Mea culpa - in trying to avoid imputing my interpretation to Peirce, I
underestimated his prescience. (01)
Sean Barker, Bristol (02)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
> Sent: 22 August 2010 17:25
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] New Scientist Article
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
>
> Sean Barker,
>
> I have learned to think thrice when I think I have found anything that
> "goes beyond Peirce" along the lines of most subjects he gave much
> thought to, but here is one of the passages that comes to mind in
> discussing the nature of quasi-minds:
>
> http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Essays/Prospects_For_Inqui
> ry_Driven_Systems#3.1.__Propositional_Calculus
>
> The question of "infinite regress" in sign relations -- and/or "infinite
> semiosis" as Eco popularized it -- is very widely misunderstood, but I
> will have to put off further discussion of that until later tonight or
> Monday morning.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> sean barker wrote:
> >
> > FYI: The UK science magazine, New Scientist (www.newscientist.com) >
> has an article this week entitle "A Meaningful Meadow" by Liz Else, >
> (pp. 28-31) on Biosemiotics, a significant chunk of which is devoted >
> to expounding Peirce's theory of signs.
> >
> > The application of semiotics to, say, inter-celluar signalling
> suggests > a resolution to the infinite regression of signs implied by
> Peirce's theory.
> > That is, the sequence is terminated where the interpretant sign is
> directly > used in some deductive mechanism in the interpreter - in the
> case of chemical > signalling, the sign-vehicle (the chemical) takes
> part in the chemical reaction > that "is significant to" the
> interpreting mechanism. I believe this goes beyond > the way Peirce
> would have interpretted his theory, since I think he expected some >
> sort of "mind" would be the interpreting agent - although would Peirce
> have such > a mechanistic view of mind that we have today?
> >
> > This rather fits in with my comment (seemingly rarely understood) >
> that the meaning of language is determined by the behaviour of > the
> systems that use the language.
> >
> > Sean Barker, Bristol UK
>
> --
>
> 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 (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|