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

[Helmut Raulien]

Evgenii, List,

 

The reason for the bacterium is its need. Its individual need is contained inside its boundary (membrane, skin), but its need is similar with that of all bacteria and other organisms: Nutrition. The latin word is causa finalis. The stone does not have a need, it falls down due to universal laws, which force it to do so. The latin word for this forceful reason is causa efficiens. This force is not limited to individual boundaries, the boundary is the universe. The gravitational (or space-bending, Einstein) effects of this falling stone too pass through the whole universe, other than the hunger-relief of the bacterium, that is merely sensed by it.

 

I think: An animal with a brain does not only respond to needs and forces, but also to wishes. A wish is not necessarily the same as with other brain animals, a wish may be unique (as we all know, don´t we?). It requires the brain´s ability of depicting. I´d say, the latin word for this volitional reason would be "causa exemplaris", but in its secularized version, as originally "causa exemplaris" has a religious meaning. Now we have three basic causae, like we should have, because with Peirce it always has to be three.

 

Best, Helmut

 
 

Donnerstag, 15. Februar 2024 um 12:22 Uhr
 "Evgenii Rudnyi" 
wrote:

Am 15.02.2024 um 04:11 schrieb John F Sowa:
> The biologist Lynn Margulis explained that all living things from
> bacteria on up exhibit goal-directed actions that non-living things
> never do. Her simplest example is a bacterium swimming upstream in a
> glucose gradient.
>
> No non-living things would ever do that.


What would be the difference in this case between a bacterium and a
stone falling to the Earth?

Evgenii
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

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

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

Am 15.02.2024 um 04:11 schrieb John F Sowa:

The biologist Lynn Margulis explained that all living things from
bacteria on up exhibit goal-directed actions that non-living things
never do.  Her simplest example is a bacterium swimming upstream in a
glucose gradient.

No non-living things would ever do that.



What would be the difference in this case between a bacterium and a 
stone falling to the Earth?


Evgenii
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

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

[John F Sowa]

As I wrote in reply to Jon, there is a cluster of words in English and other 
languages that express the goal, purpose, intention, desire, or Thirdness that 
explains why some agent does something.   There was no single word in English 
that exactly expresses the reason until Peirce coined the word Thirdness.

The biologist Lynn Margulis explained that all living things from bacteria on 
up exhibit goal-directed actions that non-living things never do.  Her simplest 
example is a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose gradient.

No non-living things would ever do that.  Some human for some purpose might 
design a robot to do that,  The non-living robot would not have the intention, 
but the human who designed it had some goal or purpose or intention to design 
an artifact that would perform that action under those conditions.

That is the most basic form of intentionality or goal-directed behavior or -- 
in essence -- Thirdness.  Consciousness is not a requirement.  My 
recommendation is to ask why.   That's a simple test that corresponds to the 
common intersection of all those words.

ET> Did the bus driver intentionally run over the pedestrian?

Just ask the question "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 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:

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 there is a puddle or a broken place in the sidewalk.

Other animals at every level and even plants act upon principles that would be 
called intentional if they had been human.  But consciousness is not necessary. 
 And even for humans, all actions appear to have the some kind of 
intentionality, but the actors themselves will often say that they did it 
"absent mindedly".

But absent minded actions are often done when people are "multitasking", such 
as talking on their cell phones while crossing the street and getting run over 
by a bus.  They didn't intend to get run over by the bus, but they did intend 
to cross the street.  The steps of walking were not conscious, but they were 
necessary parts of an intentional process.

In effect, Thirdness is involved in every intentional action.  And every 
instance of Thirdness by any living being could be called intentional if a 
human did it.   Can anybody find an example of Thirdness in any of Peirce's 
writings that could not be considered intentional if it had been performed by a 
human?

