Edwina, List,
accordingly to chaos theory, chaos produces order, like attractors. But this order is not calculable in a linear way, that is, not exactly predictable. Like free will. To want to have a free will is circular, but circularity is not worthless. I guess, emergence comes with circularities, or "re-entry", which happens also in the brain (Edelman, Tononi). Consciousness is emergent. I think, freedom too, I don´t think that it is firstness. If you feel free, it is firstness, but if you really are free in some respect (free from something, or free to do or take something), there are reasons.
Best, Helmut
16. Dezember 2024 um 16:50
"Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
wrote:Medisense, or Thirdness, is the development and use of common forms or generals. That’s similar in meaning to Peirce’s use of ‘habits’.
And, since Peirce also uses Secondness, which is individualism, then all that this means is that the discrete individual also functions within a commonality of type, so one fruit fly will function and interact with other fruit flies in a predictive, relational manner.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘different rules than just habit formation’. Even the chemical interactions in the brain operate within ‘habits’ or common-to-their type processes. This is obviously the opposite of chaos - for chaos prevents the formation of not only individual units in Secondness, but also relational interactions and continuity.
As for free will - which is deviation from the norm - this is, in my view, ialigned with Firstness or freedom.
All three modes are necessary within Peircean analysis.
Edwina
On Dec 16, 2024, at 10:38 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
Edwina, List,ok, circular, but now "medisense is what makes an individual" is better, and not circular. I cannot prove, that medisense is not habit, or habits, it just is the term "habit" that, generalized to everything, annoys me, because it reminds me of behaviorism (Skinner). Ideologically I rather am for Kant, and an individualistic universalist, or universalistic individualist. In a brain, there is habit, Hebbian learning of the synapses. But with 100 billion neurons, and many more synapses, different rules than just habit-formation apply, like in chaos theory, there too are different (nonlinear) rules than in linear cybernetics. I think, that there is free will, which is not subject to habits. Free will is a metaphysical universal, and not provable, but I want to have some.Best, HelmutHelmut, listI’ll disagree with you; a molecule does not have the type of spatial identity that a book or a rock has, but it most certainly has a definite spatial identity, which means that it functions,, as a chemical b bonding of atoms, in a particular space and time and as such, can take part in a specific chemical interaction. . The molecule of, eg, sugar, can be examined under a microscope and as such, sugar molecules can be determined to be found in ’this’ formula and not ’that formula. So- atoms can be ‘entangled’ ; they are not bonded. But molecules are bonded atoms. .Universal laws? Do you mean the laws of chemistry? These are developed habits - they may have developed in an instance at the first few minutes/seconds of the Big Bang - but they are not a priori to it. “May not the laws of physics be habits graduallyacquired by systems? "W.4.553 1883. And since ALL three categories are necessary, THEN even habits are prone to change.No-one is talking about ‘brains’ when we refer to plants - brains do develop in individual animals/humans. But I disagree with you that Mind or Thirdness does not function, existentially, within a single plant. That plant has the genetic codes of its type [Thirdness] stored within its individual cells and each single plant will express this code ..more or less in common - but, can also express deviations. How do you think that plants evolve and adapt? That is, my view is that plants are not passive clones of some kind of Universal law’ which is ’stored elsewhere - a rather mystical concept. Each plant stores the code within its own matter.I don’t know what you mean by your rejection of Medisense as ’not habit’. And I don’t know what you mean by ‘medisense of an individual is what makes an individual’ - which is a circular claim. Thirdness is not static; , as Peirce frequently points out - even symbols - CHANGE and EVOLVE. The human brain is the most complex of all organisms and thus, the most readily amenable to change and adaptation of its habits of function. But again, since no categorical mode is an isolate agent , then, Thirdness can change.Edwina_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
On Dec 15, 2024, at 3:13 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
Edwina, List,
