On 6/11/2017 5:08 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
An icon is an icon when it's interpreted as an icon.
An index is an index when it's interpreted as an index.
The same goes for term, sentence, argument by any name.
The first two sentences are true. But the third is false.
In natural languages and artif
John,
Actually Sheldrake was able to test a hypothesis (which, to my knowledge
he did not himself believe in at the time)on non-local effects. His
series of experiments (one will never do) on pidgeons are truly
ingenious and suberb AS experimental designs.
If that is agreed (after thorough st
Jerry, list
Dictionary may not be the source to turn to. ERGO is an abbreviation
used by CSP to his audience at the time. There are hidden parts, assumed
to be self-evidently known to all his readers.
In another parts of his writings CSP tells that the primary and
fundamental logical relatio
On 6/12/2017 7:33 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
It may well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove.
That may be true. That may be like the existence of God.
There are no proofs that God exists. There are no proofs that
God does not exist.
In fact, there are no two people -- believer
Well, it is well known that CSP was not so very keen on existence. Even
though he succeeded in completing his Existential Graphs to his full
approval. But on being that was not the case.
Being was to him the key to what is real. What was real (to him) was
effects.
Does belief in God have e
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Kirst, list:
I'm not sure of the logic of:
"Does belief in God have effects. - It most certainly does. No
statitical
tests needed. "
Can the effects of a person's belief in god be linked dire
On 6/11/2017 10:32 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
Peirce says in CP 3.429 that “Logic may be defined as the science of the
laws of the stable establishment of beliefs.”I’ll quote a bit more of
the article below, but I’d recommend reading the whole of it in CP 3, if
you have access to it.
I str
List:
Kirsti’s very solid post is worthy of a very careful read, although I not state
the case so forcefully.
In general, although I have not studied Sheldrake’s work as closely as she, I
have followed it for several decades from the perspective of biochemical
dose-response relationships. I
> On Jun 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> The big thing that classification maniacs tend to forget about
> types of signs in a sign relational theory of signs is that they
> are always interpretive and relative never essential and absolute.
The chemical table of elements is based on
List:
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 6:50 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
>
> ERGO present just the THEN part.
from Wikipedia (sorry!)
Ergo may refer to:
A Latin
word meaning "therefore" as in Cogito ergo sum
.
A Greek word έργο meaning "work", used as a prefix ergo-, for example, in
ergonomics
List:
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 8:25 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> After those debates, they came to the conclusion that all three were
> equivalent in computational power.
In John Sowa’s context, how does one relate such assertions to semiotics in
light of 3.468-3.475?
Is computation power relevan
In the past generation in the United States, empathy among college
students, as measured by standardized tests, has dropped about 40%
according to a 2010 University of Michigan study, with the largest drop
occurring after the year 2000. This is the new normal. Should we now
suppose the previous nor
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Eugene, list
Interesting. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that
'empathy', as a societal characteristic, i.e., a habit/Thirdness
within a population, might be removed from that population's
behavi
John, Kirsti, list,
John Sowa wrote:
A useful term is 'prescientific'. That is not the
same as 'unscientific'. It just means that the methods of
science are not applicable. Perhaps someday they might be.
But nobody knows how.
I agree. Peirce used the term 'prescientific' in places in refere
On 6/12/2017 11:21 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
Is computation power relevant to semiotics? If so, what are the
forms of the propositions that transform illations to relations?
As Peirce said, everything is relevant to semiotic. For starters,
read his 1887 article on "Logical machines":
http:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Yes as noted in the Wiki article [yes, I know, I know, how plebeian
of me]..on Sheldrake, Brian Josephson [Nobel Laureate in Physics] -
who does know of Peircean semiosis and indeed, supports it..wrote in
criticism of Mad
Gary, all ...
One could hardly dispute the importance of implication relations like A ⇒ B.
The set-theoretic analogues are subset relations like A ⊆ B, which are almost
the canonical way of expressing constraint, determination, information, etc.
There is again a deep analogy or isomorphism betwee
Dear list:
I thought ‘ergo’ was simply identical with ‘hence’,
which is what follows ‘the’ and ‘but’ in the argument CP 5.189.
I believe *that* thought is simple and complex enough;
for it contains terms, propositions and illation, as well.
I see* even* the recognition that arguments may
18 matches
Mail list logo
