BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Lyle
Thanks for your reply. My interest in Peirce is not with regard to
terms [I am uninterested in terminology] but in his infrastructure of
existential reality; namely, the triad as a networked 'well-formed
formula' along with the three modal categories - that enables matter
to transform from form-to-form within self-organized complex systems.
Edwina
On Sun 16/01/22 4:15 PM , lylephone(a)cox.net sent:
Edwina,
The work of Charles Sanders Pierce is very interesting, but he never
discovered the "imaginary" values of a complete logical system. I am
sure that had he been given a copy of Laws of Form, his reaction
would have been the same as Bertrand Russell's, "This is the book I
wish I had written."
If your focus on Pierce is based on his introduction of new
terminology to describe things, semiotics, and such, then I sincerely
invite you to read Illobrand von Ludwiger's monogram on "The New
Worldview of the Physicist Burkhard Heim." Heim introduced a lot of
new terms because he was describing things no one had thought of
before.
If you want to skip the physics and go to the heart of the matter,
then start with page 81, "The aspect-related Logic for the unified
Description of Body and Soul."
http://heim-theory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/I-v-Ludwiger-The-New-Worl…
[1]
Here is a sample of what you will find there: "The interpretation of
the two additional dimensions in Heim’s theory as coordinates with
qualitative character demanded the alternative logic being expanded
to an aspect-related logic. With his logical method independent of a
specific statement system Heim was then able to make quantitative and
qualitative statements in a unified formal way. This method is called
syntrometry by Heim. It is the combination of different metronic
structures.
"The consequence is, we no longer need to try deriving life
processes or consciousness from physical quantum processes, but you
start from a superior entity that manifests itself in this logic
method, the syntrometry."
What I am working on now is to demonstrate how Heim's "different
metronic structures" are specific Forms that were Indicated by the
Creator for this specific Universe.
Best regards,
Lyle
_______________________________________________
CG mailing list -- cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org [2]
To unsubscribe send an email to cg-leave(a)lists.iccs-conference.org
[3]
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fheim-theory.com%2F…
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'cg-leave(a)lists.iccs-conference.org\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
I'm quite confused on why people are interested in Laws of Form.
What is LOF trying to do? Is it just rewriting logic or is there something more fundamental e.g. a universal algebraic system?
What does GSB has to do with DNA, or DNA computing?
What does Lou's work in topology has to do with GSB?
What does GSB's theory has to do with knot theory?
What does GSB's theory has to do with quaternions?
How can GSB's theory be used for designing circuits?
What's wrong with Frege?
Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 16
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/01/15/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spen…
Re: Conceptual Graphs
https://lists.cs.uni-kassel.de/hyperkitty/list/cg@lists.iccs-conference.org…
::: Gary Zhu
https://lists.cs.uni-kassel.de/hyperkitty/list/cg@lists.iccs-conference.org…
<QUOTE GZ:>
I'm quite confused on why people are interested in Laws of Form.
What is LOF trying to do? Is it just rewriting logic or is there
something more fundamental. e.g. a universal algebraic system?
What does GSB has to do with DNA, or DNA computing?
What does Lou's work in topology has to do with GSB?
What does GSB's theory has to do with knot theory?
What does GSB's theory has to do with quaternions?
How can GSB's theory be used for designing circuits?
What's wrong with Frege?
</QUOTE>
Dear Gary,
I am deep in the middle of other work right now,
but here's a smattering of resources relevant to
the relation between Peirce's logical graphs and
Spencer Brown's calculus of indications, at least
so far as the core subjects of boolean functions
and propositional calculus are concerned.
Survey of Animated Logical Graphs
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/05/01/survey-of-animated-logical-graphs…
As far as the extension to relations and quantification,
I start from where Peirce started in 1870 and follow up
several of his more radical ideas, ones he himself did
not fully develop. That is what I'm doing on the 1870
Logic of Relatives thread.
Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Overview
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09/24/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-o…
Regards,
Jon
I’m studying imprecise probabilities which initially works as an extension in Boole’s Laws of Thoughts. It seems like Boole was solving a set of algebraic equations for probabilities where some of the probabilities do not have precise values therefore need to be bounded. Has anyone studied Boole’s algebraic system of probabilities? Is Peirce extending Boole’s algebraic system in his Logic of Relatives?
Lars,
I added the word 'women' to the subject line because I wanted to mention a
debate in 1958 that was both humorous and enlightening: "The ontological
status of women and abstract entities",
http://jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm
In 1947, Nelson Goodman and Willard Van Orman Quine published an article on
"Steps toward a constructive nominalism", which systematically avoided
abstract entities. In 1951, Alonzo Church replied with an article on The
need for abstract entities. In 1958, Church continued the debate by
presenting a lecture at Harvard (church.htm is an excerpt).
That article explains the issues in my recent notes in this thread. I don't
know whether it convinced Quine about the importance of abstract entities.
But he eventually admitted that abstract entities (sets, for example) are
necessary to define mathematics, and mathematics is necessary for all
branches of science and engineering. If you're not convinced by church.htm
and the references it cites, there is no point in continuing this thread.
JFS> Perception is more fundamental to all living things than any kind of
human cognition.
Lars> You are right. You are pointing into a direction of cognitive
research that is very notable: The school of perception-action-research.
See the works of Wolfgang Prinz, Max-Plack Institute for Cognitive- and
Neuroscience in Munich, and the late theoretician Odmar Neumann, University
of Bielefeld). They ingeniously researched and theorized on the most basic
forms of action parameterization (called 'direct [perception-to-action]
parameter specification'). It's an old neuronal system/pathway still active
in humans (that was therefore studied in humans). Neumann, by the way, was
my cognitive psychology teacher.
JFS> I agree with that point. See my review of neuroscience and its
implications for AI: "The virtual reality of the mind",
http://jfsowa.com/talks/vrmind.pdf
My contribution to vrmind.pdf is in the selection and summary of research
by other people, whom I cite with URLs in nearly every slide.
John
Lars> I think we revolve around the same basic problem: is there anything
called 'abstraction' beyond instances of abstract cognition?
Yes. Those things are called "patterns". And the formal study of
patterns is called "mathematics". And the foundation for cognition in
every living thing from bacteria to humans is the perception of patterns.
And a pattern is a simplified image with some of the detail omitted. Those
simplifications are called "diagrams". The simplest diagrams are called
"graphs".
Lars> I wouldn't (and nobody could) know what this would be, as anytime
one or any assumed alien looks or thinks about it, it would just be an
instance of their cognition, or an instance of a mneme (if you think in
terms of memory/thought processes).
No to the first part of that sentence. And yes to the second part.
There is something fundamental that is common to all forms of cognition on
planet earth: simplified perception. Since aliens that evolved on any
planet in any galaxy in the universe would also need some form of
perception, a reasonable assumption is that their cognition is based on a
simplified version of their perception.
Since everything in our universe is based on the same physics and
chemistry, it's very likely that any kind of biology and any kinds of
patterns the aliens may encounter would have some similarities in the
patterns they perceive. Therefore, their cognition is likely to be based
on simplified patterns that have some similarity to the patterns that
scientists have observed on earth, our solar system, and our galaxy.
Lars> In the cognitive sciences (as I explain in my book), scientists more
and more start studying the workings of cognitive development and evolution
instead of thinking of language and logic...
That's a good start. But I suggest that you go to a more fundamental
level. Perception is more fundamental to all living things than any kind
of human cognition. Images are a good start for anything that has eyes.
But structures are more fundamental for sentient beings without eyes. And
chemical distributions are more fundamental for single-celled beings.
For bacteria, a important feature of their perception enables them to swim
upstream in a glucose gradient. that implies that chemistry plus plus a
spatial direction is the most primitive form. And that can be mapped to a
simple kind of pattern.
