Re: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Gary, all, Gary F. wrote: But phaneroscopy is looking for the elements of the phaneron, not the elements of experience, and certainly not the elements of *human* experience only. I can well believe that the only way to do this scientifically (i.e. communally) is by way of iconoscopy, or objectify

RE: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Gary, GR: I would maintain that, and apart from analysis, in our phenomenological experience those several qualities are felt as distinct. GF: I would agree with that. They are felt as distinct when the analysis is not under conscious control, as the percept itself is not. Phaneroscopicall

Re: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Gary R, Gary F, list, >From my cherry-picking readings in the orchard of Peirce, I gathered the impression that "Every phenomenon has three aspects he called (081314-1) Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness." If this impression of mine is true, why can't "phaneron" itself have these

Re: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Gary F, list, I'm not at all convinced of the following. GF: Speaking both for my own phaneroscopy and for my understanding of Peirce's, I would say that the redness, the roundness, the coolness and the solidity of the apple are all constituents of the single feeling which is the experience of th

RE: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Gary, John, list, GR: Although I agree that "Firstness" (rather, any given First as quality or character) does not admit of discreteness or plurality," I'm not so certain that "we can't really speak of 'firsts' in the plural." Doesn't it happen that within a moment of a single experience that s

Re: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Gary, John, list, Responding John's remark that: I think you would have to agree that experiencing firsts is at least very difficult and something that we do not usually do. In particular, because of this, they cannot be the ground of other experiences. If so, then this is the point I have been

Re: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

To the extent that I understand Firsts as originating in feelings (derived I infer from some effort to sense what is "coming up" in one's consciousness, having willed to seek to plumb it, it seems to me that a First begins with that feeling and that it is then named with one or more terms. For exam

RE: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

John, you wrote, I think you would have to agree that experiencing firsts is at least very difficult and something that we do not usually do. In particular, because of this, they cannot be the ground of other experiences. If so, then this is the point I have been trying to make. I think yo

Re: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

wd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com > Mensaje original ---- Asunto: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for Fecha: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:17:22 -0300 De: Claudio Guerri

Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Forwarded at the request of Claudio Guerri. GR -- Forwarded message -- From: Claudio Guerri Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 9:25 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for To: Gary Richmond Mensaje original Asunto: Re

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

ness and >> Secondness - but Firstness is without analytic awareness: a pure >> feeling...which we don't even yet know what it is a feeling OF. To move >> into defining that feeling as 'wow, it's hot'...requires a second step of >> differentiation of the Self from thi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

. Secondness is that > direct physical contact but - we do react to it - i.e., to withdraw from > the heat. > > > > No, I don't think a sign always goes through these three stages that you > outline. ...vagueness to indexical to an expression..Certainly some > semiosic expreiences ar

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:  I agree that the laws are generals and not material; they couldn't be general AND material, for materiality is existentially local and particul

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Collier [ mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] Sent: 3-Aug-14 1:40 PM To: Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for   Stephen, It seems to me if you are aware of something as distinct from something else, irrespective of if you put a word to it, then it is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

t; > > John > > > > > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] > *Sent:* August 3, 2014 10:00 PM > *To:* Stephen C. Rose; John Collier > *Cc:* Peirce List > > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the > bas

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Message - From: Stephen C. Rose<mailto:stever...@gmail.com> To: John Collier<mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za> Cc: Peirce List<mailto:Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for Seems to me

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

rce's logic and semiotic, which > does > indeed apply to "dumb animals" as well as to words. > > > > gary f. > > > > From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] > Sent: 3-Aug-14 1:40 PM > To: Peirce List > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

dumb animals" as well as to words. gary f. From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] Sent: 3-Aug-14 1:40 PM To: Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for Stephen, It seems to me if you are aware of something as distinct from somet

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

ce List Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for The sort of thinking I am talking about is conscious and not in any way an effort to replicate explicit notions of CSP. When this form of thinking is engaged in b