a molecule does not have a defined spatial identity, because the electron orbital doesn´t. Its shape is that of probability of the electron´s position with a gradient until eternity. Also, it may have entanglement issues to as far away as you name it. And the structure is that of universal laws. The mind, a plant operates within, is not the mind of that single plant. I also think, that thirdness, medisense, is based on something else than habit. Medisense of an individual is what makes an individual. It is integrity, or the Kantian autonomy. It means to act not just automatically, like a behavioristic reaction machine, due to accumulated habits, but due to many different conclusions gathered by past pondering, having led to often contradicting values, that have to be weighed up in every actual situation. This weighing-up has to be in a way, so the individual can keep its individuality, that is, with integrity. Not to apply double standards, for example. Therefore, an individual sometimes has to prefer a weak habit, or even an anti-habit, that supports its integrity, to a strong one, that would destroy it. I don´t think, all this can be boiled down to the term "habit", because it often is the opposite, like civil courage often is the opposite of opportunism. Maybe individuality is a complex system of intewoven habits, but then, as a system is more than its parts, this complexity itself is not a habit too, but something else, I think.Best, HelmutHelmut, list15. Dezember 2024 um 20:00"Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>wrote:Your outline [ from 7.551] outlines Peirce's ‘forms of consciousness’. Medisense, is, in my view, not best understood as ‘a medium between primisense and alter sense [7.551] but as ’the formation of sets of ideas or association proper” [7.550.]As for your comment about molecules, my understanding is that molecules are most certainly individual units of energy/matter. By an individual unit, I understand a form of mass that has a definite spatial and temporal identity and a definite compositional mode. The requirements enable this unit of matter to interact with other units of matter. A molecule, as you know, is made up of two or more chemically bonded atoms. It’s the bonding that creates the individual unit. As such, within that bond, which operates within Thirdness, or ‘rules of organization’ a molecule is an individual unit.. A nitrogen molecule is made up of two nitrogen atoms. Calcium Oxide molecule is made up of one of each atom of calcium and oxygen. A calcium dioxide molecule contains one each of carbon and oxygen atoms.What governs that bond? The bond operates within a structure - which we would consider its pattern of organization…Thirdness. This doesn’t required symbolic thought!! . Molecules don’t symbolically think - but they certainly operate within habits of formation - Thirdness, which is an operation of Mind. Molecules indexically ’think’; that is - they interact with other molecules, not symbolically or via ‘ideas’ but physically, via very specific chemical interactions .Plants are also individual forms of matter and, also operate within Thirdness of Mind, and indexical interactions. Thirdness in plants functions as the habits of their formation and interaction and indexicality functions as the direct connections of chemical contacts.Edwina_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
On Dec 15, 2024, at 12:39 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
List,in this regard I just want to mention Peirce´s categorial model of consciousness: It consists of (in Peirce´s words: has the forms:) 1ns: Primisense, Feeling, 2ns: Altersense, the reaction of self and other, and 3ns: Medisense, Thinking, I think, the 3ns medium between Primi- and Altersense. Altersense again consists of (has the modes, the varieties) Sensation and Will. I think, these are 2.1., and 2.2.: 1ns of 2ns, and 2ns of 2ns. Medisense consists of (or in Peirce´s words "has the modes") Abstraction, Suggestion, Association (which, as I take for sure, are 3.1., 3.2., 3.3.. firstness, secondness, and thirdness of thirdness).Now the question for me is: As a molecule does not really think, and consciousness includes medisense, where is it (the medisense)? I say, in the universe. So a molecule is not an individual, the universe is. Also a plant, which does react (Altersense), but not think, is not a fully fledged indicidual. But we are, when we think.Best, Helmut
14. Dezember 2024 um 22:20Gary F, list"Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>wrote:You provided this quote“Since God, in His essential character of Ens necessarium, is a disembodied spirit, and since there is strong reason to hold that what we call consciousness is either merely the general sensation of the brain or some part of it, or at all events some visceral or bodily sensation, God probably has no consciousness” (EP2:447)Peirce also defines basic consciousness as ‘feeling’[Firstness] and as all life partaking of this feeling. But all that is living also operates within the second category [Secondness], even protoplasm, in that these forms of life have boundaries to their mass. And all that is alive also operates within Thirdness or a continuity of organizational habits of form and function…This also suggests that