Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7995] Re: NP 8.3 and the

Hi Jeff, On 1/25/2015 9:51 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: I have much sympathy with his suggestion that the deepest questions in logic and metaphysics that we face are not matters that any individual should presume to decide. Rather, they are matters that are better left for generations

A Consolidated Reply; was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce on Knowledge Representation

Hi Jerrys, Edwina, Gary, Val Daniel, and others offline, Thanks so much for the lively feedback to my earlier post. Because all of the comments were top posted and some duplicate others (in part), I thought I would consolidate a reply here using Edwina's initial comment first followed by

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com <mailto:m...@mkbergman.com>> wrote: JAS, List:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

JAS, List: On 5/6/2016 4:54 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: Gary R., List: . . . So besides having three different conclusions, the three forms of inference have three different starting points--Rule/Case/Result for deduction, Case/Result/Rule for induction, and Result/Rule/Case for abduction.

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

knows?   Cheers jerry On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:29 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: Hi List, I thought perhaps s

[PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest

Hi List, I thought perhaps some on the list might be interested in my latest article on Peirce and knowledge representation: http://www.mkbergman.com/2020/being-informed-by-peirce/ Thanks! (and feel free to also give me comments offline).

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

interesting stuff! Regards, Jon S. On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: Hi Jon, Thanks

[PEIRCE-L] A Knowledge Graph Based on Peirce

List - Next week we will be announcing a venture that has a knowledge graph at its core. This knowledge graph, or ontology, is based on our attempt to follow the logic of Peirce's Three Categories as we understand them. I have posted a blog article as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Principles of Classification?

Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Mike Bergman

[PEIRCE-L] Principles of Classification?

Hi List, Ben Udell recently quoted from this Peirce memoir: MEMOIR   27: OF METHODEUTIC [] From Draft B - MS L75.279-280 [] Two other problems of methodeutic which the old logics usually made almost its only

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Hi Jon, I think this is inquisitory in tone, and not appropriate here. Also, both of you: I appreciate your differences, but this is getting tiresome. Thanks, Mike On 9/14/2016 8:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: Edwina, List:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Hi Edwina, On 9/16/2016 6:28 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: Harold, list: Thanks for your comments.   I think one has to, as I said, first define the term 'God'. If by that term, one means a universal

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

produce like consequents]..and on into 1.175   That is, he acknowledges 'chance, freedom, spontaneity'..as well as the formation of habits' Basically, he is outlining the action of Mind in the development of both diversity and habits -  

[PEIRCE-L] Link to Ishida Dissertation

Hi Jeff, On 8/23/2016 12:17 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: I am not the first to make such a suggestion.  In Masato Ishida's Dissertation, A PHILOSOPHICAL COMMENTARY ON C. S.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Principles of Classification?

CP 1.203-231. Regards, Jon On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote:

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

I suppose if everyone comments on these constant arguments as being "tiresome" maybe we are approaching a community consensus of what constitutes the sign for "tiresome" in a Peircean sense. I find it interesting that Peirce held the ethics of all of this as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Stefan, the questions you ask for data and methodology are natural and understandable in terms of Peirce's abiding guidance on the scientific method and fallibility. Edwina, the evidence you offer is the best available given our current state of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

ffline. Mike On 11/20/2016 12:01 AM, Mike Bergman wrote: Stefan, the questions you ask for data and methodology are natural and understandable in terms of Peirce's abiding guidance on the scientific method and fallibility. Ed

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

On 11/4/2016 9:19 AM, John F Sowa wrote: On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge

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

I just encountered this assertion: "In the present work we have indicated that a form of logic, relational logic developed by C. S. Peirce, may serve as the foundation of both quantum mechanics and string theory." [1] Does the list have any comments, further

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

ntific inquiry is a task for the future to work out. Regards, Jon On 5/14/2017 1:34 AM, Mike Bergman wrote:

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

Jon On 5/14/2017 1:34 AM, Mike Bergman wrote: I just encountered this assertion:

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

n. >> But I think it's fair to say that Peirce articulated the >> springs and catches of the workings of science better than >> any other reflective practitioner in his or> subsequent times. >> And I think the full impo

