Helmut, list Chaos THEORY is not the same as chaos. Chaos THEORY is a focus on the patterns of organization [ habits!!] found in dynamical [relational, interactive] systems.
Note Peirce’s cosmological outline [1.412], where the relational patterns [ Thirdness] emerge within emerging unrelated individual units of matter [Secondness] - to supposedly, prevent entropy. That’s why Peirce’s Three Categories are all deemed necessary of the emergence and existence of he universe. Edwina . > On Dec 16, 2024, at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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: > Helmut, list > > 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, Helmut > 15. Dezember 2024 um 22:17 > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Helmut, list > > I’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 > > > > > 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, Helmut > > > 15. Dezember 2024 um 20:00 > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Helmut, list > > 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 > > 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 22:20 > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Gary F, list > > 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 > > > > 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 <https://gnusystems.ca/CSPgod.htm#xcnc>). In > the middle is the graded concept of consciousness that he refers to as a > “bottomless lake <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/snm.htm#btmlslk>.” 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 Peirce > > Gary 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 > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com <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 > <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com > <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 > <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com > <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 > <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com > <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.