consciousness might have grades - from simple reactive feeling - where a cell, when in contact with a toxic chemical, will close itself off or, as in plants, release a chemical ‘warning'- to more complex ‘feelings which will involve, specifically, Thirdness - where the system might actually change its organizational pattern [and develop a harder bird beak]. I would also include consciousness or feeling within the physicochemical realm.As for the suggestion that god is a disembodied spirit [ something without mass, without boundaries….something I find logically incomprehensible although I admit the ‘adorable’ nature of this concept] and therefore - not functioning within the Three categories and therefore, no ‘feeling’, no interaction, no continuity]…my view is that the Three Categories are necessary results of the Big Bang which transformed Pure Energy [NOT free energy] into a universe operative within time and space. I do not see, of course, god as necessary - but see both Pure Energy [NOT free energy] and the Three categories as necessary.I would define god as Pure Energy [ akin to Peirce’s Nothing’ See 1.412 ] and note that it does not operate within the Three categories and therefore, has not only no Secondness [disembodied] but also no consciousness [Firstness/feeling]. .Edwina_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
On Dec 14, 2024, at 1:39 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(If the links don’t work this time I give up.)
The passage you quote, Jon, represents one pole of a spectrum of concepts of consciousness (or at least uses of the word) that Peirce expressed from time to time. At the other end, perhaps, is his remark in the Additament to his “Neglected Argument” essay of 1908:
“Since God, in His essential character of Ens necessarium, is a disembodied spirit, and since there is strong reason to hold that what we call consciousness is either merely the general sensation of the brain or some part of it, or at all events some visceral or bodily sensation, God probably has no consciousness” (EP2:447). In the middle is the graded concept of consciousness that he refers to as a “bottomless lake.” Whether these are three different aspects of “consciousness” or three ways of talking about it is hard to say, in my opinion.
Love, gary f.
Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 13-Dec-24 13:08
To: Peirce-L <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Conscious is ubiquitous: Rumi and PeirceGary R., List:
Rumi's first quoted remark is indeed reminiscent of this passage by Peirce.
CSP: But there is another class of objectors for whom I have more respect. They are shocked at the atheism of Lucretius and his great master. They do not perceive that that which offends them is not the 1ns in the swerving atoms, because they themselves are just as much advocates of 1ns as the ancient Atomists were. But what they cannot accept is the attribution of this 1ns to things perfectly dead and material. Now I am quite with them there. I think too that whatever is 1st is ipso factosentient. If I make atoms swerve--as I do--I make them swerve but very very little, because I conceive they are not absolutely dead. And by that I do not mean exactly that I hold them to be physically such as the materialists hold them to be, only with a small dose of sentiency superadded. For that, I grant, would be feeble enough. But what I mean is, that all that there is, is 1st, Feelings; 2nd, Efforts; 3rd, Habits--all of which are more familiar to us on their psychical side than on their physical side; and that dead matter would be merely the final result of the complete induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and the brute irrationality of effort to complete death. (CP 6:201, 1898)
He does not mention consciousness here, but in accordance with tychism, he maintains that "atoms swerve" because "they are not absolutely dead," i.e., their habits have not reached a state of "complete induration" and will not do so until the infinite future. This entails that they are "ipso facto sentient," but not because "a small dose of sentiency" has been "superadded" to their physicality. On the contrary, in accordance with objective idealism, he views "the physical law as derived and special, the psychical law alone as primordial," such that "matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" (CP 6.24-25, EP 1:292-293, 1891).
In that sense, mind is ubiquitous, along with consciousness understood as synonymous with feeling, but not self-consciousness. "What is meant by consciousness is really in itself nothing but feeling. ... What the psychologists study is mind, not consciousness exclusively. Their mistake upon this point has had a singularly disastrous result, because consciousness is a very simple thing. Only take care not to make the blunder of supposing that Self-consciousness is meant, and it will be seen that consciousness is nothing but Feeling, in general" (CP 7.364-365, 1902).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