[PEIRCE-L] Patterns in Primes

List, I have a hunch this article might be of interest to many Peirceans, with connections to tychism and emerging structure (primes?), perhaps the "surprising fact" arising from Thirdness that causes us to categorize anew emerging knowledge:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Patterns in Primes

https://oeis.org/wiki/Forest_Primeval https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/GRAPHICS https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/WORKSPACE Regards, Jon On 6/3/2017 8:32 PM, Mike Bergman wrote

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Deduction, induction, abduction, categories

Hi Helmut, I have argued your point before on this list, but others on the list pointed me to solid references for viewing abduction as a Firstness. But I still see much where "surprising facts" cause us to question our world view, definitely something

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existence and Reality (was Lowell Lecture 1: overview)

Hi Gary, List, Excellent response. However, the snippet below caught my eye: As for the reality of possibles, Peirce holds that  ". . . it is the reality of some possibilities that pragmaticism is most concerned to insist

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existence and Reality (was Lowell Lecture 1: overview)

Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York 718 482-5690

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Cognonto

icious. The word mediation would be better. Quality, reaction, and mediation will do."   Best, Helmut    24. November 2017 um 16:52 Uhr "

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Cognonto

Hi List, The knowledge artifact used by Cognonto is KBpedia [1]. It's upper ontology (KKO) [2] is based on our interpretation of Peirce's universal categories (not EGs, which I have not studied, nor strictly on Peirce's sign classifications, either). The approach to this interpretation of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.1

on the referent. Mike   Gary f.   From: Mike Bergman [mailto:m...@mkbergman.com] Sent: 5-Dec-17 13:56 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.1

Hi Gary, List, I somewhat disagree with your attempt to make the "categories" synonymous with "elements". An alternate explanation, and the one I prefer, is: universal categories = "kinds of elements" wherein "kinds of elements" is a generality (as is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Categories vs. Elements (was Lowell Lecture 2.14)

Hi Jon, List, I always appreciate the points and commentary on this list, but I question whether this list should be used for "terminological proposals" or attempts to create some sort of faux consensus on various points of Peircean scholarship. Through

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Categories vs. Elements (was Lowell Lecture 2.14)

Hi Jon, List: I go back and forth on whether the Universes are intended to be phenomenological or metaphysical.  Calling them "Universes of Experience" certainly suggests phenomenology, but Peirce's descriptions of their

Brent Bio (was Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Categories vs. Elements (was Lowell Lecture 2.14))

Hi Stephen, List, On 12/8/2017 4:32 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: These are some issues we might chew on. Given the fact that the Brent bio. seems sidely discredited, is a new biography

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Categories vs. Elements (was Lowell Lecture 2.14)

LaGuardia College of the City University of New York 718 482-5690 On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkber

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

cts.”   Gary f.   From: Mike Bergman [mailto:m...@mkbergman.com] Sent: 9-Dec-17 18:51 To: g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature   Hi Gary f

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

modus operandi is the same as that by which words produce physical effects. ]]   Gary f.   From: Mike Bergman [mailto:m...@mkbergman.com] Sent: 9-Dec-17 17:25 To: peirce-l

[PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

Hi List, I was reading Nathan Houser's piece on "Peirce, Phenomenology, and Semiotics" in the Routledge Companion [1] and came across this quote: "One of the principal realms of sign activity, or semiosis (semeiosis), is human thought; but semiosis

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.4

Hi Jeff, Thank you. The Bellucci reference is excellent and timely. I found a PDF online at http://www.academia.edu/download/41369857/Bellucci_CSP_consequences.pdf; some of the Abelard quotes are translated at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existence and Reality (was Lowell Lecture 1: overview)

Hi Jon, List, I see your point and stand corrected; your sense is what I was trying to capture. Fundamental is the better term. Thanks, Mike On 10/20/2017 5:10 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: Mike, List: I am not

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existence and Reality (was Lowell Lecture 1: overview)

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: Hi Gary, List,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existence and Reality (was Lowell Lecture 1: overview)

Hi John, List, On 10/20/2017 7:15 AM, John F Sowa wrote: Since my name was mentioned in the list, I'll say why I believe that methods of reasoning -- induction, abduction, and deduction -- are kinds of arguments (third in the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existence and Reality (was Lowell Lecture 1: overview)