John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

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

[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 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> 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 there is a puddle or a broken place in the 
> sidewalk.
> 
> Other animals at every level and even plants act upon principles that would 
> be called intentional if they had been human.  But consciousness is not 
> necessary.  And even for humans, all actions appear to have the some kind of 
> intentionality, but the actors themselves will often say that they did it 
> "absent mindedly".
> 
> But absent minded actions are often done when people are "multitasking", such 
> as talking on their cell phones while crossing the street and getting run 
> over by a bus.  They didn't intend to get run over by the bus, but they did 
> intend to cross the street.  The steps of walking were not conscious, but 
> they were necessary parts of an intentional process.
> 
> In effect, Thirdness is involved in every intentional action.  And every 
> instance of Thirdness by any living being could be called intentional if a 
> human did it.   Can anybody find an example of Thirdness in any of Peirce's 
> writings that could not be considered intentional if it had been performed by 
> a human?
> 
> John
>  
> 
> From: "Edwina Taborsky" 
> 
> List
> 
> I agree with Mike. Thirdness, in my view, does not imply or require 
> intentionality. That, after all, suggests some kind of consciousness - and I 
> think we find Thirdness in chemical and physical matter - and these forms of 
> matter do not include consciousness.
> 
> I have a problem with the quote of “Continuity presents 3ns almost to 
> perfection’ 1.337. I think that the rules of Thirdness CAN and must be, for a 
> certain period of time, ‘continuous and stable.After all- we cannot live iin 
> a world where a cat suddenly transforms into a dog.  BUT, since thirdness 
> also includes 2ns and 1ns, then, it contains within itself, the ability to 
> interact with other units of matter - as well as chance - and thus, has the 
> capacity to accept more data and thus, change these ‘continuous rules’ and 
> so, adapt and evolve.
> 
> Again - I consider that Peircean ‘continuity’ is not 3ns but is the 
> continuous morphological semiosis formation of energy-into-matter - which is 
> ongoing [ or else, as has been pointed out, entropy sneaks in]….
> 
> Edwina
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
> https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
> https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the 
> links!
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . 
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in 
> the body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

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

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Mike, List:

Indeed, the online Commens Dictionary entry for 3ns (
http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/thirdness) consists of 21 Peirce
quotations, none of which includes the word "intentionality." Two of them
do have the word "intention," and here is the first.

CSP: Nature herself often supplies the place of the intention of a rational
agent in making a 3ns genuine and not merely accidental; as when a spark,
as third, falling into a barrel of gunpowder, as first, causes an
explosion, as second. But how does nature do this? By virtue of an
intelligible law according to which she acts. If two forces are combined
according to the parallelogram of forces, their resultant is a real 3rd.
Yet any force may, by the parallelogram of forces, be mathematically
resolved into the sum of two others, in an infinity of different ways. Such
components, however, are mere creations of the mind. What is the
difference? As far as one isolated event goes, there is none; the real
forces are no more present in the resultant than any components that the
mathematician may imagine. But what makes the real forces really there is
the general law of nature which calls for them, and not for any other
components of the resultant. Thus, intelligibility, or reason objectified,
is what makes 3ns genuine. (CP 1.366, EP 1:255, 1886-7)


In this excerpt, it is *intelligibility *that is essential for genuine 3ns,
not intentionality; at least, not "the intention of a rational agent."
Anything that occurs "by virtue of an intelligible law"-- including a spark
causing gunpower to explode, as well as (presumably) graphite crystals
forming in soot or those same crystals becoming diamonds under high
pressure and temperature--is an example of 3ns. Peirce says much the same
thing many years later.

CSP: The third element of the phenomenon is that we perceive it to be
intelligible, that is, to be subject to law, or capable of being
represented by a general sign or Symbol. But I say the same element is in
all signs. The essential thing is that it is capable of being represented.
Whatever is capable of being represented is itself of a representative
nature. (CP 8.268, 1903)


As I noted earlier in this thread (quoting that last sentence), for Peirce,
although "*really being* and *being represented* are very different" (EP
2:303, c. 1901), really being and being representable--and thus being of
the nature of a sign--are the same. "The very entelechy of being lies in
being representable. ... This appears mystical and mysterious simply
because we insist on remaining blind to what is plain, that there can be no
reality which has not the life of a symbol" (EP 2:324, c. 1901). After all
...

