Hello Janos,
I know you are talking about a process, and specifically about the order of events in it. But since you are posting on the Peirce list, we assume that you are trying to use Peircean terms such as triadic relation, object, interpretant, Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness in their usual Peircean senses — which have nothing to do with the order of events in a process. The trouble is that your assertions using those Peircean terms just don’t make any Peircean sense. Consequently I have no idea what you mean by saying that “the brain is capable of generating triadic relations (following our common experience)”. If your inquiry is about how the brain does what it does, there’s a vast literature about that, some of which I could recommend. On the other hand, if you’re asking the semiotic question — how signs do what they do — I think a good introduction to Peirce would help. For instance, Cornellis de Waal’s book Peirce: a Guide for the Perplexed. If you’re trying to correlate these different fields (neuroscience, semiotics, phenomenology, psychology and so on) — something I’ve been trying to do myself for the past decade or so — then you need to familiarize yourself with the terminology of each by immersing yourself in it, before you can use those terms to ask meaningful questions. That’s about all I can say. gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Janos Sarbo [mailto:ja...@cs.ru.nl] Sent: 2-Feb-15 10:42 AM To: Peirce List Cc: Gary Fuhrman Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A question about the triadic relation of Sign Beste Gary F., I am talking about a process. The appearing quality is in interaction with the interpreting system (first event). This interaction, which I call the stimulus, is as yet uninterpreted hence a 1st (from the perspective of interpretation as a process). Memory response or responding memory, which is in relation with the stimulus, is an expression of what the stimulus may stand for hence an expression of the object (2nd). There may be a number of memory response events generated in a dynamic fashion (second, third, .., k^th event). The arising relation between stimulus and memory response may trigger motor reaction (an example of an interpretant). All ingredients are present and a triadic relation may be generated (final event). How and when this happens is beyond my knowledge. Of course, if you break up the interpretation process you will get (binary) relations. But that is not the point. The point is that the brain is capable of generating triadic relations (following our common experience). How can we capture the process involved? Obviously, if the arising model is a computational one, it will be in the realm of secondness: a computational process. Best, janos On 01/30/2015 04:12 PM, Gary Fuhrman wrote: > 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> mailto:ja...@cs.ru.nl] > Sent: 30-Jan-15 7:09 AM > To: <mailto:PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> 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 .