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

nal Message - > *From:* Stephen C. Rose > *To:* John Collier > *Cc:* Peirce List > *Sent:* Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:30 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the > basis for > > Seems to me that we do have direct experience no matter how

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Aug 3, 2014, at 2:09 PM, John Collier wrote: > > At 08:00 PM 2014-08-03, Stephen C. Rose wrote: >> The notion of how signs get to their editing is clearly ultimately a matter >> of theory. But the theory can stipulate that there is the penumbra which I >> infer from direct experience. > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Stephen C. Rose To: John Collier Cc: Peirce List Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for Seems to me that we do have direct experience no matter how vague it may seem. Certainly something precedes words. Words do

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

d the self. Edwina - Original Message - From: "John Collier" To: "Stephen C. Rose" Cc: "Peirce List" Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for At 08:00 PM 2014-08-03, Stephen

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Seems to me that we do have direct experience no matter how vague it may seem. Certainly something precedes words. Words do not emerge of their own accord. I associate a triad with three stages and see the sign as what exists at every stage but which moves from vagueness (penumbra) through some sor

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

John wrote: "I am not arguing that pure firsts are not real;(6231-1) I am arguing that they are not what we experience directly." Let me expose my ignorance. Is this what is known as "constructive realism"? With all the bet. Sung > At 08:00 PM 2014-08-03, Stephen C. Rose wrote:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

At 08:00 PM 2014-08-03, Stephen C. Rose wrote: The notion of how signs get to their editing is clearly ultimately a matter of theory. But the theory can stipulate that there is the penumbra which I infer from direct experience. I don't think you entitled to do this. Do you really think I would

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

sceptical that uninterpreted icons can be anything more than > confused experiences or abstractions, and that habit rules the day for > mental experience. > > > > John > > > > From: Gary Fuhrman [ mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca ] > Sent: July 31, 2014 11:25 PM > To: 'P

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

e it must designate something here and now: an individual, not a general. This is the germ of the idea that Natural Propositions is about.   gary f.   From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] Sent: 31-Jul-14 4:31 PM To: Clark Goble; Søren Brier; Peirce-L Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosem

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

e said > >> (citing Eugene Gendlin) in Chapter 4 of *Turning Signs* ( > >> http://www.gnusystems.ca/bdy.htm#person). But then this is an > >> introspective view of mental activity, which according to Peirce is > >> unreliable unless we can investigate it logicall

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

ess we can investigate it logically through *public* >> observations. >> >> >> >> gary f. >> >> >> >> *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* 31-Jul-14 6:39 PM >> *To:* John Collier; Peirce List >> *Subject

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

unreliable unless we can investigate it logically through *public* > observations. > > > > gary f. > > > > *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 31-Jul-14 6:39 PM > *To:* John Collier; Peirce List > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemioti

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

mental activity, which according to Peirce is unreliable unless we can investigate it logically through public observations. gary f. From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] Sent: 31-Jul-14 6:39 PM To: John Collier; Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: bios

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

systems.ca] Sent: July 31, 2014 11:25 PM To: 'Peirce-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for John, in order to “make sense” (i.e. to convey any information in the Peircean sense), it must function both iconically and indexically, as a dicisign.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

(Undistorted Figure 1 is attached.) Clark wrote : "There are many problems with this (exactly where to (073114-1) place the laws of physics for example). . . ." I wonder if the MPM category theory would be helpful here. According this theory, the laws of physics can be viewed as the (mat

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

6.220 is from the Logic of Events, 1898- and that section refers, as John was talking about, to the nature of potentiality. - Original Message - From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Clark wrote: "But there can be signs of mind and not matter. (073114-1) That’s more the issue I’m getting at." Can there be any signs of mind independent of matter or unsupported by material mechanisms of some sort ? If so, what would be an example of that ? With all the best. Sung ___

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I agree that the laws are generals and not material; they couldn't be > general AND material, for materiality is existentially local and particular. > However, following Aristotle, I consider that the general law (Form) is > embedded

