Edwina ~
I agree the original quote represented a nominalist perspective of logic -
which I previously called a black box whose contents forever remain a mystery.
But that quote 'almost' painted a picture of the dynamics of connecting objects
to interpretants in the brain, so I touched up the image with a few facts from
Wikipedia.
More broadly, the philosopher's perspective of logic is (appropriately)
different from that of one who uses logic as a tool for Pragmatic purposes.
Sometimes, failing to make that distinction leads to misunderstood comments
about logic.
Philosophers almost never observe logic until after the deed is done. They
always use words. Sometimes they express ideas about logic in
lyrical/rhetorical ways to persuade others their insights are true. It is
possible to 'win' a debate among philosophers while actually being wrong, so
the search for truth may be long delayed.
Those who use logic as a tool have a more dynamic perspective. They're
concerned with solving several puzzles simultaneously, looking ahead rather
than behind, mediating between different objectives, abducting on the fly.
Errors are quickly exposed by a Pragmatic universe that does not yield to false
beliefs.
Regards,
Tom Wyrick
On Oct 23, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Thomas - I think that Gary F's outline is, as I said, postmodernism - grounded
in Derrida's 'differance' and 'presence'...and 'rhetoric' [taking names].
Nothing to do with Peirce and I don't see that Derrida was a scholar of Peirce
(he was more firmly Saussurian).
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas
To: g...@gnusystems.ca
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things
Gary, List ~
"The chaotic background murmur and crackle of neurons firing, cells doing what
they muddily must to stay alive, organizes itself into definite rhythmic
patterns, and lo, forms emerge and begin to branch. Presence parts from itself
and proliferates as the branches take names."
I like how this quote points to the physical presence of objects and
interpretants in the brain, and the habitual paths connecting relevant neurons.
However, I would have liked it more if your quote had been less lyrical, and
instead had described the physical mechanism by which a collection of neurons
form an object-interpretant relationship in the brain.
I certainly believe they do that.
Steve Jobs likened creativity to "connecting the dots" in useful ways that
other people haven't before. Those 'dots' are neurons (grey matter) and they
rely on electrochemical energy to connect via the brain's white matter. As
they make connections with more neurons over the passage of time, some neurons
grow larger/dominant and subsequently receive and send out electrochemical
signals more efficiently than the others. Thereafter, connections between
those enlarged neurons form 'paths' in the physical brain (object+interpretant
relationships), so those larger/connected neurons are more likely to contribute
to logical deductions in the future.
I believe that brain researchers have identified all of the physical mechanisms
mentioned above. Identifying the larger/connected neurons as
object-interpretant relationships is my perspective (i.e., abduction).
Relationships between neurons are 'habits' nourished over time by a flow of
electrochemical energy. In solving today's puzzle the energy may flow from
neuron A to B, but in solving tomorrow's puzzle it may flow from B to A. The
object and interpretant status of neurons is ever-changing, and varies with the
Pragmatic objective.
Regards,
Tom Wyrick
On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:01 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote:
We see what we focus on: what we see distinguishes itself from the visual
field: the dynamic object determines the sign to determine its interpretant.
Cognition begins by making distinctions; recognition continues with emergence
of relations from the phaneron, now that things have emerged from the phaneron.
A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they are called
so.
— Chuangtse 2 (Watson 1968, 40)
The chaotic background murmur and crackle of neurons firing, cells doing what
they muddily must to stay alive, organizes itself into definite rhythmic
patterns, and lo, forms emerge and begin to branch. Presence parts from itself
and proliferates as the branches take names. But a metaphor reverses the
process by unmaking a familiar distinction, revealing a richer and stranger
relationship. By thus renewing our vision, metaphors ‘literally create new
objects’ (Jaynes 1976, 50) – immediate objects. Naming is creation, metaphor
recreation. “A road” is a metaphor: a road is made by people walking on it;
things are so because they are called so.
Gary f.
} Thought is not an out-of-body experience. [Mark Turner] {
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
