Irrespective of the semiotic-relational aspects of a silicon atom with other
atoms, molecules and crystals within a rock, a rock is not a holon (mind-body)
to which the principles of semiotics and pragmatism can apply. The notion is
credible within localized contexts, such as crystal formation,
>
> A system is a system regardless whether it is a human abstraction or not.
> A system could be real in the Peirce sense that what it does is independent
> of what we think. I am tempted to say nothing is just anything. Everything
> is something. A weather system is real. A system for determining
Edwina, List ...
I created a stub of a blog post for my note on knowledge bases
in hopes of getting back to it someday. This has a bearing on
the sorts of agents we variously call interpreters, quasiminds,
hermenauts or -neuts, and that I've more lately called animata.
Inquiry Driven Systems •
Jon,
Your collection of Peirce quotes deploying the term “quasi-mind” (if each is
taken in context) seemed to me quite enough to clarify what the term signifies
— so I haven’t followed your additional explanation very closely, as it seemed
to me redundant. But I think it may also be misleading
Stephen, all ...
My systems engineering professors taught me that systems
are concrete artifacts that systems engineers engineer.
How many systems will systems engineers engineer
when systems engineers engineer systems?
IDK, depends on whether they're intelligent systems engineers.
Regards,
J
Gary F., List:
I agree that "'quasi-mind' is a broader, *more general* term than 'mind,'"
and that "a human mind is one kind of quasi-mind, not the other way
round." Where do you see me suggesting otherwise?
My reading of EP 2:545n25, taken as a whole, is that "perfect Sign" and
"Quasi-mind" are
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}list - I have hesitated to get into this thread because I don't want
to get into yet another interminable debate over terms - but - I do
have a few concerns about the definition of a quasi-mind and of a
perfect sign.
Jon,
Yes, that’s what I see as a problem, that you regard “perfect Sign” and
“Quasi-mind” as synonyms. “Quasi-mind” is an intentionally vague term, meaning
“something of the general nature of a mind” (MS 283). “Perfect Sign,” on the
other hand, is a very definite and distinctive kind of sign, o
Edwina, List:
I understand your hesitancy, and appreciate your willingness to offer some
comments.
1. Not surprisingly, your analysis makes sense within your model of
semiosis, in which a "Sign" is an (inter)action; but not within mine, in
which a "Sign" is one of three Correlates in a triadic r
Gary F., List:
I am obviously attempting to make the term "Quasi-mind" less vague and more
definite. My understanding is that *every *perfect Sign is determinable by
other Signs; in this context, "perfect" does not mean "complete" or
"finished." Where do you see Peirce saying otherwise? On the
Jon -- Our interpretations are a frail reed to expect others to embrace.
If we have something to add to what we take Peirce to mean, that makes
sense. But why argue over taking something he said is quasi aka vague and
saying it is meant to be specific. Peirce is not here to demur. Agreeing is
a str
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon - just a few of my concerns about your definitions - but - I'm
not going to get into another endless debate. I'm sure you'll respond
- but - we'll have to leave it with that.
You have informed us, in this t
List:
Thanks to Jon for his meaningful scholarship on this term.
Whose problem (definition of quasi-mind”) is this?
Edwinia’s?
Jon’s?
or is merely another example of the qualities of CSP’s mental states?
Cheers
jerry
> On Feb 19, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
>
> Jon - just
Edwina, List:
The only obvious contradiction that I see in your summary is between these
two claims.
ET: the Quasi-Mind is a bundle of habits capable of habit change by
experience [Note: this rules out Firstness in this situation]
ET: Form = 1stness
Why would my concept of Quasi-mind "rule ou
List:
I found three more potentially relevant quotes in an alternate draft of
"Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism" (R 193, NEM 4:313-330; 1906).
It was a bit of a challenge to ascertain how much of the context I should
include in each case, so please let me know off-List if you would like
rolls.*
*"They believed it was their own thoughts, but I saw that those thoughts
were formed by the propagandists," she said.*
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-russian-troll-factory-20180219-story.html
*He begins in Letter 13 by affirming that “a third basic drive which co
"They believed it was their own thoughts, but I saw that those thoughts
> were formed by the propagandists," she said.*
>
> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-russian-
> troll-factory-20180219-story.html
>
>
>
> *He begins in Letter 13 by affirming that “a thir
ffective..*
>>
>>
>>
>> *She added that she learned how effective the troll farm's work was when
>> she saw regular people sharing opinions and information that she knew were
>> planted by trolls.*
>>
>> *"They believed it was their own though
18 matches
Mail list logo