CSP: [T]he Universe is a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's
purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities. Now every symbol
must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of Reactions and its
Icons of Qualities; and such part as these reactions and these qualities
play in an argument, that they of course play in the Universe, that
Universe being precisely an argument" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-194, 1903).

CSP: [T]he explanation of the phenomenon lies in the fact that the entire
universe,--not merely the universe of existents, but all that wider
universe, embracing the universe of existents as a part, the universe which
we are all accustomed to refer to as "the truth,"--that all this universe
is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs. (CP
5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906)


Here is the second quotation for 3ns with the word "intention."

CSP: Let us now take up being *in futuro*. As in the other cases, this is
merely an avenue leading to a purer apprehension of the element it
contains. An absolutely pure conception of a Category is out of the
question. Being *in futuro* appears in mental forms, intentions and
expectations. Memory supplies us a knowledge of the past by a sort of brute
force, a quite binary action, without any reasoning. But all our knowledge
of the future is obtained through the medium of something else. ...
Intellectual triplicity, or Mediation, is my third category. (CP 2.86, 1902)


In this excerpt, the emphasis is ultimately on *mediation*, which is what
Peirce describes elsewhere as the purest conception of 3ns one can have (CP
1.530, 1903). However, the ellipsis omits a considerable amount of text,
including a few examples where intention is indeed the hallmark of 3ns--a
dog fetching a book for its master, a man giving a brooch to his wife, and
a merchant throwing a datestone that hits a Jinee. The absence of intention *in
these specific cases* would render them "purely mechanical actions," dyadic
instead of triadic, 2ns rather than 3ns. Nevertheless, as already noted,
there are abundant passages (like the first quotation above) where Peirce
treats other ideas, where intentionality is lacking, as paradigmatic of
3ns--such as continuity, diffusion, the whole numbers, and even explosions.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt 

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

[Mike Bergman]

Hi John,

CSP: "Some of the ideas of prominent Thirdness which require closer 
study, preliminary to philosophy, are Continuity, Diffusion, Growth, and 
Intelligence. . . . the idea of an endless row of discrete objects, 
which is the image of the system of whole numbers, contains the idea of 
Thirdness in considerable prominence." (NEM 4.310, 1893-5)


I do not see intentionality in either diffusion or the whole numbers. 
BTW, an electronic search of Peirce's texts quickly turn up multiples of 
such examples.


I think I understand a point you are trying to make, but I think you 
could present it more correctly.


I'll leave the last comment to you as I am finished with this topic.

Best, Mike

On 2/13/2024 1:50 PM, John F Sowa wrote:

Mike,

I realize that Peirce mentioned "crystals and bees" in the same 
sentence.  But we have to consider his classification of the sciences. 
 Pure mathematics comes first, and it does not depend on anything 
else.  It incudes all varieties, including formal or mathematical 
logic, discrete math, and continuous math.  And Peirce followed 
Aristotle in insisting that continuous spaces (of which a line is a 
1-D space) do not have points as parts.  For Aristotle and Peirce, 
points are markers that designate a locus *ON *a space, but are not 
parts *OF* the space.


That is the basis for Aristotle's solution to Zeno's paradox about 
Achilles and the turtle, which Peirce knew very well.


Phaneroscopy depends only on mathematics, not semeiotic.  For Peirce, 
the phaneron is raw, unprocessed and uninterpreted experience. 
 (Modern cognitive science has more to say about these issues, but it 
may be deferred for analyzing what Peirce wrote.)  The result of 
analyzing the phaneron is expressed in linguistic terms, which depend 
on psychic science, which may employ the methods of any and every 
science that precedes it.  That includes all previous sciences, 
including the physical sciences and other psychic sciences.


MB> I categorically disagree. Intentionality may be an example of 
Thirdness, but is not definitive of it.


I agree that Peirce did not define 3ns in terms of intentionality. 
 But every example that he cited does indeed involve intentionality. 
 Can anybody find a single example of Thirdness in any writings by 
Peirce that does not involve intentions at least at the level of a 
bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose gradient.  Even a description 
of how plants grow would involve Thirdness in the same sense as a 
bacterium.


