Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8508] Re: Natural Propositions,
Frederik, Howard, Lists, Frederik answered "By the first semiosis" to Howard's question, "When in the history of the universe do you say the *first proposition* occurs?" Frederik, can you speculate on what you think was the first semiosis like ? Would you agree that whatever it was, it must have been an irreducibly triadic process, or a self-organizing chemical reaction-diffusion system, similar to the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction or the artificial Krebs cycle of the Matsuno type? All the best. Sung On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: > Dear Howard, lists - > > Den 28/04/2015 kl. 12.44 skrev Howard Pattee > > At 05:18 AM 4/28/2015, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: > [snip] > > - Dicisigns - applies to biosemiotics as well. To me, this forms part of > a naturalization of semiotics. But, simultaneously, a naturalization which > takes generalities such as empirical universals as well as > mathematics/logic as parts of nature. > > > I have argued that to be consistent with the physicists' view of natural > laws, the *first phenomenon* occurred with the *first self-replication* (as > did the* first self*, the *first semiosis, *and the *first evolvable life*, > etc.). > > > I think we're in agreement here. To me, semiotics and biology are > co-extensive. > > Pansemioticians like Peirce think differently about natural laws and > origins. > > > I do not think Peirce is consistently a pan-semiotician (even if that > tendency can most certainly be found in his work, so can > counter-tendencies). We covered this ground before, did we not? > > > I have three questions about your view: > (1) What "parts of nature" do you include in "naturalization of semiotics"? > > I am not sure I understand the question. I do not think the results of > mathematics are a human invention. I think mathematics is part of nature in > the sense that it contains structures which are as they are without human > agency - no matter whether they have physical realizations or not. They may > be seen as hypothetical or modal in order to avoid naive Platonism. > > (2) Do you think of mathematics and logic as a part of (subset) of > semiotics? > > No. I rather think semiotics is a subset of logic in Peirce's broad > epistemological conception of logic. > > (3) When in the history of the universe do you say the *first proposition* > occurs? > > By the first semiosis. > > Best > Frederik > > > > - > 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 > . > > > > > > -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8508] Re: Natural Propositions,
Dear Howard, lists, Den 28/04/2015 kl. 14.47 skrev Howard Pattee mailto:hpat...@roadrunner.com>> : At 07:04 AM 4/28/2015, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: [Howard's] questions about your view: (1) What "parts of nature" do you include in "naturalization of semiotics"? I am not sure I understand the question. I do not think the results of mathematics are a human invention. I think mathematics is part of nature in the sense that it contains structures which are as they are without human agency - no matter whether they have physical realizations or not. They may be seen as hypothetical or modal in order to avoid naive Platonism. (2) Do you think of mathematics and logic as a part of (subset) of semiotics? No. I rather think semiotics is a subset of logic in Peirce's broad epistemological conception of logic. (3) When in the history of the universe do you say the first proposition occurs? By the first semiosis Good. I think we agree except for your placing logic and math as more general than semiosis. Are you thinking of logic and math as cases of natural laws? In some sense yes, but they are not empirical laws like physical laws. Or are they conditions for describing laws? Indeed they are, but more than that. Parts of mathematics which are not (yet?) applied in any science are unproblematically developed. So I would not subscribe to Quine's idea that it is utility in physics which is the only validity test for math How do you test their validity? We will have to ask mathematicians. Internal consistency, fit with other parts of mathematics, things like that. Attempts to reduce math to applicability, mental construction, symbol use, etc. appeare to me to transgress ontological parsimony and rather become ontological stinginess. In a certain sense, the ontology of mathematics remains an open question. I like Peirce's idea saying that all of math consists of hypotheses only so it contains no positive or empirical knowledge - a sort of hypothetical Platonism. But that is probably not the last word on that issue. In that sense, I can understand why it may be seen as a too easy gesture on my part to categorize math as part of nature. I just think that whatever ontology math proves to have, it will have to be part of nature in a broad sense. Best F - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8508] Re: Natural Propositions,
At 07:04 AM 4/28/2015, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: [Howard's] questions about your view: (1) What "parts of nature" do you include in "naturalization of semiotics"?I am not sure I understand the question. I do not think the results of mathematics are a human invention. I think mathematics is part of nature in the sense that it contains structures which are as they are without human agency - no matter whether they have physical realizations or not. They may be seen as hypothetical or modal in order to avoid naive Platonism. (2) Do you think of mathematics and logic as a part of (subset) of semiotics? No. I rather think semiotics is a subset of logic in Peirce's broad epistemological conception of logic. (3) When in the history of the universe do you say the first proposition occurs? By the first semiosis Good. I think we agree except for your placing logic and math as more general than semiosis. Are you thinking of logic and math as cases of natural laws? Or are they conditions for describing laws? How do you test their validity? Howard - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8508] Re: Natural Propositions,
Dear Howard, lists - Den 28/04/2015 kl. 12.44 skrev Howard Pattee mailto:hpat...@roadrunner.com>> At 05:18 AM 4/28/2015, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: [snip] - Dicisigns - applies to biosemiotics as well. To me, this forms part of a naturalization of semiotics. But, simultaneously, a naturalization which takes generalities such as empirical universals as well as mathematics/logic as parts of nature. I have argued that to be consistent with the physicists' view of natural laws, the first phenomenon occurred with the first self-replication (as did the first self, the first semiosis, and the first evolvable life, etc.). I think we're in agreement here. To me, semiotics and biology are co-extensive. Pansemioticians like Peirce think differently about natural laws and origins. I do not think Peirce is consistently a pan-semiotician (even if that tendency can most certainly be found in his work, so can counter-tendencies). We covered this ground before, did we not? I have three questions about your view: (1) What "parts of nature" do you include in "naturalization of semiotics"? I am not sure I understand the question. I do not think the results of mathematics are a human invention. I think mathematics is part of nature in the sense that it contains structures which are as they are without human agency - no matter whether they have physical realizations or not. They may be seen as hypothetical or modal in order to avoid naive Platonism. (2) Do you think of mathematics and logic as a part of (subset) of semiotics? No. I rather think semiotics is a subset of logic in Peirce's broad epistemological conception of logic. (3) When in the history of the universe do you say the first proposition occurs? By the first semiosis. Best Frederik - 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 .
[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8508] Re: Natural Propositions,
At 05:18 AM 4/28/2015, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: [snip] - Dicisigns - applies to biosemiotics as well. To me, this forms part of a naturalization of semiotics. But, simultaneously, a naturalization which takes generalities such as empirical universals as well as mathematics/logic as parts of nature. I have argued that to be consistent with the physicists' view of natural laws, the first phenomenon occurred with the first self-replication (as did the first self, the first semiosis, and the first evolvable life, etc.). Pansemioticians like Peirce think differently about natural laws and origins. I have three questions about your view: (1) What "parts of nature" do you include in "naturalization of semiotics"? (2) Do you think of mathematics and logic as a part of (subset) of semiotics? (3) When in the history of the universe do you say the first proposition occurs? Howard - 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 .
