Ben, Gary, List,
As I said in my last note, this thread has wasted everybody's time for no
useful purpose.
The real expert on this topic is Tony Jappy, who has devoted years of research
and publications to this topic. As I said in the first notes, Tony is the
expert on this topic.. But he
Jon, List,
On that point, we are in complete agreement:
JFS: The word 'instance' is an OPTIONAL term that may be added to almost any
noun in the English language.
JAS: In general, this is true; but Peirce clearly and repeatedly states that it
is important (if not mandatory) to recognize and
I just came across an announcement of this laboratory at the University of
Illinois. https://institutephenom.web.illinois.edu/people/
Note that they mention Heidegger and Husserl, but not Peirce.
These are the kind of people we need to educate. Fine points about Peirce's
MSS are important for
d
several passages in this post alone, as well as in my previous posts, that I
believe are better in the sense that they are clearer.
JFS: My primary concern is that you and Jon have made claims abut Peirce
without showing any justification.
Anyone who alleges that we have offered no justification
Jon, Gary, List,
Please reread the paragraph below by Peirce from L376 (December 1911). The
example he uses is 'existential graph'. He uses exactly the same word with no
change whatsoever for the abstract "might be'' (the formal pattern of spots,
lines, and ovals) and the visible graph as it
Jon, List,
In the concluding note of the thread on (Mark Token Type}, I quoted Peirce's
explanation why the word that names an abstract 'might be' should have exactly
the same spelling as the word that names the actual thing. See below for a
copy of my previous note, which includes a copy of
Helmut, Jon, List,
That is the reason why the word 'Mark' is the perfect choice: you won't be
wrong whether or not you know the details of Peirce's semeiotic.
HR: I haven´t thoroughly followed the discussion about "mark", because I felt,
that in this case the academic meaning (possibly a
Edwina, Jon, List,
Edwina is emphasizing points I have also been trying to get across.
ET: I think JAS and I, at least, are discussing two different issues. No-one
is arguing against the use of specific terminology, accepted by all, in
particular, in the scientific disciplines.
JFS: The
Edwina, Gary, Robert, List,
I'm sure that we're all familiar with Peirce's note about the ethics of
terminology. But it's not clear whether its influence was good, bad, or
indifferent. The position he recommended was the Linnaean conventions for
naming biological species. But very few
ave also stated more than once, no one can accurately claim
that it was Peirce's final and definitive choice.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Apr
Robert, Jon, List,
Thanks for the note. There is nothing controversial about it, and I agree with
Jon's comments.
But I would note that Peirce's later shift to semes, phemes, and delomes
enabled him to simplify, some of the issues, and generalize others. For
example, the idea of hypoicons
Gary, Jon, List,
My note crossed in the mail with Gary's. I responded to the previous notes by
Jon and Gary (q.v.).
My conclusion: As words, there is no logical difference between the words
'mark' and 'tone' as a term for a possible mark. In fact, any word pulled out
of thin air could be
Jon, Gary, List,
First, let me dismiss a false claim: "appeal to authority is a logical
fallacy".
Whenever Jon, Gary, or anyone else quotes an entry in a dictionary or an
encyclopedia, they are making an appeal to authority. The requirement to cite
references in an academic publication
Gary, Jon, List
To develop a complete and consistent set of terminology, some decisions have to
be made. I have stated the reasons why I believe that the trichotomy
(potisign, actisighn, famisign) is based on Peirce's best and most detailed
reasoning. I also agree with him that (mark token
Dima,
Yes, they were in the same field as George Miller (psychology). But they also
hung out with enough neuroscientists that some of the blood and guts rubbed off
on them. Right now, the major research on the topic depends on neuroscience.
That is one among many reasons why I prefer to use
have brains -- as do "higher" orders of
invertebrates.
-- doug f
> On Wed, April 10, 2024 18:38, John F Sowa wrote:
> Doug,
>
> The central executive was proposed by the neuroscientists Baddeley &
> Hitch, not by AI researchers. There is nothing "machine-like"
anything
called AGI.