But a description of a crystal could be stated in two ways.  If you 
consider the structure of the crystal as the desired final state, then 
a description in those terms would be stated in *TERMINOLOGICAL 
*thirdness.  That may be the reason why Peirce wrote "crystals and 
bees".   And that answer involves something very close to 
intentionality:  In forming a diamond, each atom of carbon goes to a 
position where it minimizes the total energy of the crystal structure. 
 In effect, the carbon atom "wants" to minimize energy in the same 
sense that a bacterium wants to ingest glucose.


But if you look at the way crystals actually grow in nature, each atom 
or molecule in the crystal goes into its spot in the structure by 
principles of 2-ness -- following the strongest forces that act upon 
it.  Those are *EXTERNAL *forces that act upon the atoms.  That is 
very different from the *INTERNAL *forces in the bacterium that govern 
how it behaves in the presence of an external glucose gradient.


Take for example the two most common carbon crystals:  graphite and 
diamond.  At modest level of heat, such as burning wood or paper, any 
unburnt carbon forms soot.  If you examine that soot with a powerful 
microscope, you'll find that the soot particles contain very small 
graphite crystals mixed with other residues of burning.  That can be 
explained by the atoms clumping together in a low energy state by 2ns, 
not 3ns,


But if you put the graphite under high compression at high 
temperatures, you can force the carbon atoms even closer together in a 
state with lower energy:  diamond crystals. Those are also external 
forces that act upon the carbon atoms.


Peirce knew the chemistry of his day very well.  But the atomic 
hypothesis of his day and theories about crystal formation were in 
their infancy.  With modern theories, descriptions at the level of 2ns 
can explain chemical reactions and the 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 "Continuity 
represents 3ns almost to perfection" (CP 1.337, c. 1882), which I 
concur best captures (with Mind) Peirce's prominent view of Thirdness, 
and contintuity does not require intentionality. You might even 
diagram it out.


And don't forget crystals 

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

[John F Sowa]

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 there is a puddle or a broken place in the sidewalk.

Other animals at every level and even plants act upon principles that would be 
called intentional if they had been human.  But consciousness is not necessary. 
 And even for humans, all actions appear to have the some kind of 
intentionality, but the actors themselves will often say that they did it 
"absent mindedly".

But absent minded actions are often done when people are "multitasking", such 
as talking on their cell phones while crossing the street and getting run over 
by a bus.  They didn't intend to get run over by the bus, but they did intend 
to cross the street.  The steps of walking were not conscious, but they were 
necessary parts of an intentional process.

In effect, Thirdness is involved in every intentional action.  And every 
instance of Thirdness by any living being could be called intentional if a 
human did it.   Can anybody find an example of Thirdness in any of Peirce's 
writings that could not be considered intentional if it had been performed by a 
human?

John


From: "Edwina Taborsky" 

List

I agree with Mike. Thirdness, in my view, does not imply or require 
intentionality. That, after all, suggests some kind of consciousness - and I 
think we find Thirdness in chemical and physical matter - and these forms of 
matter do not include consciousness.

I have a problem with the quote of “Continuity presents 3ns almost to 
perfection’ 1.337. I think that the rules of Thirdness CAN and must be, for a 
certain period of time, ‘continuous and stable.After all- we cannot live iin a 
world where a cat suddenly transforms into a dog.  BUT, since thirdness also 
includes 2ns and 1ns, then, it contains within itself, the ability to interact 
with other units of matter - as well as chance - and thus, has the capacity to 
accept more data and thus, change these ‘continuous rules’ and so, adapt and 
evolve.

Again - I consider that Peircean ‘continuity’ is not 3ns but is the continuous 
morphological semiosis formation of energy-into-matter - which is ongoing [ or 
else, as has been pointed out, entropy sneaks in]….

Edwina
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

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

[John F Sowa]

Mike,

I realize that Peirce mentioned "crystals and bees" in the same sentence.  But 
we have to consider his classification of the sciences.  Pure mathematics comes 
first, and it does not depend on anything else.  It incudes all varieties, 
including formal or mathematical logic, discrete math, and continuous math.  
And Peirce followed Aristotle in insisting that continuous spaces (of which a 
line is a 1-D space) do not have points as parts.  For Aristotle and Peirce, 
points are markers that designate a locus ON a space, but are not parts OF the 
space.