Hi Jon, My goodness, Bingo! Thank you. This is exactly what I was seeking. I also appreciate the year stamp [1903]. I have ascribed, based on my reading of Peirce, that the possible attributes (properties, characters) of things belong in Firstness.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existence and Reality (was Lowell Lecture 1: overview)

reasoning can be done, because the objects of pure mathematics have no being except what they are defined to have.   Gary f.   From: Mike Bergman [mailto:m...@mkbergman.com

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

+1 Edwina, I think this is one of your best, most succinct descriptions. It is how I understand Peirce and semiosis as well. Without such an understanding, there is no continuity and explanation for reality in relation to cosmic evolution in Peirce's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Immediate Objects and Phenomena (was Lowell Lecture 3.14)

Hi Jon, List, I know this thread has been going on for a while, and I have not followed every blow closely. So I apologize if I try to make something simple that in fact is not. But I guess I'm having a hard time seeing what is so confusing here. The

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Aristotle and Peirce

Hi Jon, Excellent quote; thanks, Jon. I had not seen (recalled?) it before, and it offers another example of Peirce's universal categories, plus is the clearest statement I have seen yet of Peirce's definition of nominalism v realism. Mike

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Logical Depth and Signification

Hi Edwina, I am no arbiter, but does this not contradict your assertions about not attributing motive to others: After all, with your perspective, you would end up assuming that whatever anyone says is meant as the absolute final truth - when, in

[PEIRCE-L] Beginning of Life a Triadic Action?

List, I think we can expand Stephen's suggestion, to which I think I agree, that triadic action is involved Peirce's pragmatic maxim. I think we can understand the supreme importance of triadic action by questioning how life began from inanimate

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peircean research

Gary R, Jon, list, +1 This is another thread that has devolved into silliness. No one is trying to deny Peirce's technical terms, no one is being obdurate, and no one is saying anything other than we use natural language to communicate, and it has

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Action and Natural Language

Jon, List, To my knowledge: My concern remains that associating action/reaction/interaction with 3ns, rather than 2ns, fosters a fundamental misunderstanding of Peirce's Categories, and thus his entire philosophical system. no one on these threads (specifically Edwina, myself, or Stephen)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Action and Natural Language

as, USA 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 Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Mike Bergman <mailto:m...@mkb

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Action and Natural Language

Jon, Gary R, Edwina, List, A few recent threads have discussed technical terminology, dyadic v triadic action, and natural language. I was challenged to back up my assertions about the importance of triadic action and natural language use and interpretation. I have attempted a broad survey,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Sign Is Not a Real Thing

Jon, Edwina, List, Are not 'binding' and 'sense' expressions of action, both Peirce's words for Thirdness? There are many ways to interpret natural language, including what is meant by the word 'action'. Mike On 8/9/2018 6:08 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Sign Is Not a Real Thing

beginning to understand Peirce, an understanding I am not claiming to have achieved. Mike Regards, Jon S. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Mike Bergman <m...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The virtual reality of the Mind

Hi John, List, I appreciate you keep trying to get us back on target with your comments. I think the reference Edwina brought forward is the best I've seen so far for these arguments with respect to the neurophysiology of Thirdness mediation. Do you agree? I think I understand your points

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Transcribing Peirce

Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354

[PEIRCE-L] Perplexing

Hi Edwina, Jon, I have changed the subject line. It would not bother me if this is the only item on the thread. Somehow, again, you two go hammer-and-tongs at one another. Edwina, you know as well as any of us how closely Peirce tied semiosis to

[PEIRCE-L] Asking for Specifics

of types. For example, please explain '3-1' or via '3-2'. Are these predicates? That seems to be central to your argument. And, are predicates in Thirdness? Best, Mike Edwina   On Mon 09/04/18 10:34 PM , Mike

[PEIRCE-L] General Agreement

Hi Gary R, List, I thought this exchange was very worthwhile, esp. your current response. I have read your points multiple times and tried to think clearly about what you said. I find that I am in 'general agreement' with all that you have written in this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Asking for Specifics

mindset [see Peirce's a priori fixation of belief] where beliefs are held due to the dominant population. Now - I hope that this attempt gets through! Edwina   On Wed 11/04/18 3:13 AM , Mike Bergm