John
From: "doug foxvog"
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The central executive
On Wed, April 10, 2024 14:07, John F Sowa wrote:
> In today's ZOOM meeting, I objected to the term 'neuro-symbolic hybrid' of
> artificial
rlet or
crimson is also red. However, the term "red" is obviously not a tone/potisign,
it is always a token/actisign of a type/famisign. On the other hand, the color
red--as well as a specific shade like scarlet or crimson--can be a
tone/potisign when and where it serves as "an indefinite
g of abduction
as a kind of activity that you could be better or worse at.
Warm regards,
Michael J.J. Tiffany
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 11:58 AM John F Sowa wrote:
Following is an offline note endorsing my note that endorses Jerry's note
about the upcoming talk o
.347, EP 2:483, 1908 Dec 24).
In short, a tone/mark is a possible sign, distinguished from a token as an
existent sign and a type as a necessitant sign. Again, none of this is at all
controversial among Peirce scholars.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechi
r--a qualisign
cannot also be a replica (sinsign) of some legisign. Instead, a qualisign must
be embodied in a sinsign, and likewise, a mark/tone must be embodied in a token.
Regards,
Jon
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 4:55 PM John F Sowa wrote:
On this issue, the evidence for the trichotomy (Mark
ical or purely conjectural, of course. But your admonition
to relate Peirce to our 21st century world nudged me into sharing the idea.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 5:53 PM
To: Jerry LR Chandler ; Peirce List
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Zoom lec
Jerry,
Thanks for that note. The following sentence shows why we need to relate
Peirce's writings to the latest and greatest work that is being done today:
>From the abstract: "C.S. Peirce, however, is not generally considered a
>canonical figure in the history of philosophy of science."
I
Jon, Edwina, List,
Please note the subject line. The 1903 Harvard and Lowell lectures were an
important starting point for the major developments in Peirce's final decade.
And note Tony's word 'evolving' for the developments during that decade. In
any decision about Peirce's directions and
Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:14 PM John F Sowa wrote:
Jon,
I forgot to thank you for including the link to Peirce's definition of 'mark':
Peirce presents in his entry for it in Baldwin's Dictionar
Edwina, Jon, List,
The following observation is a good starting point for analyzing the
development iof Peirce's thought and writing from 1903 to 1908 and later:
ET: I note that JAS seems to refer to his examination of the hexadic semiosic
process as within the linguistic realm. If this
Jon,
I have read your comments, and I have read several articles by Tony Jappy that
explain these issues in far greater depth and generality. I strongly urge you
to study his writings.
John
From: "Jon Alan Schmidt"
Sent: 4/4/24 12:39 PM
To: Peirce-L
Jon,
I forgot to thank you for including the link to Peirce's definition of 'mark':
Peirce presents in his entry for it in Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and
Psychology (https://gnusystems.ca/BaldwinPeirce.htm#Mark)
Yes indeed. That definition shows that two things that have the same
necessity.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 2:46 PM John F Sowa wrote:
To provide some background and alternative interpretat
raphs".
I know enough chemistry to understand an answer, but not enough to know what
chemical structure could represent metalanguage. I would guess that it might
be some organic pattern, perhaps with nitrogen, or maybe a metal.
John
----
From: "John
Jerry,
As you know very well, there is a huge difference in the various kinds of
chemical bonds.In a combination of a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase
(VP). The NP is analogous to a sodium ion Na with a negative charge, and the
VP is analogous to a sulfate ion (SO4) with a positive
on why Delta graphs are a
completely new branch of EGs.
Again, Peirce's only stated reason for needing "to add a Delta part" to EGs is
"in order to deal with modals"--not for metalanguage, and not for complex
investigations.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Str
Jerry, Jon, List,
JLRC: If the critical concept that is under scrutiny here the issue of “graphs
of graphs” , how is this related to the arithmetical notion of division?
