On 4/16/2018 5:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Maybe temporality, that what distinguishes "t" from "x,y,z",
is the essence of mind?
I think we've exhausted most of the issues.
If you want one word, I'd say semeiotic.
John
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
John, list,
You wrote:
"
HR
> graphs, as most mathematic symbol language too, does not symbolize
> time (continuity)? But: Might it not be possible to do that, by
> inventing symbols for time and its flow?
Scientists use the symbol 't' and predicates spelled T-I-M-E in
mathematics.
Dear Stephen, list,
Thanks for that clear response,
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Stephen C. Rose
wrote:
> Absolutely. The words are from my Kindle book Tractatus which is clearly
> related to Wittgenstein.
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
Dear Stephen, list,
Your words are lovely.
But pray tell, would you accept the following assertion as one that
pragmaticists would boast themselves to be?
*'the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the
principles of justice in acquisition and transfer .. .'?*
With
John, my reply to Jerry sort of thoughts on the idea of two logics.
Unfortunately, I replied first to Jerry and managed to lose your note to
which I was going to reply. I have been online forever but have no idea
what happened.
Here is a bit that may explain what I am about.
Reality is all.
All
There's a lot beyond what you have said that is suggestive. But I will say
just two things. If I was starting from scratch I would recognize a
division between any contrived or explicit or mathematical or scientific
language that is logically consistent and what I would call normal language
or
Stephen, John:
> On Apr 14, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
>
> Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose.
This is a very clever phrase; I like it very much.
Do you think that all of academic philosophy (not just the ones that post here)
Edwina and Stephen,
ET
what's the difference between a 'language game' and
a 'grammatical sentence'?
A sentence is just one move in a language game.
For more about Wittgenstein's language games and their relationship
to logic and computer programs, see the article "Language Games,
Natural
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - what's the difference between a 'language game' and a
'grammatical sentence'?
Thanks
Edwina
On Mon 16/04/18 12:05 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
Jerry, Stephen, and Helmut,
In his
To speak of good as prior to logic is perhaps wrong. I claim logic is good.
Good is only prior to logic in the sense that it represents what
metaphysics used to see as the end of things. I see dualisms as eliminated
by triadic thought. So, for example, metaphysics and logic coexist
triadically.
Jerry, Stephen, and Helmut,
In his later philosophy, Wittgenstein defined a natural language
as the totality of all the language games that can be played with
a given syntax and vocabulary.
He did not state that point in those terms because he died several
years before Chomsky made an
Logic is in my view good -- the good toward which things tend when logic is
understood and followed. Words are a sort of utility by which we can
perform everything from mundane to exalted feats. But to give them more
than their due is an error I think even world-class philosophers like LW
make
John F, Steven,List
> On Apr 14, 2018, at 3:19 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> On 4/14/2018 12:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
>> If logic is actually universal its universality is not served by locking its
>> meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is
´s "universal grammar"? Is it the same as logic?
Best, Helmut
Gesendet: Samstag, 14. April 2018 um 22:19 Uhr
Von: "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net>
An: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems
, Helmut
Gesendet: Samstag, 14. April 2018 um 22:19 Uhr
Von: "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net>
An: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems
On 4/14/2018 12:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
&g
I appreciate your reply and will parse it out a bit. I certainly do not
defend words and language as final in any sense. My feeling words are sort
of like pincers that vastly limit whatever the sign may be. Democracy, for
example, is an impossible term minus all manner of elaboration yet it would
On 4/14/2018 12:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
If logic is actually universal its universality is not served by locking
its meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is
achieved fallibly by the use of words to form hypotheses and then by
scientific parsing of the truth or
Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose. If logic
it actually universal its universality is not served by locking its
meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is
achieved fallibly by the use of words to form hypotheses and then by
scientific parsing
In 1992, the book _Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence_
contained about 25 chapters on graph notations for logic.
It was also published as a collection of related articles in
the journal _Computers and Mathematics with Applications_.
After 20 years (2002), the articles became available
19 matches
Mail list logo