Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inference as growth
Helmut, list To say that 'A exists' - can be translated, I think, into a syllogistic sentence of, for example: All men are biological organisms. [with 'biological organism' understood as 'existing'. So, that's a universal, ie, a law. But, to declare that 'No men are biological organisms' [which is the form of 'A doesn't exist'... is also a valid universal. It's unsound because it's false, but it's still valid logically. -- If you instead switched to the particular where you say, for 'A exists' then this is the format for the sentence of 'Henry is a biological organism'... well, I don't think this is a law. It only refers to Henry. So, it's in 2ns. Same with 'A doesn't exist'..which could translate to 'Henry is not a biological organism'and this too is particular and in 2ns. - The conceptual image of a unicorn does exist - we see it in so many paintings. But biologically, no such animal exists. I consider that the DO does not exist apart from the semiosic process. That is, when the Object - the external Object which exists outside of our interaction with it - when this external Object is 'grabbed' by the semiosic process, it becomes, then, the Dynamic Object. Its data as received [by my semiosic process] is the Immediate Object. My capacity for receiving the input data may be limited, so my Immediate Object data is quite specific to my capabilities to understand it. Edwina On Tue 02/02/21 11:18 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, List,with "universally valid law " I meant the universe as domain, especially for the example, that "A exists" has the property of a law, 3ns, but "A doesn´t exist" does not have this property, is merely 2ns. About the object you are right, and I was wrong. The dynamic object preexists, but not the immediate. The interaction starts with 1, and the determination with the DO (2?). About the unicorn I think, that "Unicorn" (put in quotation marks) exists, but not a unicorn. Best, Helmut01. Februar 2021 um 20:16 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Helmut, list 1] I'm not sure what a 'universally valid law' means. After all, 'laws' in themselves, are evolved habits, both in the natural world and in the conceptual world. Therefore, a conceptual belief, whether operative in a sect, religion, or myth, is as much a 'law' or 'habit-of-belief/behaviour' as in the natural realm. Such laws are not universal but are valid within a domain - only the most basic physical laws are universal and even then, restrictions apply. Or do you mean logical principles, such as cause and effect? 2] I don't think that the 'particular' is an 'illusion or collusion' - but these two terms need to be defined. As Peirce pointed out, the objective world exists, regardless of what anyone thinks of it...Therefore, I do think that the object exists 'before it is denoted'. To consider that objects only exist when denoted [by someone?] is..nominalism. 3] With regard to the process of semiosis, you could check Robert Marty's lattice, which shows, quite clearly, how semiosic interactions begin with the sensate stimuli of 1ns. 4] With regard to your question about unicorns - whether they 'exist' or are 'real' - again, both terms would have to be defined. But in my view, unicorns most certainly exist. They exist in the conceptual realm - but not in the biological realm. I don't think that our world can be confined only to physico-chemical or biological existents; our concepts and thoughts are also existent. I would define a universal, such as 'goodness' or 'beauty' as 'real', whereas a particular object, even if conceptual such as a unicorn or Zeus, would, in my view, be defined as 'existent'. Edwina On Mon 01/02/21 1:15 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Supplement: With "law" I was meaning "universally valid law", not a law stated by a sect, religion, or myth. These would not concern the difference between the NOT- operator and the EXIST- operator, as both are universal, none of them is particularistic. Particularistic "laws" I would not call "laws", but illusions or collusions. Edwina, I find it interesting, that you think, that the semiosic process begins with 1ns, I originally think so too. That is, because in my opinion, the object does not exist before it is denoted. The sign/representamen makes something (a subject?) an object. I only wrote "2-1-3" to not raise a discussion about sequence, as most others always vote for "2-1-3". Regarding the other points, maybe I have not used the proper terms "exist" and "real", or haven´t you, in this case? Isnt it so, that unicorns don´t exist, but are real? Or have I mixed it up again? Anyways, can anybody see through all the mistakes I have written
Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inference as growth