That is the basis for Aristotle's solution to Zeno's paradox about Achilles and 
the turtle, which Peirce knew very well.

Phaneroscopy depends only on mathematics, not semeiotic.  For Peirce, the 
phaneron is raw, unprocessed and uninterpreted experience.  (Modern cognitive 
science has more to say about these issues, but it may be deferred for 
analyzing what Peirce wrote.)  The result of analyzing the phaneron is 
expressed in linguistic terms, which depend on psychic science, which may 
employ the methods of any and every science that precedes it.  That includes 
all previous sciences, including the physical sciences and other psychic 
sciences.

MB> I categorically disagree. Intentionality may be an example of Thirdness, 
but is not definitive of it.

I agree that Peirce did not define 3ns in terms of intentionality.  But every 
example that he cited does indeed involve intentionality.  Can anybody find a 
single example of Thirdness in any writings by Peirce that does not involve 
intentions at least at the level of a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose 
gradient.  Even a description of how plants grow would involve Thirdness in the 
same sense as a bacterium.

But a description of a crystal could be stated in two ways.  If you consider 
the structure of the crystal as the desired final state, then a description in 
those terms would be stated in TERMINOLOGICAL thirdness.  That may be the 
reason why Peirce wrote "crystals and bees".   And that answer involves 
something very close to intentionality:  In forming a diamond, each atom of 
carbon goes to a position where it minimizes the total energy of the crystal 
structure.  In effect, the carbon atom "wants" to minimize energy in the same 
sense that a bacterium wants to ingest glucose.

But if you look at the way crystals actually grow in nature, each atom or 
molecule in the crystal goes into its spot in the structure by principles of 
2-ness -- following the strongest forces that act upon it.  Those are EXTERNAL 
forces that act upon the atoms.  That is very different from the INTERNAL 
forces in the bacterium that govern how it behaves in the presence of an 
external glucose gradient.

Take for example the two most common carbon crystals:  graphite and diamond.  
At modest level of heat, such as burning wood or paper, any unburnt carbon 
forms soot.  If you examine that soot with a powerful microscope, you'll find 
that the soot particles contain very small graphite crystals mixed with other 
residues of burning.  That can be explained by the atoms clumping together in a 
low energy state by 2ns, not 3ns,

But if you put the graphite under high compression at high temperatures, you 
can force the carbon atoms even closer together in a state with lower energy:  
diamond crystals.   Those are also external forces that act upon the carbon 
atoms.

Peirce knew the chemistry of his day very well.  But the atomic hypothesis of 
his day and theories about crystal formation were in their infancy.  With 
modern theories, descriptions at the level of 2ns can explain chemical 
reactions and the 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 "Continuity represents 3ns almost to 
perfection" (CP 1.337, c. 1882), which I concur best captures (with Mind) 
Peirce's prominent view of Thirdness, and contintuity does not require 
intentionality. You might even 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 fundamental sense.

Lynn Margulis wrote that a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose gradient is 
a primitive example of intentionality, and no non-living physical system shows 
any kind of intentionality,  I believe that Peirce would agree, since he cited 
dogs, parrots, bees, and even plants at various times.

And by the way, viruses don't have intentions, since they're not alive.   They 
are signs that are interpreted by living things to produce more signs of the 
same kind.

John


From: "Mike Bergman" 

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

[Edwina Taborsky]

List

I agree with Mike. Thirdness, in my view, does not imply or require 
intentionality. That, after all, suggests some kind of consciousness - and I 
think we find Thirdness in chemical and physical matter - and these forms of 
matter do not include consciousness.

I have a problem with the quote of “Continuity presents 3ns almost to 
perfection’ 1.337. I think that the rules of Thirdness CAN and must be, for a 
certain period of time, ‘continuous and stable.After all- we cannot live iin a 
world where a cat suddenly transforms into a dog.  BUT, since thirdness also 
includes 2ns and 1ns, then, it contains within itself, the ability to interact 
with other units of matter - as well as chance - and thus, has the capacity to 
accept more data and thus, change these ‘continuous rules’ and so, adapt and 
evolve.