I agree with Jon's explanation below that Peirce did not use the word
"division" to mean the numerical operation of
on Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 4:37 PM John F Sowa wrote:
I just wanted to clarify some issues that may be unclear in what Peirce wrote
i
I just wanted to clarify some issues that may be unclear in what Peirce wrote
in L376: "in the Monist of Oct. 1906... I made an attempt to make the syntax
cover Modals; but it has not satisfied me. The description was, on the whole,
as bad as it well could be, in great contrast to the one Dr.
to reason about the nature of things remains. That is a conversation I
welcome, and may initiate at some point myself.
If the protagonists want to keep slugging it out, I say, OK, go for it. But the
fight from my perspective is growing tiresome.
Best, Mike
On 3/19/2024 9:04 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
To refresh my memory, I reread Peirce's Lowell Lectures about Gamma graphs.
And the following passage from Lecture V (NEM 3, p. 365) explains what he meant
in L376 when he said that he would keep the Gamma division:
"I must begin by a few words concerning gamma graphs; because it is by means
Jerry, Jon, List,
The attached file contains the abstract and outline of the article I'm writing
and a complete copy of L376.
JLRC: The question is, what aspects of “21st C developments” are you referring
to?
Except for a few experimental projects, all computer programs and systems that
do
disagree on whether it has anything to do with Delta EGs.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 2:06 PM John F Sowa wrote:
Jon, List,
Jon, List,
Since your article has just been accepted for publication, you probably still
have time to make a few corrections. Following are some suggestions.
JAS: Indeed, given that Peirce already had a notation for metalanguage in his
1903 Gamma EGs--in fact, five years earlier--how could
ww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 4:51 PM John F Sowa wrote:
Jon,
In both graphs in your note below, the thin line may be read as "that"'
A thinks THAT C is a good girl.
A is claiming THAT A is thinking THAT C is a good girl.
Both
Jerry, Jon, List,
Peirce never used the term "graphic object". In his classification of the
sciences, pure mathematics does not depend on anything else. Phaneroscopy is
free to use any imaginable mathematical patterns to analyze, classify, and
interpret anything in the phaneron, no matter
Jon,
In both graphs in your note below, the thin line may be read as "that"'
A thinks THAT C is a good girl.
A is claiming THAT A is thinking THAT C is a good girl.
Both of those sentences and both of those EGs can be translated to and from the
IKL logic of 2006, which uses the symbol "that"
1903 modal logic for any
of that.
Once again, Peirce's logic is at the forefront of 21st C developments.
John
From: "Gary Richmond"
Sent: 3/12/24 8:48 PM
To: John F Sowa
Cc: Peirce-L , Jon Alan Schmidt
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce
Jeff, List,
Those are important questions:
JBD: How important is it to consider the things Peirce is reading for the sake
of understanding what he says? Let me start with a simple point. Can we
understand what Peirce is explicitly saying about another author's views
without reading the
position, but there is
no hint of anything like it in R L376 (nor R 514).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:56 PM John F Sowa wrote:
end in the next few days.
John
In that case, I believe that the thin line implies that the proposition in the
oval is a THING that is the subject of the verb phrase "is much to be wished."
From: "John F Sowa"
Sent: 3/9/24 1:02 PM
In my previous note, I forgot to include a link to the updated (March 8} slides
for my talk on March 6. Here is the URL:
https://ontologforum.s3.amazonaws.com/OntologySummit2024/TrackA/LLMs-are-clueless--JohnSowa_20240228.pdf
.
I also received an offline note about a linguistic theory that
Jeff, Jon, List,
In his 1885 Algebra of Logic, Peirce presented the modern versions of both
first-order and second-order predicate logic. The only difference between his
notation and the modern versions is the choice of symbols. Since Peano wanted
to make his logic publishable by ordinary
Peirce's Delta graphs and the IKL logic have very similar goals. That's why
they are so closely related. I'll mention that in my article on Delta graphs.
