Jerry C., List:
JLRC: ... I suggest that you may be misreading the meaning of the sentence
that you cited.
That is why I asked for clarification. Unfortunately, I remain puzzled.
JLRC: ... *all three terms* are composed terms coined by CSP for his
specific usage as the base for semiosis.
List, Jon:
In response to your post of August 4, 2021(copied below) I suggest that you may
be misreading the meaning of the sentence that you cited.
In particular, the three terms are not general linguistic propositional terms
derived from historical Greek or Latin roots, but all three terms
Jon:
The sentence you cite is merely the top row of CSP table of the trichotomy.
If you wish to play word games, count me out.
Cheers
Jerry
> On Aug 4, 2021, at 10:31 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> Jerry C., List:
>
> JLRC: CSP assertion of Quali-sign —> Sinsign —> Legi-sign forms the
Jerry C., List:
No word games, just a simple request and a sincere question as I try to
understand your claim as quoted. I am well aware of
qualisign/sinsign/legisign as Peirce's 1903 division of all signs according
to the nature of the sign itself, which he later changes to
tone/token/type. I am
Helmut:
As a footnote to the exceedingly curious developments of scientific
terminologies, I would note that:
1. Robert Rosen denied the role of chemical emergence in his category-theory
based book, Life Itself.
2. The Scandia school of Biosemiotics adopts the evolutionary theory while
List, Helmut,
> On Aug 3, 2021, at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
> "Emergence" for me seems to be a not yet logically fully explained
> phenomenon. My temporal assumption (not belief, in which I don´t believe) is,
> that it is individuation and downscaling.
You may wish to consider the
Edwina,
I agree with you. The question of how life emerged is
important, and it's important to explore all the possible ways in which it
might have emerged on earth and on other planets or moons in the solar
system, galaxy, or universe.
I also implied that Peirce would have
approved of the
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
No-one is denying that 'emergence' is only the beginning of a
complex study. But, as with any situation in the phaneron, what we
observe is, so to speak', 'what we observe' - and we have to
Edwina> All [the word emergence] means in my reference is 'coming
into being'; i.e., becoming
a morphology, a form, whether in the mode of being of
1ns,2ns,3ns.
Yes. That is all it means. Jon A called it a 'weasel
word' as a sign of deprecation because it names a phenomenon without
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, Helmut, Jon, list
I must admit that I'm baffled over the various comments about the
use of the term 'emergence'.
I am obviously missing some nuance of meaning!
All it means in my reference
Helmut> "Emergence" for me seems to be a not yet
logically fully explained phenomenon.
That's true. There are
various hypotheses, but none of them are sufficient to explain the
result. That is typical for most unsolved problems.
In short, the
word emergence is a placeholder to be replaced
Edwina, Helmut, Jon A, List,
The term 'weasel word' for emergence
has negative connotations. I wouldn't suggest the negativity, but I admit
that it hides a wide range of interpretants that deserve to be analyzed in
more detail.
I agree that the early stages of interpretation are so
rapid
Helmet, list - I’m not sure of your point. What’s problematic about saying
that emergence is a fact of reality; ie it’s not a part of logic but of
empirical observation.
Now, to move on from this empirical observation of WHAT is observed to a
hypothesis of WHY this is occurring is a
Helmut - how is the term of 'emergence' used to explain something
else? What is this 'something else' that is being explained? And are
you saying that 'emergence' is a 'not fully explained phenomenon'?
The abductive reality is: that a novel form of life 'emerges' as a
discrete
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon
I think we are not talking about the same thing.
Icons, indexes and symbols are, in my view, terms used to define the
nature of the morphological relations within the semiosic triad;
specifically in
Edwina,
It is what one calls a "weasel word".
People who invoke "emergence" almost
always say they know what the basics
are ... and then a miracle occurs ...
or some threshold is crossed ... and
then higher order somewhats or other
"emerge" from the lower order stuffs.
In regard to signs,
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon - could you explain? I don't see any reductionism when one uses
the term 'emergence'.
You are perhaps associating the term with a mechanical process where
a,b,c,d mix up and might produce a large A.
Hi Edwina,
I find talk of “emergence” is almost invariably a kind of backhanded
reductionism.
Cheers,
Jon
On 8/2/2021 11:55 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Here's an interesting abstract of a forthcoming article in
BioSystems journal [coming in October].
Scroll down for the
18 matches
Mail list logo