Re: [PEIRCE-L] New Open Source Knowledge System Based on Peirce

+1 On 10/26/2018 9:08 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: That is, the Peircean framework is an active process of establishing actual networks of relations, that enable both stability and continuity AND novelty, enable constructive reactions, enable the formation of new types and tokens. My sincere

[PEIRCE-L] New Open Source Knowledge System Based on Peirce

List, A frequent refrain on this list is to see practical results of Peirce's guidances. I am happy to announce one today. We are pleased to announce that KBpedia, a knowledge graph that integrates over seven leading knowledge bases including Wikidata and Wikipedia, is now fully available

[PEIRCE-L] Another Perspective on 'Quasi-Mind'

List, Speaking of quasi-minds, this reference is very thought provoking, though the author does not mention Peirce: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man/ Mike - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on

CAUTION: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quasi Minds A and B and C

List Moderator (Gary), This alarms me. The starting post in this thread is putatively from Edwina, but does not bear the hallmarks of her posting style nor format. The message itself does not read as from Edwina. Further, the main message of the post requires us to open a file; PDF in this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations

On 5/11/2019 10:22 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: JD:  I take the EGs to be topological in character. As a formal system, they are based on the notion of relations of composition and transformation that hold between areas on a sheet of assertion that is, itself, continuous. Various

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charles Sanders Peirce was America's greatest thinker

Thanks, John, for the reference. I have not heretofore noted my own writing on this forum, but the Everett piece (which is good) brings to mind this appendix summarizing Peirce's lifelong accomplishments, which I (humbly) think is also pretty good, from my recent book:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phenomenological categories

Hi List, John, 'Lumpers and splitters' is a time-worn categorization of taxonomists and categorists of all stripes, and appears as K and r evolutionary paradigms for ecologists. But this is your framing, John, not the framing Jeffrey is pursuing. I think his recent posts are some of the most

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

Thank you, Robert. This indeed is how the game should be played. Mike On 5/16/2020 11:18 AM, robert marty wrote: The general clash over the role of mathematics in knowledge creation was preceded by a debate between Jon Alan and myself. It was a false debate because Jon Alan only paraphrased

Please Stop (was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...)

To, specifically, John, JAS, Gary R, Edwina, Please stop. Does anyone think this continued harangue is either: 1) attracting new individuals to be interested in Peirce?; or 2) resolving anything? I wish I knew where there was a forum, as I first encountered years ago with this list, where I

[PEIRCE-L] KBpedia, KKO, and CSP

List, I am pleased to announce that we have released KBpedia v 2.50 with e-commerce and logistics capabilities, as well as significant other refinements. This upgrade comes from adding the entire top structure and the most common products and services of the United

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)

John, I find your last two posts informative and in keeping with how I try to understand Peirce. I agree strongly about the intimate link with action (actually, in my view it translates into the wellspring of Peirce's thoughts about belief). The importance of quantification as a basis for

[PEIRCE-L] A Lasting Flash from the Past

Hi All, "Though Peirce had a preference for the element of Thirdness, I think we must look at him as essentially a First. He is, in fact, one of the clearest cases of sheer Firstness in the history of thought. Unpredictable, fresh, alive, spontaneous, his primary function has been, and

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce

sms for the emergence of natural hierarchies involving the nexus of chance, evolution, entropy, free energy, and information theory. Bruce Schuman Santa Barbara CA USA bruceschu...@cox.net / 805-705-9174 www.origin.org / www.integralontology.net -Original Message- From: ontolog-fo...@

[PEIRCE-L] Hierarchy, a la Peirce

Hi All, I am pleased my open-access paper on hierarchy in knowledge systems, as informed by my understanding of CS Peirce, has been published by IEKO: https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy. I hope you enjoy! Thanks, Mike _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Multi-value logic

Edwina, Very nicely put. Mike On 2/16/2021 10:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: John, list I think a key point about logic is that it must refer to or represent the real world and is not an isolate intellectual construct. Therefore since Peirce rejects reductionism and a mechanical world as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 23