Edwina, List, with "universally valid law " I meant the universe as domain, especially for the example, that "A exists" has the property of a law, 3ns, but "A doesn´t exist" does not have this property, is merely 2ns. About the object you are right, and I was wrong. The dynamic object preexists, but not the immediate. The interaction starts with 1, and the determination with the DO (2?). About the unicorn I think, that "Unicorn" (put in quotation marks) exists, but not a unicorn. Best, Helmut 01. Februar 2021 um 20:16 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Helmut, list 1] I'm not sure what a 'universally valid law' means. After all, 'laws' in themselves, are evolved habits, both in the natural world and in the conceptual world. Therefore, a conceptual belief, whether operative in a sect, religion, or myth, is as much a 'law' or 'habit-of-belief/behaviour' as in the natural realm. Such laws are not universal but are valid within a domain - only the most basic physical laws are universal and even then, restrictions apply. Or do you mean logical principles, such as cause and effect? 2] I don't think that the 'particular' is an 'illusion or collusion' - but these two terms need to be defined. As Peirce pointed out, the objective world exists, regardless of what anyone thinks of it...Therefore, I do think that the object exists 'before it is denoted'. To consider that objects only exist when denoted [by someone?] is..nominalism. 3] With regard to the process of semiosis, you could check Robert Marty's lattice, which shows, quite clearly, how semiosic interactions begin with the sensate stimuli of 1ns. 4] With regard to your question about unicorns - whether they 'exist' or are 'real' - again, both terms would have to be defined. But in my view, unicorns most certainly exist. They exist in the conceptual realm - but not in the biological realm. I don't think that our world can be confined only to physico-chemical or biological existents; our concepts and thoughts are also existent. I would define a universal, such as 'goodness' or 'beauty' as 'real', whereas a particular object, even if conceptual such as a unicorn or Zeus, would, in my view, be defined as 'existent'. Edwina On Mon 01/02/21 1:15 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Supplement: With "law" I was meaning "universally valid law", not a law stated by a sect, religion, or myth. These would not concern the difference between the NOT- operator and the EXIST- operator, as both are universal, none of them is particularistic. Particularistic "laws" I would not call "laws", but illusions or collusions. Edwina, I find it interesting, that you think, that the semiosic process begins with 1ns, I originally think so too. That is, because in my opinion, the object does not exist before it is denoted. The sign/representamen makes something (a subject?) an object. I only wrote "2-1-3" to not raise a discussion about sequence, as most others always vote for "2-1-3". Regarding the other points, maybe I have not used the proper terms "exist" and "real", or haven´t you, in this case? Isnt it so, that unicorns don´t exist, but are real? Or have I mixed it up again? Anyways, can anybody see through all the mistakes I have written that what I was meaning to tell, whether it is all bull or there is something about it? I thought having refuted the "transparent-world"-hypothesis and tried to show an alternative. Best, Helmut 01. Februar 2021 um 18:09 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Helmut - a few comments: 1] I think the semiosic process begins with 1ns, a sensation...and moves into awareness [2ns].. 2] With regard to your statement 'There is no unicorn that is not pink' - I think that this is what is known as an 'E' or negative form. Essentially you are saying: 'No unicorn is X. And the 'X' happens to be a description which is, 'not pink'. This is not a negative, merely a term that includes of ALL colours that are 'not pink'. It's a law, a major premiss.. Same as the universal positive of 'Every unicorn is pink'. [And this is NOT an illation but an assertion, a major premiss. 3] Laws are not always developed from external actual experience; they can develop within the mind as purely mental assertions [think of myths, of religions]. 4] I would also say that Unicorns DO 'exist'. They are mental constructs and we see their images in paintings and artwork all over the world. I don't think we can confine 'existence' to physical/biological forms; I think we have to include conceptual forms as well. After all don't symbols 'exist'? Edwina On Mon 01/02/21 11:03 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Auke, Jon, John, Edwina, All, I don´t see, that a transparent universe is the critical point: Jon A.S.´ example is valid in a transparent universe too: From "There is no unicorn that is not pink" , which is true, does not follow "Every unicorn is pink", which is not true, even or especially not
Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inference as growth (was No subject
> Op 1 februari 2021 om 17:03 schreef Helmut Raulien :
>
> Auke, Jon, John, Edwina, All,
>
> I don´t see, that a transparent universe is the critical point: Jon A.S.´
> example is valid in a transparent universe too:
>
Helmut,
The point is not if Jon's example is valid in a transparant universe too: if it
works in the fog, it works on a transparant day too, although it may be more
demanding than the regular tools. But what is working on a transparant day,
does not on that account work in the fog.
