Dear Jerry Good but difficult question. I can give my tentative answers from the top of my head:
What is the role of efficient causality in your thinking about biology? I SEE IT AS PART OF SELF-ORGANIZING AUTOPOIETIC TENDENCIES PARTLY BASED ON NONE-EQULIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS. What is the role of final causality in your thinking about biology? I SEE IT AS SELF-ORGANIZING AUTOPOIETIC TENDENCY IN THE SPOMTANEOUSLY STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL AND PROCREATION. What is the role of emergent causality in your thinking about biology? I CANNOT IMMAGE EMERGENCY WITHOUT INCLUDING TRIADIC SIGNS TENDENCY TO SELF-ORGANIZE AND GROW, ESPECIALLY SYMBOLS. THEN AS PEIRCE AND LEE SMOLIN I SEE IT AS RESPONTIBLE FOR NEW STRUCTURES, FUNCTIONS , PROCESSES AND LAWS. What is the role of electricity in your thinking about emergence (material amplicative logic) of life? ONE POWER AMONG MANY What is the role of CSP’s notion of “chemical radicals” in the relations between icons and rhema in relation to the amplicative logic necessary for development of an individual from a fertilized egg? I DO NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT THAT. Do you accept the hegemony of physical philosophy in framing your philosophy of bio-cybernetics? NO. I CANNOT SEE HOW WE CAN COME FROM PHYSICS - AS WE KNOW IT - TO LIFE AND MIND. IN MY CYBERSEMIOTICS I CLAIM AS A PREREQUSITE FOR THE UNDERSTANDING OF KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH FOUR WORLDS: THE PHYSIO-CHEMICAL, THE LIVING, THE EXPERIENTIAL AND THE COMMUNICATIVE CONSISTING OG SIGN GAMES AND LANGUAGE GAMES. I REALIZE THAT IN A PEIRCEAN ONTOLOGY I ONLY NEED THREE AS MATTER IS NOT DEAD IN HIS VIEW IN OPPOSITION TO CLASSICAL PHYSICS. IN QUANTUM PHYSICS MATTER HAS SPONTANEOUS ACTIVITY, BUT STILL NO BASIC FEELING. Søren These are the sorts of questions that interest me from a quantitative perspective. And from a CSP logical perspective. And from a molecular biological perspective. No need to iterate arguments based on Ockham’s razor or the procrustean beds of physical approximations and computer science or the entropy content of information. Such arguments are insufficient to relate the consequences to the antecedent causes. In other words and symbols and indexes and icons, the atomic numbers are facts and the addition of atomic numbers follow the conservation laws of physics. Cheers Jerry On Oct 21, 2016, at 7:32 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk<mailto:sb....@cbs.dk>> wrote: Jon Yes it is both efficient and final causation and how they are related. I do know Peirce has several papers on that. But still how does it relate to the world as we know it today? Or rather how can we make a postmodern transdisciplinary framework that allows us to combine them? Søren From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 21. oktober 2016 17:59 To: Jerry LR Chandler Cc: Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Jerry C., List: JC: Would it be fair to say that you seek to understand how CSP’s writings relate to scientific causality? By "scientific causality," do you mean efficient causality (i.e., brute reactions), final causality (i.e., laws of nature), both, or something else altogether? JC: I think it is fair to ask if Jon’s views on engineering wrt CSP writings are typical of modern engineering disciplines, such as chemical engineering and molecular-biological engineering in which specific causal processes must be arranged from the body of scientific information (chemical / biological) available. My discipline is structural engineering, in which most of the relevant causal processes and corresponding diagrammatic representational system rules are quite well-established. I would welcome feedback on whether and how my "logic of ingenuity" thesis is applicable to other fields of engineering, especially those in which this is not (yet) the case. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com<mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: Soren: Would it be fair to say that you seek to understand how CSP’s writings relate to scientific causality? I think it is fair to ask if Jon’s views on engineering wrt CSP writings are typical of modern engineering disciplines, such as chemical engineering and molecular-biological engineering in which specific causal processes must be arranged from the body of scientific information (chemical / biological) available. Within the professions, these are referred to a “scale-up” problems. Or, otherwise as “from the lab-bench to production”. BTW, Soren, on a personal note and in reference to an earlier exchange here (2014?) on the role of electricity in bio-cybernetics / biosemiotics, I have just finished writing a paper -An Introduction to the Foundations of Chemical Information Theory. Tarski – Lesniewski Logical Structures and the Organization of Natural Sorts and Kinds. Indirectly, it draws on certain aspects of CSP logic, as well as the views of M. Malatesta’s on meta-languages. But, it focuses the meaning of quanta of electricity and the relations to symmetry. It will be submitted for publication after colleagues have provided comments. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