Hi John and List, I agree with Edwina's questions and I endorse the general sense of your argument. But I disagree with your statement: "This implies that every statement of his [Peirce's] philosophy must be evaluated in terms of his logic." My perspective is that the universal categories are

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mind and Matter

Hi All, I agree with the spirit of Edwina's point: ET: For Peirce, as I read him, Matter is a composite of Mind, and Mind only 'exists'/is actualized within Matter.   Matter  is organized according to laws - and laws are a property of Mind. I also agree with Jon's assertion that: JAS:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuine triad vs Degenerate triad (was Peirce & Popper

John, This is the best explanation and defense of Edwina's constant argument for Peirce's triadic representation yet. I would not be surprised that Charley would like it himself. Mike On 10/12/2021 9:45 PM, sowa @bestweb.net wrote: The difference between a trianglular graph and a Y graph

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs, Types, and Tokens

Hi All, This is a frequent question, between token and type, in knowledge representation systems. Of course, the answer to this question is context. When talking about a thing or its attributes, token is your choice. When talking about external relationships or group membership, type is your

Re: [PEIRCE-L] phaneroscopic observation

Hi Jon, I am pleased to see you increasingly rely on prescission, what I am finding to be one of Peirce's most powerful methods in logical analysis. BTW, the link provided did not work for me. Here is a similar one that did: https://doi.org/10.2979/csp.2023.a900117. Hat tip for the

[PEIRCE-L] Just for Grins

Hi All A little chat is appended below. Best, Mike = Santiago: We spoke earlier about CS Peirce and his logical operation of prescission. Given the list above, can you speculate on an order of prescission (or emergence)? ChatGPT: Indeed, Charles Sanders Peirce's philosophical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

nd. John *From*: "Mike Bergman" Hi Edwina, Helmut, List, I would like to hear you expand, Edwina, on what you mean about the 'idexicality of locality'. And, speaking of entropy, here is another possible link to the universal categories. flash (of light)

[PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

ll as monadic qualities and their inherence in discrete things, are degenerate outcomes of continuous and triadic semiosis. Regards, Jon On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 5:15 PM Mike Bergman wrote: Hi Jon, To quibble, I see synechism and its great definer of continuity

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

ian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 3:13 PM Mike Bergman wrote: Hi Jon, Here is a point with which I have vehement agreement with you (

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

Hi Jon, Here is a point with which I have vehement agreement with you (dare I say I suspect Edwina does as well): What I /can /say is that I obviously disagree with anyone who confines semiosis to the biological realm, since I maintain with Peirce that the entire universe is "a vast

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

e way atoms move in forming crystals. John -------- *From*: "Mike Bergman" *Sent*: 2/12/24 5:19 PM Hi John, I categorically disagree. Intentionality may be an example of Thirdness, but is not definitive of it. JAS just posted "Con

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Role of Copula in the logic of Grammars. Re: Peirce and Knowledge Representation

, at 1:51 PM, Mike Bergman wrote: In a slightly related issue, have you any comments on CSP’s papers on the role of the copula in representation theory?  In other words, have you addressed the inferences between predicate logics and the grammar of copulated sentences (syllogisms)? No, I have

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [ontolog-forum] RE: Peirce and Knowledge Representation

*From*: "Mike Bergman" Hi John, Thanks for your kind words about the book [1]. I included it in the prior thread, the subject of which I have changed, because Alex had inquired as to what my theoretical interest was in ChatGPT prompt engineering for possible use in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Knowledge Representation

thoughts you have on this topic. Thanks! Best, Mike Cheers Jerry On Dec 4, 2023, at 8:44 PM, Mike Bergman wrote: Hi John, Thanks for your kind words about the book [1]. I included it in the prior thread, the subject of which I have changed, because Alex had inquired as to what my

[PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Knowledge Representation

people (of all ages and backgrounds) include a huge number who do not understand its limitations.  For them, it can be highly misleading -- even to the danger point, if taken seriously. John ---- *From*: "Mike Bergman"

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Four branches of existential graphs: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta

Hi All, As many have noted, I, too, have learned much and have (generally) enjoyed this interchange between JAS and JFS. Further, I have no dog in this hunt and certainly do not claim any special understanding about Peirce's existential graphs. So, as a voting matter, my impression of this