Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Sun, 09 Apr 2017 14:42:07 -0700

Edwina, Jon, List,
I agree, that a molecule (and an atom, a particle...) is a token. But, when something happens with this molecule due to a natural law, eg. the law of gravitation, is then the spatial section of this law that works upon the molecule a token of the law? I was thinking no, because the law continuously pervades the whole cosmos, and to think, that saying "instantiation of a law" would mean to construct a concept of spatial section of the law, and that this concept would be sort of anthropocentric or organismocentric. But maybe I am too hairsplitting, and anthropocentrism cannot totally be avoided  by us humans anyway. I think I was thinking, that a token is something separate (discontinuous) by nature. But if it isn´t necessarily- Ok!
Best,
Helmut
 09. April 2017 um 22:09 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
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
 
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .

Reply via email to