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > It is rather common to assume some space/time substrate with extension as a > necessary substrate for any property. So much so that it’s rather common for > many from the scientific community to even recognize it as an unestablished > assu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

I'll reply to a few comments; thanks for your input. - Original Message - From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for 1) CLARK: Lots of comments so I’ll just pick

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > Do you deny that DNA is matter ? Does it not represent an organism? > > Do you deny that > > “Semiosis is a material process enabled by the action of the(073114-6) > irreducible triad of object, representamen and interpretant. > Hence,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Lots of comments so I’ll just pick a few posts and include my comments in a single post. My sense is that there’s a lot of miscommunication going on because it’s not clear when people are following Peirce and when they aren’t. > On Jul 31, 2014, at 1:35 PM, John Collier wrote: > > I suppose t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

ll in all, I > am pretty sceptical that uninterpreted icons can be anything more than > confused experiences or abstractions, and that habit rules the day for > mental experience. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Gary Fuhrman [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] > *Sent:* July

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

you also don't understand - as you showed us a few weeks ago). This isn't about thermodynamics and semiosis. So again, don't try to divert the issue. It's about your failure to understand Peircean semiosis, your complete misuse of his analysis and his terms, your attempt to use

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

] Sent: July 31, 2014 11:25 PM To: 'Peirce-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for John, in order to “make sense” (i.e. to convey any information in the Peircean sense), it must function both iconically and indexically, as a dicisign. A legisign

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

eircean semiosis, your > complete misuse of his analysis and his terms, your attempt to use his > terms, twisting and turning them, to fit into your own analysis of the > world - and, when criticized, your constant reflexive retreat into > diversions and irrelevancies. > > Again, read Peir

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

. This is the germ of the idea that Natural Propositions is about. gary f. From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] Sent: 31-Jul-14 4:31 PM To: Clark Goble; Søren Brier; Peirce-L Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for Clark, I don’t think

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

age - > *From:* Stephen C. Rose > *To:* Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce List > > *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:20 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the > basis for > > "Peirce was Aristotelian" in this context? Or entirely? I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

nd semiosis. So again, don't try to >> divert the issue. It's about your failure to understand Peircean semiosis, >> your complete misuse of his analysis and his terms, your attempt to use his >> terms, twisting and turning them, to fit into your own analysis of the >> w

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Clark, I don’t think something can be a sign unless it is habitual. How could it make any sense otherwise? John From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: July 31, 2014 10:16 PM To: Søren Brier; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for On

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

nic - where the Forms are actually existentially real on their own. Edwina - Original Message - From: Stephen C. Rose To: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce List Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

of his analysis and his terms, your attempt to use his > terms, twisting and turning them, to fit into your own analysis of the > world - and, when criticized, your constant reflexive retreat into > diversions and irrelevancies. > > Again, read Peirce. And use your own terms and don't

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > > My I add a few thoughts? I agree that sign are reals, but when they manifests > as tokens their Secondness must enter the world of physics and thermodynamics > must apply. It is work to make signs emerge in non-verbal communication or as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

orld - and, when criticized, your constant reflexive retreat into diversions and irrelevancies. Again, read Peirce. And use your own terms and don't misuse his terms. Edwina - Original Message - From: "Sungchul Ji" To: "Edwina Taborsky" Cc: "Sungchul Ji

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Edwina wrote (073114-1): “Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's (073114-1) original works, rather than, as you do, relying on secondary writings about Peirce and on cherry-quotes of his works.” You have been repeating this admonition whenever you want to criticize my views

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > Yes. That is what I am saying, and I too distinguish between material > process of semiotics and semiotics in general. My working hypothesis is > that > > "Physics of words/signs is necessary but (073114-2) > not suffic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's original works, rather than, as you do, relying on secondary writings about Peirce and on cherry-quotes of his works. You wrote: "Written words are representamens and spoken(073114-7) (and understood) words are signs." N

