Dear Jeffrey and Jim,I do not believe that comparing theories by abstracting their general statements about reality is sufficient. Dennett's theater of the mind argument argues against the homunculus and the theater.IMHO, Dennett makes arguments against which Peirce would rebel fiercely - in both
Dear Joe,It may satisfy you then to know that yesterday on conclusion I wrote the following in that part of my book that refers to the Kant and Peirce quotes we discussed:"Clearly, this is an integrative view and appears to place epistemological primacy in signs. However, a broader familiarity
Thank you Joe, that is helpful - I will have to get myself an electronic version of the CP.This clears up my concern regarding the term "unity" - he is using the definition that he gives to Kant's usage.CP 6.378 (1901) from "Unity and Plurality" in Baldwin's Dictionary 378. Unity is divided by
My firm response is that I do not see how it could be.With respect,StevenOn Sep 7, 2006, at 5:04 PM, R Jeffrey Grace wrote:Folks,Pardon me if this has been brought up before, but does anyone know if Daniel Dennett's Heterophenomenology, which maintains that all subjective states are ultimately
For those curious about the paper I mentioned previously - you can find
it here :
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/religion-06.pdf
With respect,
Steven
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
The Neuroquantology Journal invited me sometime ago to submit my paper
on the limits of discovery in quantum physics, so I know something of
their history.
It was started as an online journal only by Sultan Tarlaci of Turkey,
whom I believe is an academic, at the time of the 2003 Quantum Mind
Jean-Marc,
The reference is to the ink color - the brown colored text indicated in
two ways - the rest is in red ink. The note maker appears to be
identifying that Peirce used two colors of ink. The Brown ink calls out:
1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/8.
4. Indexical
5. Rhematic
6.
. Legisign
10. Symbolic, Legisign
Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
Jean-Marc,
The reference is to the ink color - the brown colored text indicated
in two ways - the rest is in red ink. The note maker appears to be
identifying that Peirce used two colors of ink. The Brown ink calls out:
1. Rhematic
My understanding is that this would not be a project within the bounds
of those that interest the Gates Foundation. The focus there is on
raising the standards of public education - not arbitrary scholarly
endeavors.
With respect,
Steven
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Wilfred says::
I think we
For completeness:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ForGrantSeekers/EligibilityAndGuidelines/
Steven
Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
My understanding is that this would not be a project within the bounds
of those that interest the Gates Foundation. The focus there is on
raising the standards
see ;-).
Kind regards,
Wilfred
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Steven Ericsson Zenith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 23:36
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
My understanding is that this would
See:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-theory/
Though this may be more useful:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Category.html
I asked at a conference recently why category theory was considered so
important and the claim was made that it is important because it is our
most advanced
Dear Joe et al.,
Let me add a computer science POV here.
I think that Joe is right in almost every respect. However, "Knowledge
Management" is a widely used term and the work in this area is not
entirely academic - IOW, there is a lot of work that has been developed
independent of
a special meaning in your writings which is
of special importance to you that I don't understand.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Steven Ericsson Zenith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:41 AM
Subject: [peirce
I must confess to being a little bewildered by Gary's strongly worded
rhetoric - nothing against Ben or Frances but the case does seem to be
overstated fro my POV.
With respect,
Steven
Gary Richmond wrote:
Frances, Joe, Ben, List,
...
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber
Dear List,
There is a very nice and copyright free bio of Peirce from NOAA that I
have copied into Panopedia for reference here:
http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#NOAA_Giants_of_Science
The article is unattributed and makes the following claim, that Peirce
was:
"
My thanks Thomas, can you please
clarify to which document "W5" refers.
Thanks,
Steven
Thomas Riese wrote:
Letter Peirce to Marquand, L 269, 30 December 1886 in W5, p.422,423
Thomas.
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:30:30 +0100, Steven Ericsson Zenith
[EMAIL PROTEC
Dear Joe,
There are no authorities on authority and the public is vulnerable if
it thinks otherwise.
The memeio position can be summarized by saying that dictionaries are
bad and glossaries are good.
Dictionaries - and non-attributable content of any kind - are sociologically dangerous
ing his task in the DU project, given what he says in his
description of it to us,to which I willnow turn in my response to him
in another message, which will take me a few hours to compose.
Joe Ransdell
----- Original Message -
From:
Steven
Ericsson Zenith
FWIW. I know of the ManyOne project and have tried before to understand
what they are trying to do. Digital Universe is designed to promote
that project. However, it requires you to download the ManyOne
application suite - a new browser - to subscribe PLUS they want to up
sell Internet
Dear Larry,
Thank you for your response.
The references that you give reveal transparency regarding your
organization but that is not the transparency we are discussing.
Wikipedia is also transparent in this sense.
We have discussed here the transparency of authorship - especially with
Dear Gary,
My thanks for your encouraging words.
I agree that Ben's suggestion of cross referencing to Wikipedia is
interesting - and I am thinking about the implications of that
approach. Wikipedia articles do not have stable states. Who would own
the labels?
I did consider that one
Excuse me if this is a little off track, but I promise there is a
Peircian edge to it from several points of view.
I know that several people here on Peirce-l have attempted to write
articles for Wikipedia - and I have expressed my own concerns here in
the past. If you missed those then you
Thank you for your input Frances.
I am most firmly convinced that there is no message without a
messenger; i.e., any message without a clearly identifiable messenger
is simply meaningless. By which I mean literally without intent; absent
the embodiment of meaning in a message creator.
We
and overlooked by me and I
didn't realize at first that Gary was responding initially to your prior
post.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Steven Ericsson Zenith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:18 PM
Subject
25 matches
Mail list logo
