RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7097] Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6

2014-10-05 Thread Gary Fuhrman
...@roadrunner.com] Sent: 5-Oct-14 3:53 PM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce List' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7097] Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6 At 01:15 PM 10/5/2014, Gary Fuhrman wrote: Nobody (least of all Peirce!) is naming bits symbols or legisigns. Bits (as the name implies

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7097] Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6

2014-10-05 Thread Howard Pattee
Gary F, I was responding to your statement: Bits (as the name implies!) can only be small pieces of symbols in the semiotic sense of the word symbol; they are not symbols. Of course, a bit is not a symbol or a piece of symbol. It is a measure of information. I was trying to indicate that