John
From: "Gary Richmond"
Sent: 3/5/24 8:44 PM
To: John F Sowa
Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt
Jon,
The first point to emphasize is that Peirce's primary goal in the last decade
of his life was to provide a proof of pragmatism. That would require a system
of logic that could express and analyze rather sophisticated texts about
science. The metalanguage of the IKL logic in 2006 is very
Jon,
One reason why I did not respond in detail to your previous note (copied
below) is that your citations to the writings by Dunn and Goble only apply to
PROPOSITIONAL modal logic (no quantifiers). Every version of modal logic that
Peirce developed included existential graphs as the base
Jon, List,
I don't have time to respond right now. But there are two points that are
true for every version of modal logic from Aristotle to the Scholastics to
Peirce and to the latest and greatest versions of today:
1. For every version of modal logic, there is some reason WHY certain
Jon,
There are several points that must be considered. The first is that all modern
versions of modal logic after C. I. Lewis (including those based on post-1970
methods) are consistent with or variations of one or more of the versions
specified by Lewis). That includes the versions of modal
e postulates.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 6:15 PM John F Sowa wrote:
John,
Some observations: For any theory of any kind
John,
Some observations: For any theory of any kind with any logic of any kind,
axioms are always stated in an if-then form. The if-part (shaded) states the
condition, and the then part states the conclusion. Even definitions are
stated as if-then statements in EGs. For example:
"If x=y
ave the
preceding pages that presumably provide more details.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 10:05 PM John F Sowa wrote:
Jon,
I a
Jon,
I admit that I was looking at the printed book, Reasoning and the logic of
things. In that book, the transcription shows a clearly drawn line that
connects the oval to the word 'is'. That is an excellent notation. I admit
that the MS copies below are ambiguous. But the two sentences
improvement in R 514 and the "many papers" concept in R L376.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 6:12 PM John F Sowa wrot
Jon, List,
Please note the phrase "a special understanding between utterer and
interpreter" in the excerpt below. And note that different "papers" of the
phemic sheet may have different special understandings. Although Peirce did
not coin the term 'metalanguage', that is the word that has
Jon, Jerry, List,
My previous notes cited many references, and I doubt that people will read them
all (any?).
But I presented some slides at a conference on Knowledge Graphs in May of 2020
(via Zoom because of covid), which I extended in July for a keynote talk at the
European Semantic Web
ecessary"? If so, then that seems much more cumbersome--much less
iconic--than my candidate for Delta EGs. Instead of formulating new graphical
transformation rules, would you just stipulate the usual modal axioms--for
example, "necessary" may always be changed to "possible&quo
I prefer to stick to his writings as we have
them, and as far as I know, he never says anything in them to suggest that he
was "laying out a diagram of papers" for a new version of EGs when it happened.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist
quot; for a new version of EGs, then he likely
would have said so somewhere.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 9:18 PM John
formal systems of modal logic with
EGs? Which specific one, "invented in 2006," do you have in mind?
Regards,
Jon
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:30 PM John F Sowa wrote:
Jon,
That's true:
JAS> I am admittedly curious about the content of your new article. As you
know, there is only one
Jon,
That's true:
JAS> I am admittedly curious about the content of your new article. As you
know, there is only one place in Peirce's entire vast corpus of writings where
he mentions Delta.
But note the following excerpt from R514, which also contains a rough draft of
the EGs in L231:
Jon, Edwina, List,
Peirce's writings and Jon's article about "temporal synechism" do not conflict
with the following sentence:
JFS: In any case, there is no conflict between Peirce's categories and
different theories about time.