Again - I consider that Peircean ‘continuity’ is not 3ns but is the continuous 
morphological semiosis formation of energy-into-matter - which is ongoing [ or 
else, as has been pointed out, entropy sneaks in]….

Edwina

> On Feb 12, 2024, at 5:19 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I categorically disagree. Intentionality may be an example of Thirdness, but 
> is not definitive of it. JAS just posted "Continuity represents 3ns almost to 
> perfection" (CP 1.337, c. 1882), which I concur best captures (with Mind) 
> Peirce's prominent view of Thirdness, and contintuity does not require 
> intentionality. You might even 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 fundamental sense.
>> 
>> Lynn Margulis wrote that a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose gradient 
>> is a primitive example of intentionality, and no non-living physical system 
>> shows any kind of intentionality,  I believe that Peirce would agree, since 
>> he cited dogs, parrots, bees, and even plants at various times.
>> 
>> And by the way, viruses don't have intentions, since they're not alive.   
>> They are signs that are interpreted by living things to produce more signs 
>> of the same kind.
>> 
>> 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) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]
>> 
>> I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's cosmogony 
>> begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I don't know if 
>> 'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both quantum mechanics and 
>> the nature of energy can arguably be better traced to the ideas of harmonic 
>> oscillators. Still, there is something pregnant in that nexus . . . .
>> 
>> For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in the 
>> sense of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information) entropy. 
>> It strikes me that recasting these in terms of Peircean Secondness (energy) 
>> and Thirdness (information) brings sense to the conundrum. Both apply; it is 
>> more a matter of contextual interpretation.
>> 
>> What say the list?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Best, Mike
>> 
> -- 
> __
> 
> Michael K. Bergman
> 319.621.5225
> http://mkbergman.com 
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
> __ 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
> https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
> https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the 
> links!
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . 
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in 
> the body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is 

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

[Mike Bergman]

Hi John,

I categorically disagree. Intentionality may be an example of Thirdness, 
but is not definitive of it. JAS just posted "Continuity represents 3ns 
almost to perfection" (CP 1.337, c. 1882), which I concur best captures 
(with Mind) Peirce's prominent view of Thirdness, and contintuity does 
not require intentionality. You might even 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 fundamental sense.


Lynn Margulis wrote that a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose 
gradient is a primitive example of intentionality, and no non-living 
physical system shows any kind of intentionality,  I believe that 
Peirce would agree, since he cited dogs, parrots, bees, and even 
plants at various times.


And by the way, viruses don't have intentions, since they're not 
alive.   They are signs that are interpreted by living things to 
produce more signs of the same kind.


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) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]

I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's 
cosmogony begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I 
don't know if 'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both 
quantum mechanics and the nature of energy can arguably be better 
traced to the ideas of harmonic oscillators. Still, there is something 
pregnant in that nexus . . . .


For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in 
the sense of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information) 
entropy. It strikes me that recasting these in terms of Peircean 
Secondness (energy) and Thirdness (information) brings sense to the 
conundrum. Both apply; it is more a matter of contextual interpretation.


What say the list?

Thanks!

Best, Mike


--
__

Michael K. Bergman
319.621.5225
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

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

[John F Sowa]

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 primitive example of intentionality, and no non-living physical system shows 
any kind of intentionality,  I believe that Peirce would agree, since he cited 
dogs, parrots, bees, and even plants at various times.

And by the way, viruses don't have intentions, since they're not alive.   They 
are signs that are interpreted by living things to produce more signs of the 
same kind.

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) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]
I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's cosmogony 
begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I don't know if 
'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both quantum mechanics and the 
nature of energy can arguably be better traced to the ideas of harmonic 
oscillators. Still, there is something pregnant in that nexus . . . .
For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in the sense 
of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information) entropy. It strikes 
me that recasting these in terms of Peircean Secondness (energy) and Thirdness 
(information) brings sense to the conundrum. Both apply; it is more a matter of 
contextual interpretation.
What say the list?
Thanks!
Best, Mike
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

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

[Edwina Taborsky]

Mike, list

I’d define energy as 1ns, with matter being 2ns, and information as these units 
of 2ns defined within 3ns.

