RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
>”I doubt that the animal species had the brain capacity to develop language”
I don’t know about that. Communication between animals has been long
well-established, so perhaps I need to know what you mean by “language”. I am
almost embarrassed to have to admit that I just googled “do animals talk to one
another,” curious to see what google brings up. Birds are capable of a rich
repertoire of sounds, so it would come as a surprise to me if that richness was
not employed somehow in some manner of linguistic expression. I’ve often
observed magpies chortling in the early morning, and I cannot conclude anything
other than that they were communicating somehow with one another. Perhaps there
might be grounds for saying that magpie language does not have the semantic,
structural complexity that human languages have… but how can we know for sure?
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:11 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen
Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - you wrote that
that some animals have vestigial representations of vocal chords but chose not
to use them, so their ability to speak atrophied.
I don't see this; I don't see that the animal species CHOSE not to use those
vocal chords. Speech is a cognitive system, made up not merely of sounds but of
grammar; i.e., logical order of sounds. I doubt that the animal species had the
brain capacity to develop language - again, understanding language as a
symbolic system operating within a 'deep structural grammar'.
Therefore - I wouldn't follow Sebeok's view of the ape/chimpanzee.
I see biological [and physical] organisms as evolving complex Forms; the simple
organisms have a lesser ability to change but as simple - are everywhere -
various bacterium, simple insects, plants, etc...The more complex organisms are
more adaptable but are more diverse and 'niche-constrained'. The most complex
organism, our species, is highly adaptable, diverse and, interestingly, also
'niche-constrained'. That is, as material entities, we don't float above our
material environment, indifferently. We live, are rooted, in a 'niche', in a
neighbourhood...and develop local beliefs and behaviour...fascinating that we
always, although the same species - created diversity.
Edwina
On Tue 24/10/17 1:57 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
>”You seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective
>actions - which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement
>involves a communal interaction.”
You raise good points Edwina. I try to keep things simple and brief, in the
interests of keeping things digestible. There is, of course, more to all of
this. Different species of dog, for example, can have basically identical
anatomical predispositions, you would think, given that they have almost
identical “tools” (body as tool)… yet they can be predisposed to very different
personalities, despite their apparent anatomical similarities. And I
encountered a reference somewhere pointing out that some animals have vestigial
representations of vocal chords but chose not to use them, so their ability to
speak atrophied. And then there are parrots that can articulate human words
perfectly, yet remain entirely birdlike in behavior. So there’s certainly more
going on. But the late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically parallels my
own, when he attributes an ape’s inability to speak to the absence of vocal
chords:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:53 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ; 'Jeffrey Brian
Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it is the
FORM of the insect that is defining its actions within the world. I can
certainly see that the Form definitely enables/constrains its actions, but you
are, I think, removing the notion of Mind from the formation of that Form. You
seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective actions
- which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement involves a
communal interaction.
I don't think that your Mind and the Insect's Mind [and I acknowledge that Mind
functions in both]..are similar. That is, I don't see that the fact that the
Insect has no capacity for symbolic communication is due strictly to its Form -
though I acknowledge that its Form [lack of a complex brain] doesn't enable
symbolic communication. I'm suggesti
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - you wrote that that some animals have vestigial representations of vocal chords but chose not to use them, so their ability to speak atrophied. I don't see this; I don't see that the animal species CHOSE not to use those vocal chords. Speech is a cognitive system, made up not merely of sounds but of grammar; i.e., logical order of sounds. I doubt that the animal species had the brain capacity to develop language - again, understanding language as a symbolic system operating within a 'deep structural grammar'. Therefore - I wouldn't follow Sebeok's view of the ape/chimpanzee. I see biological [and physical] organisms as evolving complex Forms; the simple organisms have a lesser ability to change but as simple - are everywhere - various bacterium, simple insects, plants, etc...The more complex organisms are more adaptable but are more diverse and 'niche-constrained'. The most complex organism, our species, is highly adaptable, diverse and, interestingly, also 'niche-constrained'. That is, as material entities, we don't float above our material environment, indifferently. We live, are rooted, in a 'niche', in a neighbourhood...and develop local beliefs and behaviour...fascinating that we always, although the same species - created diversity. Edwina On Tue 24/10/17 1:57 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: >”You seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective actions - which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement involves a communal interaction.” You raise good points Edwina. I try to keep things simple and brief, in the interests of keeping things digestible. There is, of course, more to all of this. Different species of dog, for example, can have basically identical anatomical predispositions, you would think, given that they have almost identical “tools” (body as tool)… yet they can be predisposed to very different personalities, despite their apparent anatomical similarities. And I encountered a reference somewhere pointing out that some animals have vestigial representations of vocal chords but chose not to use them, so their ability to speak atrophied. And then there are parrots that can articulate human words perfectly, yet remain entirely birdlike in behavior. So there’s certainly more going on. But the late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically parallels my own, when he attributes an ape’s inability to speak to the absence of vocal chords: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html [1] From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca [2]] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:53 PM To: tabor...@primus.ca [3]; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen Jarosek Cc: 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories Stephen - if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it is the FORM of the insect that is defining its actions within the world. I can certainly see that the Form definitely enables/constrains its actions, but you are, I think, removing the notion of Mind from the formation of that Form. You seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective actions - which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement involves a communal interaction. I don't think that your Mind and the Insect's Mind [and I acknowledge that Mind functions in both]..are similar. That is, I don't see that the fact that the Insect has no capacity for symbolic communication is due strictly to its Form - though I acknowledge that its Form [lack of a complex brain] doesn't enable symbolic communication. I'm suggesting that Mind cannot express itself in a similar capacity in all its biological Forms. That is Mind, understood as Reason/the Rational Will to Exist, operates in ALL biological forms but is it with the same capacity? I agree with your suspicion about 'information determinism' but I don't think that Thirdness/general habits are the same as mechanical determinism - because of the existence, also, of the other two modes. I'll try to take a look at your article on Quantum Semiotics. Edwina On Tue 24/10/17 12:22 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au [4] sent: >”After all, a tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it doesn't require a learning phase ” Good point, Edwina. But I conjecture that the butterfly’s body (or any other insect’s body) sufficiently accounts for the predispositions that enable it to make sensible choices from a reduced horizon of options. So yes, I would “ define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced horizon of options'”. In other words, if there is any semblance of information (genetic) determinism to be considered, then it would be confined to physiology (anatomy). The rest… the choice-making, the survival… is pure mind stuff. Insects are people too
