List: The recent post by Jerry Rhee and Edwina deserve deep perusal.
In spirit , these posts parallel my own feelings. Semantics alone is merely philosophy abused. Mathematics alone is not even logic. In my view, CSP focused on language as a path of syntaxies to arguments that illuminated the natural groundings of human communication in an extraordinary wide sense. Cheers Jerry Sent from my iPad > On Sep 14, 2018, at 10:18 AM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear John, list, > > My question was a follow-up to your own question on where to place semiotic > in CSPsemiotic.jpg. > > Question: Where is semeiotic? > > To which, you said, > As a formal theory, it would be classified with formal logic > under mathematics. But semeiotic is also an applied science when > it is used in perception, action, communication... > > From what I’ve read, biosemiotic suffers from not being a formal theory at > all. > Rather, it is a science (?) that is still seeking to understand itself (cf., > Kull, Velmezova). > Even when compared to semiotic, which is this blob that hovers over The > Sciences, Philosophical, Mathematical and Empirical, my question was about > biosemiotic, which has a perspective that is different from semiotic because > of its special focus on living systems (biology, hence biosemiotic). > > I would say I have done biosemiotic, and yet, I don’t treat bacteria as a > quasi-mind. > I see it as a thing that my mind treats. I recognize bacteria, how it is > used in sciences and respond to it. Bacteria are grown as cultures or > individually. We study it, we model its behaviors, we use it to study other > things (eg., for cloning in medicine).. > > Therefore, your response is strange to me. > Specifically this: > > Very simply. Every living thing, from a bacterium on up, has > a quasi-mind with a phaneron that contains the kinds of signs > it recognizes and responds to. > > Your discussion of the unconscious.. > the even mention of it to my question.. > that this is somehow consistent with modern views.. > this is all very bizarre. > > And I am still left with not having an idea on how to use CSPsemiotic.jpg to > classify biosemiotic. I am sure the image you created, and devoted much > effort to, charts well what may be in the record of Peirce’s writings, but I > still don’t see how it is to be used to classify anything novel at all. That > is, it does not appear to be adaptable. Perhaps I do not have the proper > perspective. Should I turn it, be over it, twist it, wrap it, fold it? > > I have a similar gripe as Edwina, above. > We should listen to what she’s saying. > > Hth, > Jerry R > > >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: >> John, list >> >> Agreed - and Pierce was quite specific that you don't need a conscious and >> separate Mind to be involved in semiosis. >> >> My point, again, is that I don't see the function of this list's focus on >> classification and terminology. How does that, for example, help us in >> examining the semiosic processes in a bacterium or in a meadow, filled with >> diverse species, or in a hurricane, or in a societal ideological movement or >> in artificial intelligence? >> >> And even more deeply - do we want to move out of the seminar room and into >> examining the semiosic processes of the outside world? >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> On Fri 14/09/18 8:38 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent: >> >> On 9/13/2018 11:27 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: >> > How do you classify biosemiotic using your scheme? >> >> Very simply. Every living thing, from a bacterium on up, has >> a quasi-mind with a phaneron that contains the kinds of signs >> it recognizes and responds to. >> >> When Peirce said "present to the mind in any way", he did not rule >> out the unconscious. In fact, there are 51 instances of the word >> 'unconscious' in CP. Following is one of them: >> >> > I am prepared to maintain, operations of the mind which are logically >> > exactly analogous to inferences excepting only that they are unconscious >> > and therefore uncontrollable and therefore not subject to criticism. >> > But that makes all the difference in the world; for inference is >> > essentially deliberate, and self controlled. (CP 5.108) >> >> The phrase "logically exactly analogous" implies that the unconscious >> (or at least an important component) involves signs of the same kind >> as conscious thought, except for the option of awareness. Dreams, >> for example, involve processes similar to conscious thought, but we >> have no control over the sequences. >> >> Higher animals may have something similar to human consciousness. >> But the phaneron of lower animals, plants, and bacteria is probably >> completely unconscious. A continuum rather than a sharp dividing >> line is likely. >> >> Re biosemiotic: Peirce mentioned parrots, dogs, and bees. And he >> talked about the origin of life as the first non-degenerate Thirdness. >> He also mentioned crystals as a step along the way toward life. So >> far, his guesses are consistent with modern views. >> >> Deely and others talked about Jakob von Uexküll as another important >> influence. Uexküll used the term 'Umwelt' for the world that a >> living organism perceives and acts in and on. The phaneron of any >> living thing would be an essential component of its Umwelt. >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
