Stephen, list I’ve reread your Grok summation - and, apart from ‘it’s fun’ - I still have a problem with your alignment of Secondness with ‘Association’ - since,on its own, Secondness doesn’t have the [mental] capacity to ‘associate’ with anything, even if it’s in direct contact with this ‘other! That’s why I consider your ‘downward causation as actually 3-2, or Thirdness in a mode of Secondness.
Be that as it may, I continue to view the three categories as all basic and fundamental, - none of them are primary. After all- it’s obvious that you can’t have 3ns without 2ns….or even 1ns. I steer away from any concept of 3ns as primary since, in my view, it inserts an a priori determinism - akin to a teleology. So- I don’t go along with ‘downward causation’.as primary .ie.. Can the higher level properties influence the behaviour of the lower level components? Yes and no. Remember - Firstness is a basic category and will enable novel properties to emerge. But most certainly a developed law can affect and control the behaviour of lower level components. That’s the role of habit!! So- downward causation - fi that is what is meant by the operation of 3-2, is hardly a novel requirement…but is a basic to preventing entropy. I don’t watch YouTube..so.. I’m not aware that emergence theory is akin to reductionism!! Maybe weak emergence but not strong emergence. Again- I refer to Firstness as a basic component of reality . Adaptationand evolution require it..as does entropy prevention. Edwina > On Oct 18, 2025, at 8:57 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, List, > > Regarding Complex Adaptive Systems. Glad to see that you are factoring in > “all three categorical modes in operation… none privileged or primary.” I > wonder what your take is of classical emergence theories. > > Life would not be possible, based on purely physicalist interpretations, such > as “classical” emergence theories… thankfully, your 3-category blend is > clearly not such an interpretation. For the sake of clarity, allow me to > outline my objection to pure physicalism, easily summed up in the word > “entropy” and this simple demonstration that even Muslims and Christians can > understand: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwqPdWZvjAY > > Classical emergentists, as physicalists, still don’t get it, apparently. They > don’t get it that extraordinary complexity might, by some freak chance, > occasionally occur within a universe of infinite possibilities… but that it > persists across time and space is the deal-breaker for any and all dumb-luck, > physicalist theories of emergence relying solely on sterile stochastics. That > “Lego helicopter” in the demonstration, above, won’t last long within a > bucket of Lego parts continuing to tumble beyond its happy, ephemeral > creation. > > Christen & Franklin (2002) identify the nub of the problem with emergence > theories: "... ‘emergence’ in complexity science, while intriguing to many, > is still fully consistent with most forms of reductionism and does not allow > for downward causation." This is the position I am also solidly committed to. > In other words, most (all?) emergence theories (including predictive > stochastics, Bayesianism, etc), masquerade a downward causation that amounts > to wishful thinking, failing to properly address the entropy problem. > > Incidentally, regarding the code-biology/semiotic split at the Biosemiotics > journal… I thought that split had been resolved in favour of semiotics, as > explained by my buddy, Grok, in my exchange last month (13 September). This > is Grok’s summation: > > The Dispute's Status: Settled on the Surface, But Not Extinct > > You're right that one could argue the dust has settled institutionally. The > journal's editorial team, as of 2025, is led by Yogi Hale Hendlin (Lead > Editor-in-Chief, with a focus on environmental philosophy and relational > dynamics) and co-edited by Alexei Sharov (a biosemiotician emphasizing > semiotic agency in evolution), alongside associates like Carlo Brentari and > Ludmila Lackova, all of whom operate squarely within Peircean frameworks. > Notably, no code biology advocates appear on the board, and recent issues > (e.g., April 2025's exploration of umwelt theory and phenomenology) > prioritize interpretive semiosis over code-centric models. The International > Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), which the journal officially > represents, continues to host annual Gatherings (next in Rotterdam, August > 2025) that center Peircean-Uexküllian approaches, with little mention of code > biology as a parallel school. > > However, the intellectual divide persists in the literature, and it's not > just relic history. A January 2025 paper explicitly notes the "separation" > between the two due to "differences in their understanding of cellular-level > interpretation" and epistemological concerns—biosemiotics insisting on > Peircean triadic signs (requiring an interpretant for meaning), versus code > biology's claim that arbitrary codes alone suffice for biological meaning > without subjective interpretation. [degruyterbrill.com > <http://degruyterbrill.com/>] Similarly, a February 2025 article in > Biosystems dissects