There is a major difference between Newtonian time, time in
its
mediative process?….But, a habit in 3ns can and does change…
Edwina
On Feb 13, 2024, at 4:40 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
Jon,
Peirce's observations about the human perception of time as a continuum is
important. But there are many different ways of talking and thinking about
time. And there a
s, as well as the dialogic nature of human
semiosis. Consequently, it is better to stick with Peirce's own paradigmatic
conceptions for distinguishing 1ns/2ns/3ns as discovered in phaneroscopy,
namely, quality/reaction/mediation.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Enginee
ion
for all ten trichotomies in sign classification, but I think that he would have
been delighted if Lady Welby or some other correspondent had suggested my
solution"? (For the record, I would never actually say such a thing--we should
not ascribe sentiments to him without exact quotations, any mor
and his later, more concrete phaneroscopy.
There is more to say about these issues. In particular, the emphasis on the
explanatory role of C is critical for analyzing Peirce's writings in his last
decade.
John
From: "John F Sowa"
Helmu
Helmut,
Thanks for mentioning the word 'because'. That's another way to explain the
3-way connection that answers a why-question, In general, every instance of
thirdness that relates (A B C) can be explained by a sentence of the form "A is
related to B because C."But some linguistic
ructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:29 PM John F Sowa wrote:
Jon,
Your comments confirm the fact that every example of Thirdness can be explained
as the answer to a question that begins with w
Robert Marty
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
https://martyrobert.academia.edu/
Le sam. 10 févr. 2024 à 22:45, John F Sowa a écrit :
Gary R, Robert M, Jon AS, Edwina, List,
Thanks, Gary, for explaining our points of agreement. As you emp
quot;Why?"
John
From: "Edwina Taborsky"
John, list
I think it would help if you defined ‘intentionality’. Is it involved in all
human actions? Did the bus driver intentionally run over the pedestrian?
Edwina
On Feb 13, 2024, at 3:26
Jon,
I completely agree with the following principle:
JA> Another aspect of a sign's complete meaning concerns the reference a sign
has to its interpretants...
And there are six kinds of reference that a sign my have to its interpretants.
Each kind corresponds to one of the six basic
Jon,
Peirce's observations about the human perception of time as a continuum is
important. But there are many different ways of talking and thinking about
time. And there are also many different mathematical ways of formulating
theories. See my previous note in response to Edwina.
For
Edwina,
Please see my response to Mike.
I used the word 'intentionality' because it (or something like it) is involved
in all human actions. For example, I can intentionally walk to the store. But
what about each step in the walk? In effect, it is intentional, but it's only
conscious when
diagram it out.
And don't forget crystals (and atoms).
Best, Mike
On 2/12/2024 3:59 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
Mike,
In every example and application that Peirce wrote or cited, Thirdness involves
intentionality. But intentionality is not an anthropomorphic notion, it is
biomorphic in the most fun
Mike,
In every example and application that Peirce wrote or cited, Thirdness involves
intentionality. But intentionality is not an anthropomorphic notion, it is
biomorphic in the most fundamental sense.
Lynn Margulis wrote that a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose gradient is
a
As we know, Peirce's writings have inspired many new theories and discoveries
for well over a century. But we must always distinguish his exact words from
anybody else's interpretations and extensions.
For interpretants, I believe that an article Jay Zeman wrote in 1977 is still
one of the
Edwina, Gary, Jon, List,
As Peirce frequently pointed out, he had a solid understanding of all the
methods of reasoning from the ancient Greeks to the medieval Scholastics to the
methods from the Renaissance to the early 20th C.
In general, the "proper way" depends very much on the theorem
Gary R, Robert M, Jon AS, Edwina, List,
Thanks, Gary, for explaining our points of agreement. As you emphasize in bold
face, we all agree with Nathan Houser and with Short that Peirce’s later
taxonomy “is sketchy, tentative, and, as best I can make out, incoherent”
(Short 2007, p. 260). But
Edwina, List,
I am not denying the fact that interpretants, as defined by Peirce, exist, and
I am not denying that Peirce's 3-way distinction is good.
But you said that you had not studied the kinds of details that the linguists
observe and specify.
My claim is that any theory that does not
Edwina, List,
As a logician and mathematician, Peirce understood the methods of precise
reasoning in lengthy deductions. But as a linguist and engineer, he also
understood the issues of continuity or synechism.