Auke
> From "There is no unicorn that is not pink" , which is true, does not
> follow "Every unicorn is pink", which is not true, even or especially not in
> a transparent universe, in which everybody knows that unicorns don´t exist. I
> would like to know if you all ("ye", why has this word been abandoned?) think
> the following makes sense:
>
> I rather think it has to do with categories: A natural semiosis goes
> 2-1-3, a representative semiosis too, as it is a natural semiosis too. This
> is generation. But inside a representational semiosis the reflected is not
> generated, but degenerated, or remains on the same level. Meaning, you cannot
> conclude a law (3ns) from a situation (2ns). "There is no unicorn that is not
> pink" is a description, a situation, a status, a 2ns. "Every unicorn is pink"
> is an illation, consequence, law, 3ns. This cannot be inferred from the said
> 2ns. Only with another 3ns-law it might. This second premiss should have to
> be "Unicorns exist". If they would, the step from the double negation towards
> the illation would be valid. But why is the (fictional) latter premiss
> "Unicorns exist" not a 2ns, a status-report, but a 3ns, a law? I guess, the
> existence-operator does it. Either it is so, that certain operators that
> adress universality, such as "Every" or "Exist", make a proposition a law
> (3ns), while others, such as the NOT- operator, don´t, are merely
> status-reports, 2ns, although they are universal as well.
> The NOT-operator cannot make a law, because a law is only based on
> reality, existence, not on denial or neglection. The Exist-operator, and the
> Every-operator, and also the IF-THEN- operator make a law. A law is a produce
> of habit-formation, which has been a process in reality, so something
> positive. Negatives, things that are not there, or are missed, donot form
> habits, so not laws. Something like that it must be I think, what do you
> think?
>
> Best, Helmut
>
>
>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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: [PEIRCE-L] Inference as growth (was No subject
Auke, Jon, John, Edwina, All,
I don´t see, that a transparent universe is the critical point: Jon A.S.´ example is valid in a transparent universe too: From "There is no unicorn that is not pink" , which is true, does not follow "Every unicorn is pink", which is not true, even or especially not in a transparent universe, in which everybody knows that unicorns don´t exist. I would like to know if you all ("ye", why has this word been abandoned?) think the following makes sense:
I rather think it has to do with categories: A natural semiosis goes 2-1-3, a representative semiosis too, as it is a natural semiosis too. This is generation. But inside a representational semiosis the reflected is not generated, but degenerated, or remains on the same level. Meaning, you cannot conclude a law (3ns) from a situation (2ns). "There is no unicorn that is not pink" is a description, a situation, a status, a 2ns. "Every unicorn is pink" is an illation, consequence, law, 3ns. This cannot be inferred from the said 2ns. Only with another 3ns-law it might. This second premiss should have to be "Unicorns exist". If they would, the step from the double negation towards the illation would be valid. But why is the (fictional) latter premiss "Unicorns exist" not a 2ns, a status-report, but a 3ns, a law? I guess, the existence-operator does it. Either it is so, that certain operators that adress universality, such as "Every" or "Exist", make a proposition a law (3ns), while others, such as the NOT- operator, don´t, are merely status-reports, 2ns, although they are universal as well.
The NOT-operator cannot make a law, because a law is only based on reality, existence, not on denial or neglection. The Exist-operator, and the Every-operator, and also the IF-THEN- operator make a law. A law is a produce of habit-formation, which has been a process in reality, so something positive. Negatives, things that are not there, or are missed, donot form habits, so not laws. Something like that it must be I think, what do you think?
Best, Helmut
01. Februar 2021 um 13:07 Uhr
"Auke van Breemen"
wrote:
John,
This part of the article Edwina send is relevant:
It follows that logic, in Peirce’s illative, ecstatic sense, is better understood as an
inductive rather than a deductive science, for the ampliative work of inductive inference
better exemplifies, in a richer, fuller sense, the illative, ecstatic essence of inference per
se. While deduction still stands as essential and irreplaceable aspect of logic, it remains a
purely formal and hence more abstract (and more ‘degenerate’) _expression_ of the illative
essence of inference (and argumentation) in its fullest sense.
---
You keep assuming that Jon is talking about logic as a calculus in a transparant logical universe. But in this respect he never denied negation its role. As far as I get it, Jon's attempt can be seen as a diagrammatical calculus in the way of its development, but not for logic in the sense you take it, but as a dia-logical calculus. And in dialogues we ought to be interested in the reasons for the negation. Proof must be constructive.
The shaded ovals are interesting, especially in combination with the sheets and the lines of identity running on (self conversation) and through different sets of them (comminication or dialogue).
It is as if you at the end of your carreer are diving in the method of tenacity.
Best,
Auke
Op 1 februari 2021 om 5:10 schreef "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