Kalevi Kull's 2020 critique of code biology, arguing it > could "subordinate" the latter to Peircean biosemiotics if valid, and > explores how recursivity in social practices might resolve (or expose) these > ontological gaps. [pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov <http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/>] > Even a forthcoming 2025 piece in Biosemiotics itself directly challenges the > idea that "codes need interpretation," asserting that codes were the sole > form of semiosis for life's first three billion years—echoing Barbieri's > physicalist stance. [link.springer.com <http://link.springer.com/>] > > Efforts at bridging persist too, often via Robert Rosen's relational biology > as a "third way" (e.g., showing how codes can enable emergent interpretation > without fully endorsing either side), but these haven't erased the lines— > they've just made them blurrier for outsiders. [researchgate.net > <http://researchgate.net/> +3] If the email sender is deeply embedded in the > journal's Peircean orbit, their "blissful unawareness" might stem from this > insularity: code biology feels peripheral, like a road not taken, especially > since its society publishes separately. > > BOTTOM LINE: This is why I believe that Carlo Rovelli’s RQM – or some > interpretation along those relational lines – will be key to integrating QM > with semiotic theory. Physicalism is a dead-end, imho. > > REFERENCE: > Christen, M., & Franklin, L. R. (2002). The Concept of Emergence in > Complexity Science: Finding Coherence between Theory and Practice. > Proceedings of the Complex Systems Summer School 2002, 4. > > sj > > > From: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > Sent: 17 October, 2025 5:00 PM > To: Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quantum Peirce for dummies > > Stephen, List > > Well, Grok is a lot of fun. [ I don’t have an X or any social media account]… > but have speed read through your Word link. I’d have to go through it more > slowly to come to an obeisance to Grok …I remain sceptical, but, I was > surprised. I do reject that the difference between us is ’terminological’ - > for I consider your association certainly reeks of Thirdness. Possibly > Thirdness-in-a- mode of Secondness [ which brings in the indexical > association aspect]. But - it remains: Thirdness. ..and as such - is > ‘downward causation- and I reject both downward and bottom up causation in > favour of a CAS., ie, that the universe is a Complex adaptive system, with > all three categorical modes in operation…and none privileged or primary. All > are quite active and interactive…. > > [Note- I remain stunned that the three objections to my naming the Universe > as a CAS, were all totally ignorant of the definition of a CAS!! How’s that > for scholarship.]. > > As for Barbieri- yes - in my view - his taking over the bio semiotic world [ > and he’s quite a forceful personality, personally] andn his incredible > complete ignorance of Peirce - ended a bright future for biossemiotics. It’s > just ‘reductionist code now. > > I promise I will go through the Grok outline you provided more slowly - and > give a feedback in the next few days. > > Edwina > > > > >> On Oct 17, 2025, at 10:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Edwina, List >> >> Edwina, I ran your objections past Grok. If you have an X account (others in >> this list might), you can access the chat here: >> https://x.com/i/grok/share/YsZeYKy6Z1ao44GoCXAy869OB >> Grok is fine with my perspective. If you can’t access the above link, then >> see the attached for the relevant bits of my exchange with Grok (the >> copy-pasted format is untidy… it’s fine when viewed online). If you’re still >> sceptical of what Grok is capable of, perhaps now is the time to consider >> changing your mind. >> >> >”As such, Barbieri has ended the Peircean focus of Jesper Hoffmeyer within >> >the biosemoitic world…” >> Seriously? That’s disappointing. The physicalist code-biology bs has long >> exceeded its use-by date. No wonder there’s a crisis in physics. >> >> sj >> >> From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> On >> Behalf Of Edwina Taborsky >> Sent: 16 October, 2025 8:36 PM >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Stephen Jarosek >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quantum Peirce for dummies >> >> List, Stephen >> >> I will only post this one time as I recall our earlier arguments over this >> focus - which went nowhere. I think the basic augment for me - is not >> whether or not Peircean samosas is applicable at the quantum level, for I >> think that is -but is about the role of and the nature of : The Categories. >> I feel they are deeply ignored and/or misunderstood among the Peircean >> world. >> >> Again - my concern in Jarosek’s outline is the definition and use of >> Peircean Thirdness [ the mental organizational principle] as both some form >> of Secondness [ indexicality] and as a hierarchical authority by ‘downward >> causation’ which implies some kind of separate abstract out-of-body force. >> And I don’t see ‘bottom-up causation’ as reductionism but as an >> acknowledgement of the realities of both Firstness and Secondness