experience, not > the whole of it; while whether we consider the smoke as experienced in part, &g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > Li

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

List: > On Jan 23, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone > else's, or from the "generic meaning"? In more than 20 years of posting to List serves, this is among the most surprising responses I have ever rece

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Then pure indeterminacy having developed determinate > possibilities, creation consisted in mediating between the lawless reactions > and the general possibilities by the influx of a symbol." > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jerry LR Chan

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon: > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely > nothing; In view of the scope of your literality, what is the meaning of this sentence to you, pragmatically? philosophically? theologically?

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

John, List: > On Jan 17, 2017, at 8:38 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Yes, but mathematicians never assume that any terms have universally > accepted definitions. They never say "set theory" by itself. > Even the qualifications ZF or VNBG in front of "set theory" are > not sufficient. In any publi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Hi John: Your points about the instability of words and logical terms are well taken, and, I believe, well-recognized by those inquirers who are culturally competent in the history of language development. And, yes, similar principles hold for mathematics, although the “wavelength" is a tad l

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

List, Jerry R.,: I am curious about the origin of the quotes: > ‘almost every proposition of ontological metaphysics is meaningless > gibberish’ > ‘made up of words that define each other with no conception being reached.’ > Or else, claimed Peirce, > ‘the conception that is reached is absu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Clark Goble >> <mailto:cl...@lextek.com>>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Clark Goble >> <mailto:cl...@lextek.com>>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Jerry LR Chandler >> mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> >> One critical fact that is “the elephant in the room” is the intrinsic >> asymmetry of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

List, Ben, John: > On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > Clark, list, > Yes, the question of measuring sub-Planckian phenomena involves more nuances … > > So quantum gravity theories are not 100% untestable in current practice. > I do not understand the pre-suppositions of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

se conjectures of physicists, which appear and disappears with alarming regularity, I choose to reserve judgment about the limits of measurements. Cheers Jerry > On 12/11/2016 6:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > >> Ben: >> >> The foundation of electrical field theory

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >