Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > It’s interesting that while everyone chimed in on the mechanics part of the > quote no one clarified to me the more troubling main part on habits being > reversible. I suspect, although I don’t know, that he may actually

[PEIRCE-L] Fwd: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Hi Ed, I wonder if what Peirce calls "habits" can be divided into at least two groups -- (i) human habits, and (ii) natural habits. If so, the former is obviously reversible as someone recently pointed out in PEIRCE-L but the latter may not in general, although there may be exceptions, depending

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Hi, Do you think it is possible that Peirce's conception of "habits" is largely based on the 19th century physics, chemistry and biology which needs to be updated based on the 21st century natural and human sciences ? If so, it would be a great challenge to discern what, if any, impact the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8949] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Peirce has never read Newton??If you, Sung, had read Peirce, you would know that this is incorrect. His texts include many references - sometimes complementary and sometimes not complementary - for he calls it the 'Corpuscular Philosophy' (CP 5.65) and writes: "The three laws of motion draw

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > Do you think it is possible that Peirce's conception of "habits" is largely > based on the 19th century physics, chemistry and biology which needs to be > updated based on the 21st century natural and human sciences

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8949] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Sung, Peirce was not talking about a situation functioning within Newton's laws. If you read what he wrote: "While every physical process can be reversed without violation of the law of mechanics, the law of habits forbids such reversal" [Peirce 1890-92; 8.318) As I said, he was talking about

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

No, I don't think Peirce was discussing 'human habits', i.e., societal beliefs. And he did not consider that habits are reversible. Edwina - Original Message - From: Sungchul Ji To: PEIRCE-L Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:35 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: Terms,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8949] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Ed, you write: To write a text that includes references to Newton is not proof that the author has read what he refers to". I agree. However, it also does not provide proof that the author has NOT read the specific text. Your earlier comment to Sung declared: your Peirce quote shows that this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Sung- in reply to your question: No. I know that it is a constant refrain of yours that Peirce is 'old 19th century' (despite your not having read him with any thoroughness) - and needs to be updated (based, it seems, on your own contributions)but...I think I'll stick with Peirce. Edwina

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8949] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Clark, Søren, lists, Peirce said: " . . . While every physical process can be reverse without violation of the law of mechanics,(112315-1) the law of habit forbids such reversal. ' (CP 8.318) I am glad you quoted this statement because I wanted to make a comment on it

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Sung, Peirce is using “mechanics” advisedly there to refer to classical mechanics as distinguished from thermodynamics. Regards, Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Nov 23, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > Clark, Søren, lists, > > Peirce said: > > " . .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8949] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Ed - I'm not getting into 'conspiracy theories' about the 'suppression' of Newton's ideas. My point was solely referring to Peirce's comment on the irreversibility of habit formation. Newton's eight definitions [see J Bruce Brackenridge] - which refer to quantity of matter, of force,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 7:50 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > My recall may be wrong, but it is that CSP introduced the notion of "habits" > in distinction to the notion of "regularity." > Yes I think habits imply regularities but regularities aren’t always habits.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

List, Clark: On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:00 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote: > Also (and I think this is important) I think Peirce might say that the nature > of the habit is wrapped up in his pragmatic maxim. That is a habit’s meaning > consists not of an index to a particular context but of its

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

Sorry for the delay in responding. I am catching up. I have had acute kidney failure and my time and energy are not focussed on mailing lists right now. I am recovereing fairly well, and the long term prognosis is unclear, but I am assuming it will not be good. I disagree with the sharp

[PEIRCE-L] The 'Petoukhov hypothesis': An experimetnal evidence

Hi, (*1*) In response to my PEIRCE-L post dated 11/22/2015, Petoukhov wrote to me this morning: "From the formal standpoint, our voice apparatus is a vibro-system with many degrees of freedom (112315-1) and with its resonant frequencies." This statement, when

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The 'Petoukhov hypothesis': An experimetnal evidence

List: Further inquiry into the structure of proteins reveals that this table is incomplete with respect to the identities of amino acids in proteins. Several more amino-acids are now known to be parts of proteins (hydroxy-proline and hydroxy-lysine are two examples.) On a more general

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Clark: My recall may be wrong, but it is that CSP introduced the notion of "habits" in distinction to the notion of "regularity." In this context, I read the text as a simple recognition that the "regularity" (of geometry?, mathematics? and physical laws?) were not universal features of

Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8949] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Hi, According to Ed Dellian, even Newton's Second Law of motion is not time-reversible (contrary to what I thought), thus invalidating the first sentence of Peirce's statement, (112315-1), that I cited in my previous post. If these considerations are true, they may warn us against accepting

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Clark - i'm quite confused by this. Where do you get the idea that habits are reversible? I would consider that they are non-reversible. To have reversible habits - whew- that would deny adaptation, evolution, Thirdness as Mindit would make everything almost pure mechanics... Edwina

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Clark - i'm quite confused by this. Where do you get the idea that habits are > reversible? I would consider that they are non-reversible. To have reversible > habits - whew- that would deny adaptation, evolution,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Edwina Taborsky > > wrote: >> >> Clark - i'm quite confused by this. Where do you get the idea that habits >> are reversible? I would

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8949] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Ed, Edwina, Clark, lists, You wrote: "Newton’s focus was on the mechanical”? Well, his focus was on “motion” (Principia, Books 1 and 2 entitled “On the motion of bodies”). Motion is omnipresent, in “mechanical” and in other instances." I agree with you on this. Motion is fundamental in