Sun and earth do communicate, but resulting directly dyadic rather than triadic relations, and with no involvement of cognition. The point can be generalized: communication is broader than cognition.
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 15:02 To: Frederik Stjernfelt; Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6633] Natural Propositions On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.ku.dk<mailto:stj...@hum.ku.dk>> wrote: Let me redescribe my claim. Physics, taken in itself, does not study cognition and communication processes - biology does. and On Sep 4, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.ku.dk<mailto:stj...@hum.ku.dk>> wrote: My claim certainly does not entail that physics be entirely mechanistic. My observation is just that sign concepts are widespread in biology, not so in physics. This gives us the idea that biology studies real semiotic processes, while physics, including QM, does not. This observation, of course, only holds for the present state - as sciences evolve, it may be proved wrong by further developments in physics. You might also state my view by saying that biology constitutes the semiotic part of physics. This is what I’m still not sure about. Certainly if one uses a Hamiltonian form then there’s less sign process. But it seems to me the Newtonian form of mechanics and the Feynman form of QM are inherently a sign process just as in biology. Further it is all about communication with forces being the interactions between particles. Likewise even classic E&M seems to be a semiotic process, although certainly one can conceive of it as an equation that evolves. Not criticizing, just trying to figure out what you mean. Do you think that say a Feynman diagram isn’t a communication process? Perhaps not cognition in a normal sense, but in the Peircean sense (where he saw mind operative in chemical processes like crystal formation) it seems to be. However even if you are just requiring cognition or quasi-cognition (say with insects or microbiology) I’m not sure but what you don’t have virtual cognition in many forms QM takes. (I’m not saying the observer is a real cognition - I tend to see it as an accidental artifact - but it does seem to end up meaning QM takes a form similar to biology) Now I fully agree that the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian forms of mechanics and quantum mechanics aren’t really sign oriented. But I bet more people *think* and *talk* in terms of the more Newtonian conception (in terms of math/signs) even if the other forms of calculating are pretty common. Sorry, not trying to take things down a tangent, just very curious as to this point. I think Peirce tended to adopt more biological conceptions and apply them to physical ones whereas especially in the 19th century that was far less common. While it is a tangent, it seems to be a tangent with important implications for the main topic.
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
