BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
1] My point is that the "f" function [Representamen] is a generality
and thus, is capable of producing a different Interpretant "y" each
time. Of course, if the function adheres to one set of laws and is
constrained by them, then, it will produce a similar result [I'd
define this as occurring when the Representamen is in a mode of 2-2
or even 3-1, or Thirdness as Firstness, which produces an iconic
result. Both 3-3 and 3-2 are capable of producing a diverse
result/Interpretant.
So, I don't see the function of f[x]=y as static, since I'm
including the Peircean categories in its composition and action.
2] With regard to your rejection of the semiosic process [which I
term the Sign] transforming data into information, I think that your
outline is more of a Shannon communication system than a semiosic
system. The point of a triadic process - which includes that
mediative node and the three categories, is that mediation as an
action of generalizing input data from the DO does indeed transform
that raw data into a unique Interpretant. This Interpretant can be
different in its nature depending on the nature of the mediation of
the Representamen. So- that black spot I see in the sky can be: a
bird, a plane, or Superman.
Or, an infant's digestive system [the Representamen] cannot digest
the input DO [cow's milk] and transform it into nutrients [DI].
Therefore, the Representamen must include the capacity for growth,
development, evolution of its capacity to 'interpret' or be cognizant
of the DO. A Representamen functioning in the two more complex types
of Thirdness - can do just this.
A system that lacks such a mediative process, freezes input data
from the DO at that time and in that place [this is localization
which prevents the development of non-local correlations which enable
growth of the mediative system]. This would be a Representamen in the
mode of Secondness or Firstness.
In other words, I don't see the point of defining a
sign/representamen as only something that "represents its object to
its interpretant'..that 'mediates between its Object and its
Interpretant'. To me, such an action reduces the Representamen to an
iconic or indexical action and ignores the open non-local powers of
the symbolic action of Mind.
My interest is in the adaptive powers of the full Sign, and
particularly, in the function of the Representamen as Mind.
"The highest kind of symbol is one which signifies a growth, or
self-development, of thought" 4.9
"A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for
something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is,
creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a
more developed sign" [2.228 my emphasis]
Without such powers, then, adaptation and evolution of the universe
- which includes its cognitive powers, would be, I think, impossible.
Edwina
On Fri 19/04/19 12:43 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
I appreciate the explanation, but the struggle that I continue to
have with this approach is that in my mind, mathematical functions
are static, even when used to model phenomena that are dynamic. The
equation f(x)=y entails that given the same input, the function will
always produce the same output; i.e., the transformation is
deterministic, rather than generative. For example, if
f(x)=y=2x^2-3x+1, and x=3, then (necessarily) y=10; no other result
is ever possible. This is true no matter how complex and non-linear
the equation for f(x) might be; and what would ever prompt that
equation itself to evolve over time, rather than remaining the same?
I agree that the function of a Sign is not simply moving data from
one site to another, but it is also not transforming data into
information. Rather, in Peirce's words, a Sign is "a Medium for the
communication of a Form," such that "in respect to the Form
communicated, the Sign produces upon the Interpretant an effect
similar to that which the Object itself would under favorable
circumstances" (EP 2:544n22; 1906). In other words, a Sign does not
take something from its Object (input) and turn it into something
different (output) that is its Interpretant--it represents or stands
for its Object to its Interpretant; i.e., it mediates between its
Object and its Interpretant.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 8:29 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Helmut, list
I think it's right to use the term 'function' with regard to the
semiosic triadic process. The 'function' shows that the mediative
process of the Representamen is not a static action of passively
moving raw data, but a generalizing act that actually changes the raw
data. This also means that the rules embodied within the Representamen
can change; they can evolve and adapt.
Without such an acknowledgement that the mediative process of the
Semiosic triad is a generative rather than static action, then,
adaptation and evolution - whether it be of language or of biological
organisms, would be impossible.
Therefore your knife, as an object, can have multiple Interpretants,
via the mediative functional relation of the Representamen. That
object is able to function within a diversity of interactions and
this enables diversity of existence and thought.
Biologically, an object with only ONE Interpretant is the least
capable of preserving matter/energy on this planet. That is, an
object with multiple Interpretants contributes to a rich and diverse
domain. A fish, as a material object, has the Interpretant result of
producing many more fish. It also has the Interpretant result of
eating the plankton and bacteria and cleaning the water. And also, of
providing food for the predator objects that eat it.
A meadow, which has a huge number of biological objects networked
with each other is far richer and more powerful in maintaining matter
- than a peat bog with its few limited species.
The point of defining the semiosic triadic process as a function, is
to explain, in a non-verbal example, how this process is not one that
simply moves data from one site to another site [O->R->I] but
actually, at the nodal site of the Representamen, actually changes
this raw data into information by adding, changing, transforming it
within its stored laws. That is a powerful process.
So- I will maintain my view that explaining the semiosic triad as a
function of f[x]=y is a valid examination.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
