List:
Having received no corrections or objections to my summary of the relevant
Peirce quotes, I would like to offer some further comments.
In these contexts, at least, Quasi-minds are clearly indispensable to
Sign-action. In fact, there must be at least *two *Quasi-minds (#4-5)
involved, such
List, John, Stephen:
A few technical comment from a chemist may be helpful here because the
semiotics of chemical sciences developed a forma logic for relationships among
all chemical elements. The logical formalism is virtually complete but minor
enhancements are necessary from time to time
Continuing from Lowell Lecture 4.1,
https://www.fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/1903-lowell-lectures/ms-466-467-1903-l
owell-lecture-iv/display/13956:
The only reason I do not agree with Dedekind in making mathematics a branch
of logic is that logic is not a science of pure assumptions but is a
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen - yes, I agree - one really can't say where 'consciousness'
ends; nor can we outline the boundaries of the mind.
Therefore - yes, words are indeed 'frail vessels' - and it's
difficult to set their
I have no idea where consciousness ends. Nor of the boundaries of mind. If
everything is signs, then a substantial part of everything may be mystery,
awaiting our understanding. This is one reason why I think words themselves
are frail vessels. To set their parameters or even their utility is not
I think that anywhere that choice can be said to exist there freedom also
exists and from our point of view and perhaps all others chance as well. I
think we are on the threshold of learning more and more about the reality
of which we are all part. In the song "Idiot Wind" Dylan says 'it's a
John, Edwina
Even though I am not a chemist, I chose my words very carefully! My choice of
the two words "silicon molecule" specifically precludes the word "atom". What
you are saying, with regards to how a silicon atom combines with other atoms
into molecules is fine.
And then there is the
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
John - exactly, I fully agree - and nicely said. AND in addition,
all these processes are semiosic and involve Mind.
Edwina
On Sun 18/02/18 10:24 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM,
On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
As far as the silicon molecule is concerned, the stone has no context
that is relevant to it. The silicon molecule receives no cue from the
stone as to what its properties should be.
That is not true. A silicon atom behaves in very different ways