In ordinary language, every word has a broad range of meanings. The senses
Edwina,
I was just copying what Short said. If you don't have it, I'll send you the
PDF of his entire book.
All Peirce scholars agree that Peirce had settled on three kinds of
interpretants. I don't deny that. But there is no information about how
anybody can determine how the utterer can
Michael, Jon, Edwina, Gary, List,
First, I apologize to everybody about my use of "RIP" about anything Peirce
wrote. I agree with Edwina that the three-way distinction is important, but I
must emphasize that the amount of research in the cognitive sciences during the
past century is immense.
which they see potential value in pursuing. To suggest otherwise is to "block
the way of inquiry."
Best,
Gary Richmond
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 4:30 PM John F Sowa wrote:
Edwina, Jon AS, Jon A, Helmut, List,
Peirce made immense contributions to 21st century research in all the branches
of
Peirce's theory of interpretants helped discover
that insight?
John
From: "Edwina Taborsky"
Sent: 2/2/24 5:01 PM
To: John F Sowa
Cc: Peirce List , CG
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants
John, list
I wouldn’t say that the Interpretants are
how I see it.
Edwina
On Jan 31, 2024, at 6:37 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
I rarely comment on discussions of interpretants, because nobody, not even
Peirce, had a complete, coherent, and decisive theory of interpretants.
Perhaps some Peirce scholars have developed theories that go beyond what Pei
I rarely comment on discussions of interpretants, because nobody, not even
Peirce, had a complete, coherent, and decisive theory of interpretants.
Perhaps some Peirce scholars have developed theories that go beyond what Peirce
wrote. That is possible, but nobody can claim that their theories
Edwina, Helmut, List,
Since the issue about Peirce's three universes was mentioned in your notes, I'm
including an excerpt that I had intended to include in the article I just
finished. (See below)
Although it's relevant to the content of that article, it raises too many
questions that would
Jon, Helmut, List,
I don't disagree with your analysis. But what it shows is that abstract
analysis provides zero information about any particular case.
Peirce revolutionized the field of logic, he made major contributions to
methods of reasoning, to methods of analysis and to methods of
Helmut,
That is certainly true: "I find it a bit problematic to say, that the sign
determines the interpretant, because the sign doesn´t infer, it is the
interpreter, who does the inference."
In fact, Peirce said many times in many ways that signs grow. The
interpretation of any mark (sign
Jon, Jerry, List,
Peirce was a pioneer in analysis and experiments in psychology, and William
James said that he learned more from Peirce than he could ever repay. But
it's important to recognize that over a century of research has been done in
the field -- some by students of Peirce and
Cécile, Edwina, Jon, List,
James Liszka made an important observation about Peirce's classification of
signs: “the theory is more complex than the phenomenon it hopes to explain."
Since Peirce himself was constantly rewriting and revising the details, we
can't be sure what he would have
Edwina, Jerry, Helmut, List,
Peirce's writings are always worth analyzing, but there has been over a century
of research in the cognitive sciences, especially neuroscience. Peirce was
familiar with the research of his day.. William James, who was a professional
in that field, acknowledged
to what
extent is Schelling to be positioned unproblematically in a genealogy of ‘the
romantic symbol’ and to what extent does his theory in fact react against such
an interpretation of the symbol?
On Jan 11, 2024, at 6:16 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
Jon, Jerry, List,
We had discussed this issue many t
Jon, Jerry, List,
We had discussed this issue many times before. R 669 was an attempt by Peirce
to relate all the versions of EGs he had written, published, and toyed with.
The result (R 669) was a hodge-podge that had many ad hoc constructions that
Peirce was unable to justify by any
Jerry, Jon, List,
There is no single theory by Peirce that can explain everything. For any
particular quotation, it's important to study the context to determine which
theory (or theories) Peirce was using when he wrote that paragraph.
JLRC> We seem to be on different wavelengths... It seems
1 - 100 of 952 matches
Mail list logo
