Jon - Nope, I disagree. You are reducing the nature of a Function to a
linear path. My point is that F or S (in your triad) is not a step in a path
nor is it a cumulative action but is instead a transformative action. The
semiosic 'f' is not empty but 'filled' - with generals, with universals and
thus exerts a transformative agency on X...to result in a Y that is not
identical with X (unless it's a pure process).
And most certainly this is not behaviouristic stimulus-response - because,
again, that 'F' is a mediative and transformative function....something that
the O-S-I pattern doesn't clearly show.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
To: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
Cc: "Sungchul Ji" <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>; "Peirce List"
<peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
STOI. Semiotic Theory Of Information
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559
STOI-DIS. Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14570
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14573
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14577
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14579
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14581
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14584
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14585
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14590
Edwina, Sung, List,
I see that most likely non-terminating loop going round the bend again,
so I'll take my breakpoint here and attend to more promising processes ...
In the meantime you might reflect on the fact that a function f : X → Y is
a species of dyadic relation, expressible as f ⊆ X × Y, and thus falls
short of capturing the genus of a triadic relation L ⊆ O × S × I among the
domains of objects, signs, and interpretant signs. You can say that there
is a triadic relation among O = a set of objects, F = a set of functions
or function names, and I = a set of interpretant signs, but here once
again you are specifying a triadic relation that is far more special than
the genus of sign relations we can easily observe in practice. Going down
that road would reduce semiotics to a brand of stimulus-response
behaviorism that long ago proved itself inadequate to the task at hand.
Regards,
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Sung - I've still no idea what you mean by semiotics as a mathematical
category - despite your frequent descriptions of it. I've advocated, for
many years, that the semiosic process, in its single triadic process, is
a function. f(x)=y. X is the input data from the Dynamic Object and Y is
the output Interpretant. F, of course, is the Representamen. This
acknowledges the dynamic mediative nature of 'f', or the Representamen,
where input data is transformed/interpreted into one basic conclusion.
Your other concepts (besides your 'mathematical category')...such as the
wave-particle duality and your complementarism and your formal/material
dualism etc - I don't agree with because they have little to do with
semiosis...and my views of 'what is matter' and 'what is Mind' are quite
different, as I follow the 'matter is effete Mind' view of Peirce.
My point in bringing these issues into these discussions is a perhaps
sideline attempt to move the discussion from the isolation of the
philosophy seminar room into pragmatic reality. That is, biology and
evolution, and economics, and artificial intelligence and yes, societal
organization, have a great deal to learn from semiotics. I think that
Frederik's outline of the dicisign moves semiosis from the heady fields
of literature, film, language etc...into the actual material world - and
to me, that's where it is innovative and exciting.
Edwina
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sungchul Ji" <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>
To: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
Cc: "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
Edwina, Jon, lists,
If the idea expressed in [biosemiotics:7096] is, in principle, correct
that the "new" semiotics can be viewed as a mathematical category
comprising physics, biology and linguistics, among others, it may be
necessary for natural scientists to become semioticians and semioticians
natural scientists.
For example the model of morphogenesis (see attached) proposed in one of
the articles collected in the link Edwina provides below states thus:
"This image is a representation of a regenerating planarian (100714-1)
flatworm. The tail portion, which has been amputated, will
regrow perfectly. This illustrates the concept of morphostasis-the
ability of some living systems to dynamically restore their pattern.
The image shows neoblast stem cells (light red dots), blastema
(orange tissue at the wound site), and the bioelectrical gradients
that are crucial for maintaining long-range anatomical polarity
(yellow "field" lines). The morphogenetic field of patterning
information (the target morphology) which will guide the rebuilding
of the tail is schematized as a wire framework (white)-a scaffold
of force and information underlying the subsequent gene expression
and anatomy."
