Helmut - the point of abduction is the appearance of a novel
situation - and the adjustment by an organism to that novelty by its
development of a new hypothesis or law.
The organism - and I maintain this can be a plant, a cell, an
insect, a human...interacting with the environment, receives input
data that is novel to its system.[surprising fact is observed]. So-
it adapts; it develops a new set of habits[ new hypothesis] such
that it can continue to live in that environment with that novel
situation.
So- a bird adapts to new seeds that have developed harder shells by
itself developing a harder beak.
I don't see that abduction means an 'awareness of resemblance'.
Edwina
On Mon 14/12/20 2:46 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Supplement: Abduction means, that something is recognized
(truly or falsely doesnt matter) as seeming like something other.
That is depiction or awareness of resemblance. Please give me one
example, in which this occurs besides the action of a neuronic
network. Edwina, I seem to not come through. I dont know, chance is
something quite trivial for me, and abduction something more complex.
To mentally abduct something means to copy it. Chance is just
incertainty. Incertainty occurs in the physicochemical realm, but the
ability of copying something reqires neurons. I dont know what is
wrong with that. Sorry, best, Helmut 14. Dezember 2020 um 20:08
Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut - we'll just have to disagree!
I consider that chance is a basic attribute of abduction, where an
aberration from the norm appears, and the Mind [and I consider that
all matter including the inorganic, functions within Mind] - can
develop a new habit that incorporates this aberration as 'normal'.
This has nothing to do with uncertainty. And nothing to do with
'need' [whatever that means].
I don't see induction as requiring final causality. I see induction
merely as pure observation of 'what is existent'. Nothing to do with
any 'need'.
Edwina
On Mon 14/12/20 1:55 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, I agree, that in inanimate world there is chance, due to the
Heisenberg incertainty and to incertainty as calculated by chaos
theory. But I doubt, that this has to do with induction or abduction,
or with final or example causation. I think, that final causation (or
induction) requires a need, which is something only organisms have.
No stone or molecule needs anything. Abduction, example cause,
requires a structure that can recognize or copy a pattern. This is
only doable with a network of neurons, or maybe with a single neuron,
or two of them, I dont know, but anyway with neurons, is what I think.
Best, Helmut 14. Dezember 2020 um 19:39 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut - you are ignoring the role of Firstness, or chance, within
the inanimate and animate world.
Chance, spontaneity are vital actions enabling adaptive and
evolutionary capacities - and these two actions are obviously not
found only within the human realm. But also within the 'inanimate'
and 'animate'.
I'd say that abduction is the Mind process of Firstness - and found
in all forms of existence.
Edwina
On Mon 14/12/20 1:29 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
List, I have to ponder your posts, because up to now my idea has
been, that in inanimate nature merely deduction/efficient causation
occurs, in animate nature (organisms) also induction/final causation,
and in neuro-nature (brain animals) also abduction/example causation.
To suggest that a molecule does abduction, would in my concept be
illegitimate anthropocentrism. But all that is just my ideas, you
know I have some of them, maybe all wrong. Best, Helmut 14.
Dezember 2020 um 18:23 Uhr
"Jerry LR Chandler"
wrote: List: I am uncertain as to the semantic, syntactical,
formal and CSP textual sources of meanings of the term
“ampliative” as used in these two sentences. On Dec 14, 2020,
at 8:46 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: In logical terms, the key is
that excluded middle is a principle only of deductive reasoning,
not of ampliative reasoning, which always comes first in any
inquiry; Jon had written: "That is why it is ampliative rather than
merely explicative, with the tradeoff that its inferences are merely
plausible rather than certain." Note that ampliative reasoning
can be used to infer the necessary connections between atoms and
molecules as many to one mappings from parts to the wholes. That is,
for a collection of atoms to become a single molecule, it is
necessary that new relations must be specified that show the
differences between the individuals and the collective, the emergent
whole with a new name that specifies its uniqueness. In other
words, what is being “ampliated" in this usage of the term
“ampliative”? (I vaguely recall reading a CSP passage that
used the term but can not locate it now.) Secondly, why is the form
of term such a radical departure from the common form of terminology
of logics, such as abductive, adductive, deductive, inductive,
productive, retroductive, (synductive), and transductive. (The
term “synductive” was coined in my 2008 paper to enumerate the
logic of forming a whole from atomic parts by matching all parts to
another to form the molecular network, that is, the pattern of
relations that quantifies the relationships between the qualisigns
and the legisigns of sin-signs.) Cheers Jerry
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject,
and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the
message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [1] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond;
and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject,
and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the
message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond;
and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject,
and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the
message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [3] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond;
and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ►
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 no subject, and with the
sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [4] . ► PEIRCE-L is
owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed
by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[3] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[4] 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