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

The word "sign" (S) can appear on both sides of the equation that defines its meaning, i.e., it is recursive: "S = the irreducible triad of S, O, and I" (073114-4) where O is object and I is interpretant. To avoid possible confusions due to this recursivity of the word "sign", I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Clark wrote: " . . . my sense is that you are after semiosis (073114-1) as a process while thermodynamically at the appropriate scale and simplification a system in equilibrium isn’t undergoing measurable change and thus can’t be conceived of as a changing process. If that’s all you’re

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

One brief last point. I think Peirce’s distinctions between token, type, and tone are rather helpful here and should be kept in mind. Of course the token/type distinction in particular can be blurry but I’m not sure that’s relevant to the discussion at hand. My sense is that the metaphysics/epi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 30, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > You and Clark, perhaps representing the views of most Peirceans scholars, > seem to think that the physics of words is not that significant in discussing > semiotics, whereas > I think it is. I think I’m more of a physicist than a Peircea

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

John wrote: "I should have said as well that my student, Scott Muller, (073014-1) was able to prove that the information content I refer to is unique. He uses group theory following he argument I made that information originates in symmetry breaking. His book is Asymmetry: The Foundation of Inf

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

At 06:57 PM 2014-07-30, Clark Goble wrote: On Jul 29, 2014, at 1:44 AM, John Collier wrote: I made the relevant distinctions in a book chapter in 1990,  Intrinsic Information (1990) but I had to introduce some new concepts and definitions to the usual thermodynamic ones.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 29, 2014, at 1:44 AM, John Collier wrote: > > I made the relevant distinctions in a book chapter in 1990, > Intrinsic Information (1990) > but I had to introduce some new concepts and definitions to the usual > thermodynamic ones. The lack of those has caused multiple confusions and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > I agree that a tape will decay eventually but not while being read with a > tape reader (to produce sound or visual images that last only very briefly > relative to tape itself). Right - so there is always a temporal aspect. Although I’d di

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

(Undistorted figures are attached.) Dear Clark, Thank for your informative comments. My responses to some of them follow: > On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > >> I don't understand what you mean by "holistically" here. I thought >> there s only one way to understand/interpret t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

John wrote: "In particular I argued that dissipative and (072914-1) non-dissipative is a scale dependent distinction." I would agree. That is, there may be no "absolute" scale at which some systems are dissipative and some are at equilibrium. Perhaps we can define a dissipative s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

At 11:28 PM 2014-07-28, Clark Goble wrote: (Sorry for any repeats - I accidentally sent several emails from the wrong account so they didn’t make it to the list) On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: Peircean scholars and philosophers in general seem to find it d

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > I don't understand what you mean by "holistically" here. I thought there > is only one way to understand/interpret thermodynamics -- scientifically. Yes but any scientific model is simplified. You exclude other systems that the system under an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Clark wrote (072814-1), (- 2), (-3), (-4), (-5), (-6), (-12) and (-13): "The implications of this are quite important and demand (072814-1) we consider the thermodynamics far more holistically." I don't understand what you mean by "holistically" here. I thought there is only one way to under

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

On Jul 28, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > Effectively to deny this gap is to claim the legendary transcendental sign > which is key to certain philosophies - especially many Platonic ones. I think > a major theme of semiotics in the second half of the 20th century, regardless > of jar

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

On Jul 25, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > As you know, Prigogine (1917-2003) divided all structures in the Universe > into two classes – equilibrium structures (ES) and dissipative structures > (DS) [1, 2]. ESs do not but DSs do need to dissipate free energy for them > to exist. I thin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

(Sorry for any repeats - I accidentally sent several emails from the wrong account so they didn’t make it to the list) On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > Peircean scholars and philosophers in general seem to find it difficult > (or trivial) to distinguish between the two categori

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Dear Clark, Thanks for your response. What you say below is correct if we accept the meanings of "dissipative" and "equilibrium" structures as you define them in your mind, and this applies to Benjamin's previous response as well. But the point I was making in my admittedly provocative email was