Bob, I am not a philosopher nor a Peircean scholar to be able to answer your question with any confidence. But this much I can say:
For the convenience of this discussion, allow me to divide 'panpsychism' into two classes labeled as (i) 'sufficient' panpsychism maintaining that matter is sufficient for 'thought' and (ii) the 'necessary' panpsychism asserting that matter is necessary but no sufficient for "thought". Defined in this way, I think Peirce's philosophy may belong to the former class whereas I believe in the latter, because I think that only very small fraction (1 out of 10^6 or 10^12 ?) of all the physicochemcial processes occurring in the Universe are irreducibly triadic under prevailing environmental conditions and that only irreducibly triadic processes (also called semioses, the plural of semiosis) are capable of the origin and maintenance of life, evolution, and thought. I arrived at the conclusion that thought can occur in inorganic matter based on my realization that semiosis or 'irreducibly triadic process' (as an abstraction of human thought and communication) is not confined to human life but can also occur in all self-organizing physicochemical processes taking place in both biological and purely physical systems, evidence for which having been obtained only in recently decades (since about 1950's), in the field of nonlinear chemical reaction dynamics. All the best. Sung On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Bob Logan <[email protected]> wrote: > Sung - Does this mean that Peirce was a pan-psychic - thanks - Bob > ______________________ > > Robert K. Logan > Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto > Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD > http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan > www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan > www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications > > > > > > > > > On 2015-04-14, at 5:28 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > Ben, Edwina, lists, > > > (1) Peirce's beautiful quote is reproduced for convenience: > > "Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work > of bees,of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world; and one can > no more deny that it is really there, than that the colors, the shapes, > etc., of objects are really there.... Not only is thought in the inorganic > *³* world, but it develops there." > (CP 4.551) > > > (2) I wonder if the meanings of the word "thought" that Peirce is using > here can be interpreted in two ways -- (i) as a type and (ii) as a token. > > There are many different kinds of thoughts at the concrete 'token' levels > -- human thought, the thought of bees that enabled the construction of > their nests, both being measurable in EEG, and 'thought' of crystals that > do not show any EEG signals. But both these seemingly different kinds of > thoughts can be considered as members of the same, more abstract kind (or > type) of thought, defined in terms of "semiosis" or an "irreducible > triad". In other words, since human thought is a form of semiosis (which > is synonymous with an irreducible triad), all semiosic processes, whether > inorganic or organic systems, can be said to exhibit "thought" in the > category-theoretical sense. > > (3) In this category-theoretical sense, all self-organizing chemical > reactions (exemplified by the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction which can be > modeled by the Brusselator) can be said to exhibit "thought" and has "mind" > if they are "irreducibly triadic", which seems to be the case (see below). > > (4) The Brusselator is probably the simplest theoretical model of > chemical reactions that can self-organize. See the video at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusselator. (Prigogine once told me that > the key step in the Brusselator is the 'termolecular' step, 2X ---> 3 X.) > It has the following 4 chemical steps involving reactants, (A + B), > products, (D + E), and the transient intermediates, (X + Y) that interact > obeying the following rules or mechanisms: > > A --------> X > > 2X + Y --------> 3X > > B + X --------> Y + D > > X --------> E > ______________________________ > > A + B ----------> D + E > > Figure 1. The Brussleator -- a theoretical model of self-organizing > chemical reactions, both organic and inorganic. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusselator. > > > > I suggest that the Brusselator, Figture 1, can be mapped onto the > ur-category, Figure 2, as shown in Figure 3. Mathematically speaking, > Figure 1 and Figure 3 are isomorphic (i.e., embody similar regualarites or > principles). > > f g > A ----------> B ----------> C > | ^ > | | > |_____________________| > h > > Figure 2. The ur-category, a high-level category to which all lower-level > categories belong (see the emails attached). > > > > > f g > ( A+B) -----------> (X+Y) -----------> (D+E) > | ^ > | | > |_____________________________| > h > > Figure 3. The Brusselator as a semiosic process and hence a member of the > ur-category. f = production step, g = destruction step, h = information > flow (i.e., the structures of E and E are determined by those of A and B > mediated by X and Y). > > > (5) Since the Brusselator and all its token self-organizing chemical > reactions are capable of semiosis (i.e., "undergoing irreducibly triadic > process") as shown above, it would be logical to conclude that all > self-organizing chemical reactions are associated with "thoughts" or > "minds" of their own. This does not mean that all chemical reactions can be > considered to have thoughts, since not all chemical reactions undergo > irreducibly triadic processes, just as not all utterances from human mouth > can carry information. > > All the best. > > Sung > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:37 PM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nathan Houser's papers at academia.edu > To: Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> > Cc: PEIRCE-L <[email protected]>, biosemiotics < > [email protected]> > > > Ben, Edwina, lists, > > I agree. Semiosis (defined as an irreducibly triadic process) can, in > principle, take place in inorganic reactions (although I cannot readily > think of one). > If you equate "thought" with semiosis which is irreduciblly triadic > process, then "thought" can be said to occur in inorganic world. It is > possible that the first irreducibly triadic process occurred in inorganic > world which eventually evolved into more complex irreducibly triadic > processes in organic world and the cosmos (?). If this is what Peirce is > saying I am with him. > > All the best. > > Sung > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Edwina, list, >> >> You're welcome. In fact, I wanted to add a line to the effect of "Edwina >> will be happy to hear about this!" but I got bogged down in trying to word >> it to strike quite the right note and so on. >> >> Best, Ben >> >> On 4/13/2015 8:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: >> >> Ben, thanks for the correction. It makes a LOT of sense. As you know, >> I've used that quote many many times on the list - and using 'inorganic' >> rather than organic - well, from all of Peirce's writings, that focus >> makes more sense. He did refer to the inorganic realm as also engaged in >> semiosis. And clearly explained how it became 'hidebound' with habits. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2015 8:01 PM >> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Nathan Houser's papers at academia.edu >> >> List, >> >> Nathan Houser has been uploading many of his papers to academia.edu. >> >> http://iupui.academia.edu/NathanHouser >> >> One does not need to actually download a PDF to read one of his papers. >> Once one clicks on the "close" X of the download popup, the paper itself >> appears in HTML form on the webpage. >> >> I've been reading his "The Scent of Truth" on abductive inference, and >> came upon this tidbit of which I had been unaware. Nathan quotes Peirce and >> adds and end note. >> >> Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work >> of bees,of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world; and one can >> no more deny that it is really there, than that the colors, the shapes, >> etc., of objects are really there.... Not only is thought in the inorganic >> *³* world, but it develops there. (CP 4.551) >> >> 3. As reported in Houser 2000, in the faircopy manuscript that Peirce >> submitted to _The Open Court_, he clearly wrote 'inorganic,' but the >> word was set in type for publication in _The Monist_ as 'organic' and >> that reading was carried over to the _Collected Papers_. >> [End quote] >> >> It makes the sentence work better. If he had meant 'organic', it would >> have been better to write, "In the organic world, not only is there >> thought, but it develops there...." Still, could Peirce have let 'organic' >> stand on purpose? After all, he could have corrected in the subsequent >> errata. But I think he simply missed it, and that 'inorganic' was the word >> that he intended. In the past I had put some weight on Peirce's (seemingly) >> saying that thought originates in the organic world and his seeming silence >> about whether it originates also in the inorganic world. >> >> Best, Ben >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > -- 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
----------------------------- 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