One possible explanation for the amputated tail regrowing to its
original
shape would be the action of the wave-particle duality in morphogenesis,
since the standing waves determined by the topology of the whole embryo
can guide the regeneration of the appropriate cells (i.e., particles) to
form the missing tail. I have not yet read the original paper but I am
almost sure that the authors non-local explanation for this phenomenon
would be consistent witht he wave-particle dual model here described.
From the wave-particle model to Peircean theory of categories may not be
too far, since semiosis would implicate the irreducible triad of physics
(a First), biology (a Second) and linguistics/informatics/genetics (a
Third).
With all the best.
Sung
____________________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
Jon - these people have attempted to move semiotic analysis out of the
comfort of the pipe-smoke-filled seminar rooms into the pragmatic
realm.
So,
they've been exploring the semiotic informational and knowledge
processes
that actually take place within artificial intelligence, within
economic
processes within societies, within humans both as the individual and as
a
collective, within societies as cohesive organisms and of course,
within
the
biological realm - where a lot of work is being done within
biosemiotics.
Therefore these are not trivial but necessarily very specific outlines
of
the informational processes that take place in these systems.
http://www.dca.fee.unicamp.br/~gudwin/compsemio/
http://link.springer.com/journal/12304
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/biosystems/
In many cases they refer to Peirce. In many cases they do not but the
actual
analytic framework they are developing and using is a triadic semiosic
unit
with all the complexities of the three categories.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03032647/109/3
In other areas, they are focusing on semiotics as a dynamic complex
process
not confined to the individual but as operating within the
collective..and
not as a single interaction but as a network of interactions.. as in,
eg,
the economic processes (and of course within the biological realm)
http://www.frankfurt-school.de/clicnetclm/fileDownload.do?goid=000000396632AB4
And entropy and complexity research further explores the basic nature
of
semiosis, again, often referring to semiosis (and Peirce) and often
not.
I'm
sure you are aware of the
COMPLEXITY DIGEST and of Entropy online
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/9?utm_source=issue_link&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=releaseIssue_entropy
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
To: "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 8:24 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
Thread:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14570
Edwina, List,
I don't recall running across Perlovsky before but I have at least
skimmed
a few
papers coming out of the Computational Semiotics group (or maybe it
was
another
such group out of Waterloo?) At any rate, aside from my own humble
efforts it
has only been the computer science semioticians who actually tackle
anything
approaching non-trivial examples of sign relations. By tackling a
non-trivial
example I don't mean simply waving ones hands in the direction of a
complex case
and remarking how complex it is, but actually articulating a concrete
example as
a sign relation proper.
Regards,
Jon
Jon Awbrey wrote:
Edwina, List,
I decided the other title was too long, and I like the acronym STOI
much
better.
It's not so much that we touch on learning and reasoning just now as
the
fact that we've been immersed in them all along.
In every realm of inquiry we encounter complementaries, dualities, or
trade-offs between two aspects of the phenomena we are trying to
understand. Viewed in the setting of a triadic sign relation that
encompasses all the relevant objects and all the signs and ideas we
have
of them, we can often recognize these aspects as corresponding to the
denotative and connotative planes of that sign relation.
In computer science, especially in AI, one runs smack dab into the
problem of integrating data-driven and concept-driven aspects of
intelligent functioning. You find yourself recapitulating in the
ontogeny of your software development something like the phylogeny of
classical oppositions between empiricists and rationalists.
Well, it's late ...
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> If we are to touch on learning and reasoning, it might be
fruitful to
> expand the research domain of this blog to include the research
areas
> of
> such people as Leonid Perlovsky and Ricardo Gudwin. Both of them
are
> involved in cognition, semiotics, learning, evolution. That is,
most
> of
> this list (Peirce list) and its discussions seems devoted to the
purely
> theoretical area of the philosophical domains of Peirce. These two
> (and
> others) are focused on the applied, pragmatic domains of cognition,
> semiotics, artificial intelligence, bioengineering, and etc. And
yes,
> both of them have explored Peirce.
>
> http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com/
>
> http://faculty.dca.fee.unicamp.br/gudwin/node/2
>
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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
.
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
