List:
Two significant reference volumes have recently been received and I await a
third.
Two of these volumes significantly illuminate the putative illations between
propositional logic and model theory.
(I did not check if these books are on Ben’s list or not.)
Truth and Assertibility, Nik
Jerry R:
I will just take a quick moment to respond to your posts.
My simple conjecture is that these statements rest on the role of sin-sign in
constructing and confirming new forms of knowledge.
While a sinsign is singular, the index would ordinarily be plural as would the
arguments that
Dear Jack, Jerry, list,
as to the
"do these two requests induce the same sort of questions
as the things you are now talking and thinking about
in an *efficient* manner?"..
*meh*.. perhaps not..
with best wishes,
j
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:56 PM JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY <
Jerry, List,
JR: Would you say, based on your immediate recognition and habits, that the
purpose of bringing to attention these two sayings is the same?
Immediately, yes. I see the resemblance clearly. It puts me in mind of Plato's
Meno - the slave whom Socrates "uses" to "prove" the power of
Dear Jack, list,
You have raised some very interesting points that invite reflective
propositions from the audience who,
as you say, “Would be very interested to receive any variety of response to
this
- preferably those which ardently disagree with me!”
I must say I do
Jack, List:
Good stuff, thanks. I would just like to clarify one other thing from your
earlier post.
JRKC: It also refers back, in a roundabout way, to the discussion we had
here last week regarding Peirce's position on the existence of god (insofar
as object-sign-interpretant implies that the
Jon, List,
The only way to know something at all, and therefore the only way to know
something more, is by means of signs; and in accordance with Peirce's
pragmatism, the ultimate meaning of any acquired knowledge consists in
self-controlled habits of conduct, by which those signs have a real
Jack, list
With regard to your comment:
"With regard to this, though - if the DO becomes an Object once
connected to you, that is, within your universe of sensate
experience, does it not hold that differences between IOs amongst
various people and species imply the
Jack, List:
JRKC: Doesn't this depend on how we define "inefficient"?
Peirce prepared the entry for "efficient" in the *Century Dictionary*.
*efficient*, *a*. and *n*. *I*. a. *1*. Producing outward effects; of a
nature to produce a resuit; active; causative.
*2*. Acting or able to act with
Edwina, List,
You make a lot of interesting points. I agree, polysemy isn't necessarily
inefficient - in fact, your point is much more interesting: from the poverty of
stimulus perspective, polysemy might be viewed as the ultimate mode of
efficiency (the prerequisite for abductive abstraction
John, List:
JFS: In the 1903 classification of the sciences, Peirce did not mention
semeiotic, the most important science that he introduced. Why not? Where
does it belong in the classification?
I answered this question already. Peirce does not mention the *word*
"semeiotic,"
but he certainly
Jack, list
I think there are multiple meanings of 'efficient' and
'inefficient'.
By 'inefficient', I can understand that the energy/matter of the
input data can be lost [entropy]; it doesn't become part of the
stored knowledge base of the Representamen/Sign. I wouldn't
Or, essentially, my own (perhaps idiosyncratic) interpretation of the passage
which began this thread is that Peirce seemed to realise that in “accessing"
(perhaps being determined by) one object (whether dynamic/immediate) we often
find a kind of novelty with which we are already, in some
Edwina, List,
Thanks for you reply!
An inefficient interaction provides no information; it's just brute
action/reaction.
Doesn't this depend on how we define "inefficient"? Because Peirce sets the
dyadic (action/reaction) up as the most efficient - "...nothing ever happens
but the
Jack
I would suggest that this section is a brief outline of the
difference between a mechanical dyadic and a triadic semiosic action.
The 'physical doctrine' could be understood as dyadic, in
Secondness, one particle bumping into another. [Of course, with
Peirce, the
apologies for slight duplication in preceding
Corrected:
"According to the physical doctrine, nothing ever happens but the continued
rectilinear velocities with the accelerations that accompany different relative
positions of the particles. All other relations, of which we know so many, are
List,
According to the physical doctrine, nothing ever happens but the continued
rectilinear velocities with the accelerations that accompany different relative
positions of the particles. All other relations, of which we know so many, are
inefficient. Knowledge in some way renders them
Dear John,
I used to comment on this every time it came up,
these days more like only every 10th or 11th time ...
Logic = Formal Semiotic
===
C.S. Peirce • On the Definition of Logic
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/01/c-s-peirce-on-the-definition-of-logic/
Formal =
18 matches
Mail list logo
