Janos, now I see what your problem is. A stimulus has to be *second* to whatever responds do it. A quality, as a manifestation of Firstness, cannot be a stimulus. The response must *also* be second to the stimulus. In other words, a stimulus-response event is an instance of Secondness.
What you have here is a mistranslation of cognitive science terms into Peircean phenomenological terms. So naturally your mapping of perception onto semiosis will be faulty. Thirdness comes into it when the quality of the brain event is recognized as a quality of the object. "Thirdness is found wherever one thing brings about a Secondness between two things" (Peirce, EP2:269) So the interpretant, the "generated thought", is a third, but Thirdness proper belongs to perception (semiosis, cognition) as an irreducible whole, not to its third stage in temporal order. gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Janos Sarbo [mailto:ja...@cs.ru.nl] Sent: 30-Jan-15 7:09 AM To: PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A question about the triadic relation of Sign Dear list, Thank you for your reactions so far. Unless I missed something, as yet the nature of a relation between triadic sign and qualitative change has not been fully explained. On 01/29/15 John wrote: "irreducible triads as not fully computable, and hence inherently open-ended", which points in the direction of a possible compatibility of the two concepts. For an illustration of my view, that the relation between the two concepts can be a relation of equivalence, I found a cognitive perspective helpful. Following cognitive theory, human processing is triggered by an appearing quality. This quality or stimulus, which is a potential sign (cf. representamen), must be a 1st. The stimulus or input qualia (which are an internal representation of qualities) is triggering memory. The arising memory response, which is in relation with the stimulus, must be a 2nd. The generated thought or motor reaction, which is in a triadic relation with simulus and memory response (cf. sign), must be a 3rd. Note that in this model of human processing the appearing quality/stimulus/potential sign/representamen is assumed to function as an effect, not as a state. The arising thought must be a quality (it may trigger a next interpretation cycle) that must be different from stimulus and memory response. Hence it must be (or involve) a qualitative change. Best regards, Janos
----------------------------- 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 .