By ‘indexicality of locality, I mean that matter functions only within 
relations with other matter . That is, there is no such thing as an 
entity/unit//Sign, that is isolate. Everything is networked and in relationship 
with other enities/units//Signs - and thus, is local in real spatial and 
temporal terms. I think that is part of Stjernfelt’s argument on the Dicisign 
which rejects linguistic and psychological factors in the formation of a Sign 
[triad] and focuses on the physical, or indexical connection. 

I don’t reference my papers here, but, I can send you a recent one on ‘Peircean 
 Semiosis as the transformation of Eerngy and Matter’.  [If I can find it - I’m 
very sloppy with storing papers - both hard copies and online]. 

Edwina

> On Feb 12, 2024, at 12:53 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:
> 
> 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) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]
> 
> I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's cosmogony 
> begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I don't know if 
> 'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both quantum mechanics and 
> the nature of energy can arguably be better traced to the ideas of harmonic 
> oscillators. Still, there is something pregnant in that nexus . . . .
> 
> For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in the 
> sense of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information) entropy. It 
> strikes me that recasting these in terms of Peircean Secondness (energy) and 
> Thirdness (information) brings sense to the conundrum. Both apply; it is more 
> a matter of contextual interpretation.
> 
> What say the list?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best, Mike
> 
> On 2/12/2024 11:31 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>> Helmut - I agree with your outline, where the three categories are operative 
>> within continuity. But what is continuity? 
>> 
>> I consider it as the basic ‘force’ of the universe to ‘exist as signs [ ie 
>> discrete entities]. , This force, which Peirce variously called Mind, 
>> Nature, God, means that the energy that IS the universe functions as a 
>> ‘rational action’ [ie Mind] by constantly transforming itself into ever more 
>> complex networked discreteness, operative within evolving 
>> habits-of-formation [and chance!]. There is no final perfection, because of 
>> the realities of both 2ns and 1ns which introduce freedom and variation and, 
>> importantly, the indexicality of locality. 
>> 
>> If we consider the basic identity of the universe as E=MC2 [ and I think we 
>> have to accept this!] then it can be understood that Energy is transforming 
>> into Matter — within a rational, networked, ordered manner - to prevent, as 
>> Michael pointed out, thermodynamic entropy.  It is this 
>> ‘force-of-transformation’ that I consider as the definition of ‘continuity. 
>> After all - without it - thermodynamics, as Michael pointed out, jumps 
>> in..and….
>> 
>> Edwina
>> 
>>> On Feb 12, 2024, at 12:01 PM, Helmut Raulien  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> List, I think, we can prescind discreteness from continuity, e.g. by 
>>> supposing the formation of attractors, or coagulation, or reentry (logical 
>>> or actual loops), but we cannot prescind continuity from discreteness. So 
>>> everything including thirdness is at first based on continuity, even if it 
>>> requires discreteness. I think, that thirdness requires discreteness, 
>>> because a relation as part of structure, and a habit too, can and has to be 
>>> prescinded (or discriminated, or dissociated) as something discrete from 
>>> continuity, to logically handle it.
>>>  
>>> Best, Helmut
>>>  
>>> Gesendet: Montag, 12. Februar 2024 um 03:07 Uhr
>>> Von: "Edwina Taborsky"  
>>> An: "Peirce-L"  
>>> Cc: "Edwina Taborsky"  
>>> 
>>> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing 
>>> Semiotic Project)
>>> List-  I don’t see synergism as equivalent to Thirdness, for Thirdness is 
>>> the establishment of habits, ie, habitual ‘modes of being’ - which habits 
>>> are established by and within the universe in conjunction with the modes of 
>>> both Firstness and Secondness. . 
>>>  
>>> Instead, synergism, or continuity, seems to me, more akin to the concept of 
>>> free energy…the genuinely general, so to speak - and this free energy is 
>>> the basis of our universe> “Continuity is nothing but perfect generality of 
>>> a law of relationship” 6.170. See also his outline of ’The Logic of th 
>>> Universe 6.189, where, again, continuity is understood as ‘generality’. 
>>> This is 

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

[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) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]

I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's 
cosmogony begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I 
don't know if 'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both 
quantum mechanics and the nature of energy can arguably be better traced 
to the ideas of harmonic oscillators. Still, there is something pregnant 
in that nexus . . . .


