AA: Just try the idea that the relationship of sign and the thing signified
> could/must be reduced to the relationship of cause and effect, and
> that
> the whole of world is a an infinite symbolism.
JA: Here you are suggesting a causal-dyadic model of sign action.
> That is something that many have tried before, but there are
> good reasons for considering more complex, information-based
> models of the sign relation.
Lets try this conception again.
According to the context, what i suggest is:
information causality, where causation is the transfer of information
(symbol/sign structures encoded as energy/material patterns) subject to the
computation and communication laws and semantic rules. While its
counterpart, physical causality, is mostly about the transfer of energy
subject to the physical laws. View information as a universal semantic
property of things, avoiding the standard interpretation that it is a
property of sentences or statements, a property of epistemic states, or its
data, news, entropy, symmetry breaking, etc.
Consider the whole of the world as a Grand Book, which language, syntax and
semantics, content and meanings, are to be learnt by human beings.
Consider if the Book of World is written in ontological
language/mathematical language/physical language/computational language.
Then it's natural syntax is made of the relationships of natural signs,
connected as cause and effect, part and whole, etc. It's universal grammar
of natural signs is then unwrapped by mathematics and logics. It's semantics
is then discovered by science and technology, and so on.
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@xxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations (01)
> AA = Azamat Abdoullaev
> JA = Jon Awbrey
>
> Earlier comments tagged by author.
> Current comments are not indented.
>
> AA: Jon, too many distortions. See below.
>
> AA: The nature of signs and symbols and significations,
> their definition, elements, and types, was mainly
> established by Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas.
>
> AA: According to these classic sources, significance is a relationship
> between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they
> signify (intend, express, or mean), where one term necessarily
> causes something else to come to the mind. Distinguishing
> natural signs and conventional signs, the traditional theory
> of signs sets the following threefold partition of things:
>
> AA: 1. There are things that are just things, not any sign at all;
>
> AA: 2. There are things that are also signs of other things
> (as natural signs of the physical world and mental
> signs of the mind);
>
> AA: 3. There are things that are always signs, as languages
> (natural and artificial) and other cultural nonverbal
> symbols, as documents, money, ceremonies, and rites.
>
> See the following papers for relevant passages from Aristotle and others:
>
> 1. http://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html
> 2. http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm
> 3. http://org.sagepub.com/content/8/2/269.abstract
>
> I think it's fair to say that Aristotle put forward a triadic model
> of the sign relation, though I don't suppose we can credit him with
> seizing the thistle of triadic irreducibility in its fullest flower.
> Descartes most definitely came down on the side of dyadic relations
> between objects and signs, and this was compatible with his general
> idea that all relations of more than two domains can be handled two
> at a time.
>
> JA: One of the occupational hazards of the working ontologist
> seems to be the Fallacy Of Misplaced Essences (FOME) --
>
> AA: According to Whitehead, there is only the "Fallacy of Misplaced
> Concretness" when one mistakes an abstract model for a physical
> (concrete) reality, as when somebody creates ideas/leaves in
> a dream having nothing to do with reality.
>
> JA: I was going to call this the Fundamental Ontological Error (FOE)
> by virtue of its analogy to the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)
> in social psychology, but the opportunity to invoke both Vonnegut
> and Whitehead in a single acronym was way too tempting to pass up.
>
> AA: That's another confusion. The psychological fact that the mental
> attitude, mentality, outlook, or mindset may affect our decision and
> judgment of situations, behavior and cultural events is a common
> thing.
> That's why we need ontological science.
>
> AA: In this trivial way one can create the Fundamental Psychological
> Attribution Error, the Fundamental Logical Attribution Error, the
> Fundamental Mathematical Attribution Error, etc.
>
> JA: In the case of sign relations, as defined by Peirce's best
> definitions,
> we have to remember that there is no ontology to being objects, signs,
> or interpretant signs.
>
> All joking aside, I am simply calling attention to the fact that people
> often
> look for causes and essences at the wrong level of a complex structural
> system.
> Fundamental Attribution Bias (FAB) or Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)
> studies
> tell us that people tend to attribute causality to individual agents even
> when it
> can be shown through experimental arrangements that systematic situational
> factors
> are really the effective ones.
>
> The analogous bias in semiotics leads people to seek "essential" or
> ontological distinctions between objects and signs where none exist,
> while the nature of the process lies in the system of relationships.
>
> AA: Semantics as logics is committed to ontology.
> You need ontological axioms, rules and
> assumptions for 3 things at least:
>
> AA: 1. to know what semantics is about;
> 2. to formulate semantic assumptions and rules;
> 3. to classify the types of significance or meaning or interpretation
> and their relata, be it designation, representation, reference,
> connotation or denotation; be it mathematical interpretation,
> factual interpretation, or pragmatic interpretation.
>
> JA: There may be an ontology of whole sign relations, but there is
> no "essence" that distinguishes the "accidents" of being in the
> role of an object, a sign, or an interpretant sign, respectively.
>
> AA: Strictly speaking, "the sign relations" is
> just syntactic relationships between signs.
>
> No, syntax has to do with grammatical relationships between
> component signs and composite signs, all within a sign domain.
>
> AA: Just try the idea that the relationship of sign and the thing
> signified
> could/must be reduced to the relationship of cause and effect, and
> that
> the whole of world is a an infinite symbolism.
>
> Here you are suggesting a causal-dyadic model of sign action.
> That is something that many have tried before, but there are
> good reasons for considering more complex, information-based
> models of the sign relation.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> --
>
> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
> mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
> knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (03)
|