[PEIRCE-L] Surprise and other affective states

I've been thinking a good deal about the problem of quantifying affect in such a way as to have something from which to abduct. Surprise, delight, awe, even disappointment can all lead to an Abductive inference. A computer program like Watson can produce plausibilities to explain or diagnose, but

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Phyllis, List I'm not in the least attacking Gary R personally! I'm debating his argument - with which I disagree. That's a huge difference. Surely we, on this list, can debate an issue without also

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Ben, list: I think that's from Aquinas' Five Arguments for the Existence of God: Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, the Absolute Being and the Grand Designer. These are essentially ' a posteriori', in that they are conclusions based on observations of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, I don't like conflict but feel I must say that Gary is right about Neglected Argument. I feel upset because it seems like you are attacking him. Phyllis On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 6:31 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Gary R, List > > My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Phyllis, List, Don't worry about me; I can take care of myself. It seems to me that Edwina much prefers what she calls 'debate' to 'discussion' -- one side wins the debate and the other loses, and I always know what side of the 'debate' I'll be on. I try to be reasonable, ask, for recent

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

I thought this was a discussion list, not debate. I am very uncomfortable with argumentation. I am not willing to be a party to that behavior. On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 7:08 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Phyllis, List > > I'm not in the least attacking Gary R personally! I'm debating his > argument -

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List, ET: A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is the lack of a clear definition of that term. As has been noted in this forum many times, Peirce thought that to refer to the "existence" of God, that ia to speak as if God were but a thing among other things, was

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, list, Edwina wrote, Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Surprise and other affective states

I guess I was thinking about this too narrowly. I am thinking in terms of abduction in formal logic. I agree that this is seen in the natural world. On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 3:58 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Phyllis, list > > I think that's a very interesting question. My interest would be on >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Surprise and other affective states

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Phyllis, list I think that's a very interesting question. My interest would be on abductive processes - which are novel adaptations - that are found in the biological realm. That is, there is no 'human mind'

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List, ET: I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment refers to 'reality' GR: Since it is well known that Peirce clearly distinguishes between 'existence' and 'reality', one would think that especially in a discussion concerning the putative reality (of God that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, List Now - you are reducing the meaning of 'debate' to one that is the opposite of 'discussion'. I don't use these terms the same way that you do. [And I do know others on this list who have a deep need

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Helmut, List: According to Peirce, within the specific context of retroduction, a conjecture or hypothesis is *plausible *whenever an inquirer is led to regard it with favor; and "this acceptance ranges, in different cases,--and reasonably so,--from a mere expression of it in the interrogative

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Phyllis, List, PC: As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or hell. GR: I think this is basically correct, although he does speak of a simple, natural belief open to the humblest man or woman; he hasn't much good to say about most theologians, however, as it is they

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

JS : although the historical order of inquiry is abduction/retroduction followed by deduction and then induction, there is a sense in which its logical order is induction followed by abduction/retroduction. Yes. Especially since surprise is a qualitative induction.. On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 9:48 AM

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, List I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment refers to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term of 'existence' to refer to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!!

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or hell. His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior. On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 3:50 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Ben, list: > > I think that's from Aquinas' Five Arguments for the Existence of God: > Unmoved Mover,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

By human behavior I mean that Peirce applied the pragmatic maxim to the meaning of God. He also used St. John's synonym God is love. So you can substitute the term, love, for God and shape behavior accordingly. I'd keep this love term in mind if you read the additiment, which I recommend. It is a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, List My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses the point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Phyllis, list Yes - I agree; Peirce wasn't focused on the sociological aspect of 'god', but the term, as used among human behaviour, IS focused around the sociological aspects. I don't, however, see that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List, ET: As for the framework that I use - I have developed it over the years, and consider that it is a genuine and valid outline of Peircean semiosis. I disagree; but I'll no longer 'debate' it with you. Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going

[PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 42

Continuing our slow read on phaneroscopy, here is the next slide of André De Tienne’s slideshow posted on the Peirce Edition Project (iupui.edu) site. 8. Phaneroscopy's role and relevance for any inquiry Gary f. Text: •

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }There's a book by Duncan Watts 'Six Degrees of Separation' - which outlines how networks set up connections such that only six degrees or nodal points separate people/events/ things. So- you know someone who knows

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

To top it off, my grandfather Richard Hartshorne learned (decades ago) of the family connection to Nixon by reading an article on the six degrees of separation in a national news magazine (Time or Newsweek or maybe some other) that used the Nixon family tree as an example. - Best, Ben On

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

I described the functions of abduction vs retroduction based on the meaning of the prefixes. It sounds like we agree on the fundamentals of the differences. On Tue, Sep 7, 2021, 7:40 PM Gary Richmond wrote: > Phyllis, List, > > PC: In NA, Peirce is describing what goes on before a normative

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Phyllis, List, Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there being of the reality of God and *not* some strictly scientific question put to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday. I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Phyllis, Gary R., List: PC: BTW I contend that abduction is an aspect of retroduction, not a synonym for it. GR: Not so long ago we had a List discussion in which Jon Alan Schmidt made a pretty strong case that Peirce -- at least in places -- uses the terms 'abduction' and 'retroduction'

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry Into Inquiry

Cf: Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Balance http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/09/08/inquiry-into-inquiry-on-balance/ Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2005/12/09/inquiry-into-inquiry/ All, Everyone knows what it means to have obstacles to overcome or events to understand and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }List A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is the lack of a clear definition of that term. As I am an atheist, then, I cannot logically- never mind empirically - conclude the

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Jon, Gary R., List   I think, plausibility is an interesting dimension. Is it the result of Ockham´s razor? Obviously it is a dimension of abduction/retroduction, and has to do with counting backwards: The biggest plausibility is what requires the least number of explanations. Like the concept

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Gary R., List: GR: Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific question put to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday.