[PEIRCE-L] Inference as growth (was No subject

[John F. Sowa]

Edwina, 
Thanks for the URL of that article.   I changed the
subject line to the title of
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047=ossaarchive
The
full title is "Inference as growth: Peirce’s ecstatic logic of
illation", and I want to emphasize that this article is talking about
illation as a process, not as a particular sign for if-then,
The
Latin verb 'infero' is irregular.  Its present participle 'inferens' is
the source of the English word 'inference'.  Its past participle 'illatus'
is the source of the words 'illation' and 'illative'.
When Peirce
said that 'ergo' (therefore) is a sign of illation that signals the end of
a process.  Modern logicians use the term 'rule of inference' for what
Peirce called 'permission'.  The present participle suggests one step of a
continuing process.
The article makes some good points, but it
should not be considered as an argument for the scroll as a logical
primitive.  Peirce's permissions (in every version of EGs from 1897 to the
end) depend only insertions and deletions in negative or positive areas. 

A scroll is just one particular arrangement.  As Peirce wrote in
R670, a scroll is equivalent to a nest of two negations.  In L231 and
later, he raised his pen when he drew two ovals in order to avoid any
suggestion that the scroll shape had any significance.   
There is,
of course, more to say.
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 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existential Graphs in 1911

[Daniel L. Everett]

I agree strongly with John Sowa in his last message. 

In my book, Dark Matter of the Mind: The Culturally Articulated Unconscious, I 
discuss points related to these at length. Our bodies are constantly 
registering experiences in ways that we may not be aware of, “apperceptionally” 
in William James’s terms. Anything that anyone says overtly must be evaluated 
in light of our tacit knowledge. 

This applies to Peirce. When he uses a term, we can only understand it in terms 
of his culture, context, previous writings, and overall philosophy. 

Back in the days when I was religious and was concerned greatly about biblical 
exegesis, context was debated even then. Many of the wacko doctrines of some 
denominations are based on the belief that words can be studied apart from the 
“dark matter” of one’s mind (culture in this sense is dark matter overlap), as 
that forms values, knowledge structures, and social roles. 

Peirce must be understood in this larger sense, not merely by taking what some 
theologians call “proof texts”, verses out of context from a larger body.

I take no stand on what role illative had to Peirce after 1911. But the answer 
can only come from understanding his objectives overall, his context - what was 
he reading, who was he writing, what was he writing, etc.

I am always impressed by the knowledge, however, of technical details of 
Peirce’s work shown on this list. But we should not forget that for Peirce this 
was all a means to an end of understanding. He abandoned anything he came to 
consider a detriment to that understanding. That quest was to me what he meant 
by the “melody of thought” (such a brilliant phase). I am speaking on dark 
matter and music at a music understanding conference in Switzerland this summer 
(I hope) and that phrase will be in the paper. 

Dan



> On Jan 30, 2021, at 10:46 PM, John F. Sowa  wrote:
> 
> 
> Robert,
> 
> Thanks for finding that quotation:
> 
> > Thought is a thread of melody running through the succession of our 
> > sensations” (CP 5.395)
> 
> Now that you mention it, I recall reading that some time ago.  It must have 
> been lurking somewhere in my mind, but well beneath the conscious level.
> 
> In any case, it's very appropriate.  The connection to sensations emphasizes 
> the relation to Bill's term "embodied experience".
> 
> It is also related to my point that the total context is more important than 
> particular words. That doesn't mean that words are irrelevant, but they can 
> be highly misleading when taken out of context.
> 
> 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 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Scroll vs Nested Ovals (was Existential Graphs in 1911)

[Helmut Raulien]

Jon, thank you! A very good example. "There is not a unicorn that is not pink" is true, but "Every unicorn is pink" is not true. This example at last has made me a believer in the relevance of intuitionistic logic.

 

Best, Helmut

 
 

30. Januar 2021 um 20:58 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
wrote:



Helmut, Edwina, List:
 

There are at least three different ways of translating the natural-language sentence, "a human is a featherless biped," into a proposition in formal logic.



	Some human is a featherless biped.
	Every human is a featherless biped = if something is a human then it is a featherless biped.
	Every human is a featherless biped and every featherless biped is a human = something is a human if and only if it is a featherless biped.



#1 is a "singular description," #2 is a general assertion, and #3 is an _expression_ of complete equivalence. #2 is merely a partial definition since it allows for the possibility of featherless bipeds that are not humans, which are presumably distinguished in some other way; it is only falsified by the existence of a human who is not a featherless biped. Of course, the same is true of "there is not a human who is not a featherless biped," which is why this (scribed as nested ovals) is equivalent to #2 (scribed as a scroll) in classical logic.

 

However, that is not the case in intuitionistic logic--from "if human then featherless biped" we can infer "not both human and not featherless biped," but not the other way around. Why? If there were no actual humans, then the latter would be true but not necessarily the former. For example, it is true that "there is not a unicorn that is not pink" because there are no actual unicorns, but we cannot infer from this that "every unicorn is pink." On the other hand, since by definition "every unicorn has a single horn," it does follow that "there is not a unicorn that does not have a single horn."

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt







 


On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 2:54 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:




 


Edwina,

yes, "a human is a featherless biped" might be understood as singular description. I meant it as definition, so it is better to say "a human is defined as featherless biped", which is a proposition, a description of a status, and not yet a law. The semiosis of habit-formation goes 1-2-3, and the semiosis of reflexion the other way, so, yes, I agree, that it neither is correct  that 2ns is more fundamental than 3ns, nor the other way. But I think logic is reflexion, so in this case 3ns (law, conclusion, the scroll) is primary to 2ns (actuality, proposition, nested ovals). With "more fundamental" I just was refering to the question in this thread about what is primary to what. I still am quibbling with the reason for intuitionalistic logic. But it is somwhat hard to show a primarity that cannot be illustrated with examples, as there is no loss or gain in meaning, merely a by me suspected academic rule, that logic is reflexion, and in reflexion 3ns comes before 2ns. But all in all I am merely suspecting and tentatively trying this and that.

 

Best, Helmut



29. Januar 2021 um 18:19 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" 
wrote:


Helmut - if you read Peirce's cosmological outlines [6.203 and 1.412], he begins with 1ns, moves on to the instantiations of 2ns, and then, into the developing habits of 3ns. So, the 'actualization' of the modes in spatiotemporal existence is linear.

But - all three modes are potential and necessary, therefore, I don't think that one can say that any one of them is 'more fundamental'.

And I'm not sure how a singular description of a variable [A human is a featherless biped] can be transformed into a sound deductive argument [IF it is a featherless biped THEN it is human]. As you point out, the connection of the attribute [featherless biped] might not always apply to the variable of 'human'.

Edwina

On Fri 29/01/21 11:02 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:



All,


 

I think, the difference is not the meaning, but what it is. Though the double negation´s meaning is the same as the conclusion´s meaning, the double negation has the form of a proposition, or a definition, which is secondness: "There is not a featherless biped that is not a human" may be classificationally instantated from exclusion of exclusion to definition: "A human is a featherless biped". The conclusion "If it is a featherless biped then it is a human" may be individually instantated to an argument; "It is a human because it is a featherless biped". It is thirdness, a rule or law. Which of both is more fundamental? Both mean the same, so if one changes, the other changes too. But which is more likely to change? The law "If it is a featherless biped then it is a human" cannot change just so, by itself. But the situation, the secondness, the 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existential Graphs in 1911

[robert marty]

For the words I have this quotation that I had placed on the front page of
my book (L'algèbre des signes, 1990) and which says almost the same thing
but in the field of language using the "quasi-morphism":
 notes --> words ;  melody --> speech, music score --->algebra
"All speech is but such an algebra, the repeated signs being the words,
which have relations by virtue of the meanings associated with the them "
(CP 3.418)
The best,
Robert
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le dim. 31 janv. 2021 à 11:58, Frederik Stjernfelt  a
écrit :

> It is interesting Peirce is using the example of melody for his third,
> synthetic kind of consciousness – and also as a metaphor for other
> syntheses like thought, in Robert’s quote.
>
>
>
> Here, there is an interesting parallel to the earliest gestalt theorists
> in Europe around the same time – Stumpf, Ehrenfels – also taking the melody
> as the prime example of gestalts. Only later, gestaltists turned to visual
> examples.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Frederik
>
>
>
> PS Dear John – I tried to email you at s...@bestweb.net, but it bounces
> back – is there another address where I can reach you?
>
>
>
> *Fra: *John Sowa 
> *Svar til: *John Sowa 
> *Dato: *søndag den 31. januar 2021 kl. 04.46
> *Til: *Robert Marty 
> *Cc: *Auke van Breemen , Cornelis de Waal <
> cdw...@iupui.edu>, Gary Richmond , Jon Alan
> Schmidt , Peirce List ,
> "ahti-veikko.pietari...@taltech.ee" , "
> francesco.belluc...@unibo.it" , "
> martin.irv...@georgetown.edu" 
> *Emne: *Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existential Graphs in 1911
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
> Thanks for finding that quotation:
>
> > Thought is a thread of melody running through the succession of our
> sensations” (CP 5.395)
>
> Now that you mention it, I recall reading that some time ago.  It must
> have been lurking somewhere in my mind, but well beneath the conscious
> level.
>
> In any case, it's very appropriate.  The connection to sensations
> emphasizes the relation to Bill's term "embodied experience".
>
> It is also related to my point that the total context is more important
> than particular words. That doesn't mean that words are irrelevant, but
> they can be highly misleading when taken out of context.
>
> 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 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existential Graphs in 1911

[Frederik Stjernfelt]

It is interesting Peirce is using the example of melody for his third, 
synthetic kind of consciousness – and also as a metaphor for other syntheses 
like thought, in Robert’s quote.

Here, there is an interesting parallel to the earliest gestalt theorists in 
Europe around the same time – Stumpf, Ehrenfels – also taking the melody as the 
prime example of gestalts. Only later, gestaltists turned to visual examples.

Best
Frederik

PS Dear John – I tried to email you at 
s...@bestweb.net, but it bounces back – is there 
another address where I can reach you?

Fra: John Sowa 
Svar til: John Sowa 
Dato: søndag den 31. januar 2021 kl. 04.46
Til: Robert Marty 
Cc: Auke van Breemen , Cornelis de Waal 
, Gary Richmond , Jon Alan Schmidt 
, Peirce List , 
"ahti-veikko.pietari...@taltech.ee" , 
"francesco.belluc...@unibo.it" , 
"martin.irv...@georgetown.edu" 
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existential Graphs in 1911


Robert,

Thanks for finding that quotation:

> Thought is a thread of melody running through the succession of our 
> sensations” (CP 5.395)

Now that you mention it, I recall reading that some time ago.  It must have 
been lurking somewhere in my mind, but well beneath the conscious level.

In any case, it's very appropriate.  The connection to sensations emphasizes 
the relation to Bill's term "embodied experience".

It is also related to my point that the total context is more important than 
particular words. That doesn't mean that words are irrelevant, but they can be 
highly misleading when taken out of context.

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 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.