This header notice is an attempt to appease gmail, msn, and outlook filters:
<a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>Unsubscribe from
PEIRCE-L</a> .
Or go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l if your subscribed email
account is not your default email account.
List
Thanks to Mike Bergman for the references he provided. They do indeed show ,
in my view, how the Peircean semiosic analysis can be found in other scientific
outlines - despite the fact that these analyses are not using Peircean
terminology. That’s important - the terminology should not be a barrier to
acknowledging that these scientific analyses are also semiosic analyses.
What is a semiosic analysis? I think that it is one that examines how Matter is
interactionally operative within Mind; that is, Matter as a ‘reasonably
discrete spatiotemporal entity’ exists as it is within the formative rules of
Mind [matter is effete mind 6.25] and interacts, in a triadic function [O-R-I]
and using the three categories...with its environment’s other spatiotemporal
entities to ‘live’ or ‘be’ [in the case of a crystal’.
For example: Minimal physicalism as a scale-free substrate for cognition and
consciousness
Open Access
Chris Fields <> , James F Glazebrook <> , Michael Levin <>
"A well-established literature extends the concepts of consciousness—the
capability of having phenomenal experiences, however basic or minimally
structured—and cognition to phylogenetically basal systems, including
free-living or facultatively communal unicells, whether pro- or eukaryotic
ET Comment: My understanding of Pericean consciousness is that it is Firstness
or Feeling [ see his long outlines of protoplasm having both feeling AND Mind.
6.255, where he writes that protoplasm “not only feels but exercises all the
properties of mind”.
" this extension to more basal organisms was initially motivated by
observations of communication, learning, and behavioral flexibility, and by
functional similarities between the mechanisms supporting information
processing and learning in basal systems and in more complex systems such as
mammals. Both molecular and bioelectric mechanisms of cellular information
processing, memory, communication, and error correction are, in particular,
evolutionarily ancient and conserved across phylogeny
ET comment: The above interactional processes can all be examined within the
triadic semiotic action and the three categories. Note - communication is both
1ns and 2ns; learning is 3ns, behavioural flexibility is all three. We can see
evidence of qualsign, dicisign and legisign triads in all these processes.
And the below list from the article:
-MP is completely scale-free, applying in the same form to interactions between
molecules, cells, tissues, organisms, social groups, or ecosystems and their
respective environments. Hence it predicts common mechanisms that can be probed
empirically at any scale. It makes no assumptions about the structure or
dynamics of the environment, at any scale, beyond its being a physical system.
-MP requires every property of either itself or the environment to which an
organism or other living system is differentially sensitive to be specified
explicitly in terms of the information processing employed by the organism or
system to detect and respond to that property. This includes properties often
taken for granted, such as the existence of external objects or their embedding
in three-dimensional (3d) space, and applies regardless of whether detection
and/or response is recorded to memory or “reportable” via any specific assay
-MP treats information and energy as formally equivalent, explicitly enforces
conservation of energy, and hence requires the thermodynamics of classical
computation (Landauer 1961 <>; Bennett 1982 <>) to be represented explicitly.
It requires the thermodynamic cost of memory to be accounted for at every
scale, and automatically enforces a metabolism—cognition tradeoff….
ET comment - the ‘formal equivalence of information and energy [ which I
compare to Mind and Matter, can be compared to Peirce’s 6.73 comment that “It
is certainly a desideratum in philosophy to unify the phenomenon of mind and
matter”. My point is that information processing, within the three categories
and the interactional triad, which is to say, semiosis, is ongoing at the
cellular and quantum levels..
The question then moves to: Would this scientific research into the quantum and
cellular - as well as social realities - benefit from the use of the Peircean
framework [ eg, the triad, the categories, the ten classes, the concept of Mind
and Matter.].? I think it would - simply because the framework, so thoroughly
outlined by Peirce, is already there!
Edwina
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM
PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email
account, then go to
https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
