Frederik, Howard, lists, I agree. In my opinion, what is widely called "autocatalytic" is more or less synonymous with "self-organization". As you can see in the 4/14/2015 post partly reproduced below, Step 4 in Figure 1 is "autocatalytic" in that the intermediate X reproduces itself with the help of Y. Since the Brusselator is one of the (if not the) first and the simplest theoretical models of the self-organizing chemical reaction-diffusion system and since I have shown that the Brusselator can be mapped onto the ur-category (see Figure 2) to which Pericean semiosis itself belongs, it seems to me that the following terms can all be considered sharing similar meanings:
(1) autocatalysis (2) self-organization (3) semiosis (including the first semiosis) (4) Peircean sign (5) thinking (6) mind (7) irreducible triad (8) proto-life (9) mathematical category All the best. Sung 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 > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.ku.dk> wrote: > Dear Sung, Howard, lists - > > I tend to agree with Kauffman that some some sort of proto-metabolism must > have been the earliest quasi-life (like his "autokatalytic sets"), rather > than DNA first or membranes first etc - for the reason that self-sustaining > cycles seem to be the first candidate to local teleology. Later aspects of > that cycle will be needed and hence proto-meaningful for earlier aspects. > So, once there is a metastable autokatalytic set in the primordial soup, it > will be able to recruit membranes, and recruit RNA and later DNA for its > replicability … something like that. It will also involve generality in the > sense, that specific phases of the catalytic chain possibly may be > satisfied by several different, but related, substances - in that case, > they will be so to speak categorized as functionally the same (a bit like > E. Coli being able to digest many different carbohydrates …) > > Best > F > > > > Den 28/04/2015 kl. 17.38 skrev Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> > : > > Frederik, Howard, Lists, > > > Frederik answered "By the first semiosis" to Howard's question, "When in > the history of the universe do you say the *first proposition* occurs?" > > > Frederik, can you speculate on what you think was the first semiosis > like ? > > Would you agree that whatever it was, it must have been an irreducibly > triadic process, or a self-organizing chemical reaction-diffusion system, > similar to the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction or the artificial Krebs cycle > of the Matsuno type? > > All the best. > > Sung > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.ku.dk> > wrote: > >> Dear Howard, lists - >> >> Den 28/04/2015 kl. 12.44 skrev Howard Pattee <hpat...@roadrunner.com> >> >> At 05:18 AM 4/28/2015, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: >> [snip] >> >> - Dicisigns - applies to biosemiotics as well. To me, this forms part of >> a naturalization of semiotics. But, simultaneously, a naturalization which >> takes generalities such as empirical universals as well as >> mathematics/logic as parts of nature. >> >> >> I have argued that to be consistent with the physicists' view of natural >> laws, the *first phenomenon* occurred with the *first self-replication* (as >> did the* first self*, the *first semiosis, *and the *first evolvable >> life*, etc.). >> >> >> I think we're in agreement here. To me, semiotics and biology are >> co-extensive. >> >> Pansemioticians like Peirce think differently about natural laws and >> origins. >> >> >> I do not think Peirce is consistently a pan-semiotician (even if that >> tendency can most certainly be found in his work, so can >> counter-tendencies). We covered this ground before, did we not? >> >> >> I have three questions about your view: >> (1) What "parts of nature" do you include in "naturalization of >> semiotics"? >> >> I am not sure I understand the question. I do not think the results of >> mathematics are a human invention. I think mathematics is part of nature in >> the sense that it contains structures which are as they are without human >> agency - no matter whether they have physical realizations or not. They may >> be seen as hypothetical or modal in order to avoid naive Platonism. >> >> (2) Do you think of mathematics and logic as a part of (subset) of >> semiotics? >> >> No. I rather think semiotics is a subset of logic in Peirce's broad >> epistemological conception of logic. >> >> (3) When in the history of the universe do you say the *first >> proposition* occurs? >> >> By the first semiosis. >> >> Best >> Frederik >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 > 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 > . > > > > > > -- 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 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 .