For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in 
the sense of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information) 
entropy. It strikes me that recasting these in terms of Peircean 
Secondness (energy) and Thirdness (information) brings sense to the 
conundrum. Both apply; it is more a matter of contextual interpretation.


What say the list?

Thanks!

Best, Mike

On 2/12/2024 11:31 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Helmut - I agree with your outline, where the three categories are 
operative within continuity. But what is continuity?


I consider it as the basic ‘force’ of the universe to ‘exist as signs 
[ ie discrete entities]. , This force, which Peirce variously called 
Mind, Nature, God, means that the energy that IS the universe 
functions as a ‘rational action’ [ie Mind] by constantly transforming 
itself into ever more complex networked discreteness, operative within 
evolving habits-of-formation [and chance!]. There is no final 
perfection, because of the realities of both 2ns and 1ns which 
introduce freedom and variation and, importantly, the indexicality of 
locality.


If we consider the basic identity of the universe as E=MC2 [ and I 
think we have to accept this!] then it can be understood that Energy 
is transforming into Matter — within a rational, networked, ordered 
manner - to prevent, as Michael pointed out, thermodynamic entropy. 
 It is this ‘force-of-transformation’ that I consider as the 
definition of ‘continuity. After all - without it - thermodynamics, as 
Michael pointed out, jumps in..and….


Edwina


On Feb 12, 2024, at 12:01 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

List, I think, we can prescind discreteness from continuity, e.g. by 
supposing the formation of attractors, or coagulation, or reentry 
(logical or actual loops), but we cannot prescind continuity from 
discreteness. So everything including thirdness is at first based on 
continuity, even if it requires discreteness. I think, that thirdness 
requires discreteness, because a relation as part of structure, and a 
habit too, can and has to be prescinded (or discriminated, or 
dissociated) as something discrete from continuity, to logically 
handle it.

Best, Helmut
*Gesendet:* Montag, 12. Februar 2024 um 03:07 Uhr
*Von:* "Edwina Taborsky" 
*An:* "Peirce-L" 
*Cc:* "Edwina Taborsky" 
*Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's 
Ongoing Semiotic Project)
List-  I don’t see synergism as equivalent to Thirdness, for 
Thirdness is the establishment of habits, ie, habitual ‘modes of 
being’ - which habits are established by and within the universe in 
conjunction with the modes of both Firstness and Secondness. .
Instead, synergism, or continuity, seems to me, more akin to the 
concept of free energy…the genuinely general, so to speak - and this 
free energy is the basis of our universe> “Continuity is nothing but 
perfect generality of a law of relationship” 6.170. See also his 
outline of ’The Logic of th Universe 6.189, where, again, continuity 
is understood as ‘generality’. This is not the same as the general 
_*laws *_of Thirdness which are generated within and by the universe 
for the maintenance of its reality as material exiistentiality.
As he writes, the universe, made up of Secondness or discrete 
entities, began ‘in the utter vagueness of completely undetermined 
and dimensionless potentiality” 6.193.  This, to me, is not 
Thirdness. It is free energy. ..which I see as continuity/synechism.
Jerry- I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me - I’ve no idea what you are 
referring to .

Edwina
Again, my understanding of this is that

On Feb 11, 2024, at 8:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
 wrote:
Mike:
I do not know what you mean by "penultimate" in this context. As
I have said on the List many times before, as well as in my
published work, my understanding of synechism as applied in
metaphysics is that the entire universe is an inexhaustible
continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which
are actualized (2ns). Again, discrete things and their dyadic
reactions, as well 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