Helmut, Edwina, List: HR: my point was, that a token is embodied, but a molecule has no clear borders (of it´s body) ...
In this context, "embodied" does not necessarily mean that a Token "has a body," it just means that it is existentially instantiated in some way. The word "Token" is a Type, but it is embodied every time someone actually says, writes, or thinks that word. Water is a Type, but it is embodied in every molecule that consists of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom. ET: in the biological realm, the token has a different and additional facet. Each token is more or less unique from other tokens even if they all belong to the same TYPE. In a sense, this is true even in the physico-chemical realm. Although every molecule of water is "the same" in terms of its composition and structure, each one is a different particular with different constituent parts--two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom with their corresponding protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. This is why I keep saying that the Dynamic Object of a general Type is the *continuum *of its *potential *Tokens, not the (discrete) *collection *of its *actual *Tokens. Given any two actual Tokens of a given Type, there is an inexhaustible supply of potential Tokens of that same Type that would be intermediate between them. ET: The fact that in the biological realm, each individual token might be slightly different, enables this realm to provide more adaptive diversity - and less stability. Agreed, biological Types are less restrictive and thus more flexible than most physico-chemical Types--which is one reason why biology is not reducible to chemistry and/or physics. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Helmut, list - the molecule doesn't need to have a discrete self with > distinct borders in order to be a 'token' of a 'type'. The fact that its > composition is specific; i.e., a specific number of > electrons/protons/neutrons - gives it a distinct identity that > differentiates it from another TYPE of chemical. > > in the biological realm, the token has a different and additional facet. > Each token is more or less unique from other tokens even if they all belong > to the same TYPE. That is, a particular species of dog will, each one, be > slightly different in temperament and even look, but all will be members of > ONE particular Type/Breed of dog. But - in the physico-chemical realm, > the majority of tokens are similar. This gives the physico-chemical realm a > great deal of stability. The fact that in the biological realm, each > individual token might be slightly different, enables this realm to provide > more adaptive diversity - and less stability. > > I agree with your outline of the difference between the two realms - the > biological realm moved differentiation INTO each separate Token, removing > the constant bonding to all other Tokens, so that changes from the Type > could emerge rapidly and in response to local stimuli. > > Edwina > > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Sun 09/04/17 12:32 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: > > Edwina, List, > my point was, that a token is embodied, but a molecule has no clear > borders (of it´s body), as it contains electrons, whose orbitals are > borderless, and the gravitation (and other fields) of the molecule also is > borderless. Borders in physical-chemical- world are defined by humans, eg. > "75% probability of electron presence". In animate world, organisms have > clear borders, their skin surface. Their body contains their needs-affairs > of final causation. So maybe, if a token is embodied, it only appears in > self-defined bodies, that would be in animate world of final cause? > (...But, if in the supposedly inanimate physicalchemical world, there > obviously is a token-type-relation, like law-logos, this again would mean, > that the "inanimate" world is not inanimate). > Best, Helmut > >
----------------------------- 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 .