as >> organizational principles of energy/matter. . I won’t comment further >> because it’s all been said before. >> >> My view, as I’ve said before is that all three categories are fundamental to >> achieve the organization of energy/matter. This view also differs from that >> of JAS and Gary R - who see Thirdness as primary. >> >> And - as another example of a different focus on the categories - there’s >> the view of Marcello Barbieri, who, in my view, totally and deeply misreads >> and misunderstands Peirce - confining Peirce’s semiosis to ONLY the >> interpretative phase of the triad {O-R/S-I] ..while, he, Barbieri has >> removed both Firstness and the Object and redefined it as ‘Manufacturing’; >> and removed Secondness and redefined it as a ’signalling function’. >> As such, Barbieri has ended the Peircean focus of Jesper Hoffmeyer within >> the biosemoitic world…I won’t comment further on this sad state.. >> >> I am grateful to Robert Marty whose outline of the categories seem, to me, >> to be accurate and correct analyses of Peirce’s agenda in providing us with >> these three categories. Again - all are, in my understanding, fundamental >> to the formation of energy/matter. . >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 16, 2025, at 5:11 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> List, >>> >>> A few weeks ago, I posted a comment to a forum that was well-received, >>> somewhat to my surprise. It was a summary of my main thesis, currently >>> under review with a journal, available as a preprint, here (some of you >>> were introduced to earlier drafts of it a couple of months ago): >>> https://www.academia.edu/129898049/Association_as_Downward_Causation >>> >>> My brief comment to the forum was an outline of why, though I’m not a fan >>> of panpsychism, I certainly do support a theory of “mind stuff” playing out >>> throughout all levels of existence, including matter. Apparently, people >>> can still “get it” without having to read the 20+ pages of my more >>> thoroughly supported document. Here is that tl;dr summary for those who >>> prefer a briefer outline. >>> >>> THEORY OF EVERYTHING FOR DUMMIES >>> >>> References to panpsychism make me nervous. I'm more inclined to look to raw >>> "mind stuff" as first cause, and in this regard, the semiotic theory of CS >>> Peirce and Terence Deacon's (2012, 2021) notion of molecules as signs are >>> especially interesting. Peircean association, as downward causation, >>> "informs" bottom-up causation (reductionism) of the options that are >>> available, and so addresses the entropy problem. Example of association? >>> Two Hydrogen atoms + one Oxygen atom, in association, constitute a water >>> molecule. >>> Association also plays out in the quantum void, virtual particles, etc, >>> as per the Feynman diagrams - association relates to the tensions between >>> the known and the unknown. >>> What other entities must contend with the tensions between the known >>> and the unknown? We do. All living things do, and that's why Peircean >>> association is important to them and us, too (Jarosek, 2001). The opposable >>> thumbs, eyes, ears, sex differences, vocal apparatus, etc that constitute >>> human embodied cognition enable us to associate language, experiences, >>> meaning and culture... culture is our downward causation, wiring our >>> neuroplastic brains (Jarosek, 2020). >>> Then factor in Carlo Rovelli's Relational QM to seal the deal. If my >>> conjecture is right, this does away with physicalism, Copenhagenesque >>> subatomic billiard-balls popping into and out of existence, and the even >>> nuttier notions of multiverse, manyworlds, and dead-alive cats. >>> Rovelli's RQM (1996) is key, imho... that's about as close to >>> panpsychism as I'm prepared to venture. [Had I heard of Rovelli’s work >>> before 2001, I would have cited him in my 2001 paper] >>> And with this extensive simplicity and generality, from top to bottom >>> (Michael Levin's "all the way down"), we satisfy Occam's razor. >>> >>> REFERENCES >>> Deacon, T.W. (2012). Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. New >>> York: W.W. Norton&Co. >>> Deacon, T.W. (2021, September 25). How Molecules Became Signs. >>> Biosemiotics, 14, 537-559. >>> Jarosek, S. (2001). The law of association of habits. Semiotica, 133(1/4), >>> 79-96: >>> https://www.academia.edu/3236556/The_law_of_association_of_habits >>> Jarosek, S. (2020). Knowing how to be: Imitation, the neglected axiom. >>> Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 27(3), 33-63: >>> https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/chk/2020/00000027/00000003/art00003 >>> Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of >>> Theoretical Physics, 35, 1637–1678. >>> Watson, R., & Levin, M. (2023, May 23). The collective intelligence of >>> evolution and development. Collective Intelligence, 2(2), 1-22. >>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>> ► 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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> . >>> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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]";>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.
