Jerry, List,
did I get it right, that "individuation" is just a thought-experiment about what and how a thing (or law...) would be, if it was totally rid of any representation? just, what a "thing in itself" would be: Something incomprehensible for the scholastic doctors, as Gary wrote? Not only for them. But, as Gary wrote, it is possible to assume, that there is always a representation, if not by humans, then by "some vast consciousness", which is "a Deity relatively to us". Peirce called it "Quasi-mind of the universe". So- problem about the incomprehensibility of "thing in itself" solved.
So why did you write, that the ""laws of nature"...are a product of the human mind"? They can also be a product of the universe´s mind, I guess, otherwise there would not have been planets before there have been humans. Other than the human representations of the laws of nature, they are a product of the human mind. Oh, I see: You wrote ""laws of nature"", in quotation marks, and these quotation marks indicate, that a representation of the human mind is meant, so your statement is correct.
Did I get it right?
Best,
Helmut
10. April 2017 um 17:46 Uhr
Von: "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
Von: "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
List:
----------------------------- 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 .
The following quote deserves rigorous study. It is deeply relevant to three critical aspects of CSP’s philosophy of science:
1. issues that relate realism to idealism
2. issues that relate the physical sciences to the chemical sciences and
3. issues that relate the sciences to the relationships between reality and mathematics.
(Thanks to Gary for posting this quotes from the Harvard lecture (EP2:184, CP 5.106-7):
On Apr 8, 2017, at 4:17 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:All this is equally true of the manner in which the laws of nature influence matter. A law is in itself nothing but a general formula or symbol. An existing thing is simply a blind reacting thing, to which not merely all generality, but even all representation, is utterly foreign. The general formula may logically determine another, less broadly general. But it will be of its essential nature general, and its being narrower does not in the least constitute any participation in the reacting character of the thing. Here we have that great problem of the principle of individuation which the scholastic doctors after a century of the closest possible analysis were obliged to confess was quite incomprehensible to them. Analogy suggests that the laws of nature are ideas or resolutions in the mind of some vast consciousness, who, whether supreme or subordinate, is a Deity relatively to us. I do not approve of mixing up Religion and Philosophy; but as a purely philosophical hypothesis, that has the advantage of being supported by analogy. Yet I cannot clearly see that beyond that support to the imagination it is of any particular scientific service.”
A literal interpretation of EP2:184, CP 5.106-7 is as follow:
All this is equally true of the manner in which the laws of nature influence matter. A law is in itself nothing but a general formula or symbol.
The “laws of nature” as well as the symbols of mathematics are a product of the human mind. The existence of the formula is expressed in symbol systems generated as descriptions of thoughts and observations. The formula is only one possible representation among all possible representations of a thing. Thus, the second sentence can be thought of as the inverse order of CSP’s earlier assertion regarding “thing, representation, form.” This is the basis of scientific realism and the development of the logic of the natural sciences. Note that the distinction between the laws of physics and the habits of chemistry is missing!
An existing thing is simply a blind reacting thing, to which not merely all generality, but even all representation, is utterly foreign.
The second part of this sentence:
thing, to which not merely all generality, but even all representation, is utterly foreign.
focuses on the absence of “representation” in the concept of a thing.
Things, in and of themselves, lack the capacity to create symbols and to create a symbolic logic.
In particular, mathematical symbols are “utterly foreign” to things.
Here we have that great problem of the principle of individuation which the scholastic doctors after a century of the closest possible analysis were obliged to confess was quite incomprehensible to them.
The contrast is between the general formulas of mathematics and the "the principle of individuation”. This “utter foreign”ness persists today.
Two deep consequences follow from these assertions.
The critical importance of this clear and crisp distinction between the “general” and the "the principle of individuation” lies in the nature of empirical observations.
1. Empirical observations can only be made on specific objects. Consequently, any generalization to mathematical symbols requires judgments and substitution of mathematical symbols for symbols representing “things”
2. "the principle of individuation” plays a fundamentally different role in the physical and chemical sciences in the following sense, a sense which a consequence of the representation of things. (CSP ignores the physical concept of mass!) The table of chemical elements represents individual forms of matter, each form of matter carries intrinsic physical assets of mass and electricity. The compositions of matter (molecules, cells, organisms, human bodies,…, planets,…,???) are directly reducible to the individual members of the chemical table of elements. "the principle of individuation” is applicable to all compositions of individuals. Generality in the sense of mathematical symbols infers the loss of individuality. For examples, the mathematical terms, such as token, type and category are “utterly foreign" to the concept of individuality.
A direct pragmatic consequence of "the principle of individuation” is the language of chemistry. Each unique molecule must be assigned a specific name that represents the thing itself. Each and every atom in the molecular formula must be represented in the formal chemical name of the individual. Each and every atom in the molecular formula must be allotted a specific numerical value for its valence. Thus, the language of chemistry becomes intractable without knowledge of the relationships among the parts of the whole. Learning this special language of individuality requires multiple years of rigorous logical work.
The major advantage of "the principle of individuation” is that the meaning of physical communications about matter become exact. In this sense, the language of "the principle of individuation” becomes a near-perfect language for conveying meaning and logic because the root terms and root relations are well-defined. The unique role of the chemical elements in the composition of chemical sentences serve as an excellent model for the logical structures of other sentences in other symbol systems. CSP recognized this advantage and used it to develop his logics, as shown in his diagrammatic logics as well as his papers on the role of the copula in logic.
I recognize that digesting this post could be a major task for most readers of this list serve who start from other premises. In part this is due to the extremely difficult logic of the chemical sciences, but, equally important is the differentiation of the physical concept of matter as mass as compared to matter as individuation of representations of masses, e.g., chemical elements.
Cheers
Jerry
(Anybody have any thoughts about which Century and which doctors are referred to in the sentence:
???)Here we have that great problem of the principle of individuation which the scholastic doctors after a century of the closest possible analysis were obliged to confess was quite incomprehensible to them.
----------------------------- 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 .