Conclusion: patterns are fundamental to perception, and the simplest
patterns are directed graphs with labels that indicate good or bad
directions. That would be the simplest and most universal basis for
cognition.
Can anyone think of anything simpler or more fundamental?
John
Barry> Landgrebe and I have been working on a BFO physics Ontology and on
a mathematics Ontology, separate from BFO.
I'm glad to hear that you're finally developing an ontology for
mathematics and that it's independent of the current BFO.
Since it's impossible to do modern physics without a huge amount of
mathematics, I suggest that you combine your math ontology with BFO in
order to support physics.
There are three ways to combine an ontology of actual entities with a math
ontology:
1. Platonic: The mathematical forms are really real, and the physical
stuff is a degenerate approximation to reality.
2. Aristotelian: The physical entities are the real existents and the
forms exist only when they are embodied in physical stuff.
3. Peirce's update to Aristotle: All mathematical forms exist as real
possibilities, which may be used to describe or characterize anything that
exists in actuality or in any kind of imagined, planned, intended, hoped,
feared, described, communicated, or hypothesized aspect of reality.
Peirce's version implies that pure mathematicians can talk and act like
Platonists (which they frequently do), but applied mathematicians can focus
on the actual universe while having an infinite book of mathematical forms
to use as they wish when they're doing any kind of engineering, virtual
reality, or plans for future things that do not yet exist.
Option 3 also supports every kind of pattern on paper, in anyone's
imagination, implicit in any spoken or written language or notation,
implicit in anybody's knowledge, or implicit in any data structures in any
computer or collection of computers anywhere in the universe.
In short, Peirce's option #3 supports common sense, the most advanced
sciences, and every form of artistic endeavor in any culture in the world
-- or even in any alien life anywhere in the universe.
I recommend it,
John
Azamat,
The words 'data' and 'information' represent special cases of signs.
The word 'data' is Latin for "that which has been given" and the word
'information' is an English word, derived from Latin, for that which
informs. But the word 'sign' is the general term that includes signs from
any source for any purpose. It includes all the signs that have been given
(the data) and all the signs that have been used to inform (the
information), and all the signs that any living thing from bacteria on up
receive, perceive, process, generate, store, and communicate.
AA: Data denotes the information conveyed in the sign, symbol or
signal. Data could be coded and represented, measured and reported,
analyzed and visualized, collected and stored, processed and communicated.
As a general concept, it could cover information and knowledge, facts and
statistics, values and variables, patterns and rules.
No. The word 'data' is more specialized than the word 'sign'. It does
not include knowledge, since knowledge represents signs that are known.
And the signs of knowledge may have been derived directly from perception
(a process of interpreting signs derived by the senses). The signs of
knowledge may have been given by somebody as information, but more likely
some sentient being obtained them through an interpretation of signs from
the sense organs. (And sentient beings include everything from bacteria on
up.) Viruses are not sentient beings. They are signs that are interpreted
by the cells of living things.)
AA: data is the new oil and gas, money and and any valuable assets of the
digital age
There is nothing new about data, since computing devices have been given
data since the punched card machines that processed the 1890 census. The
amount of data has been growing exponentially for the past 140 years. That
exp9nential increase has made a qualitative increase in the kinds of ways
that machines can process the data.
But it's important to remember that the human brain has about 90 billion
neurons, and each neuron can store an immense amount of bits internally and
can be connected to a large number of other neurons in a large variety of
ways. The product of all those numbers is immense compared to the WWW.
Neuroscientists are just beginning to explore the potential for
representing and processing that immensity. Today's computer system are
just beginning to catch up with the storage capacity of a small animal
brain, but the current computational mechanisms are primitive compared to
the complex connectivity of the neurons and their interconnections in the
brain of a fruit fly.
As for ontology, I strongly recommend sli de 30 of
http://jfsowa.com/talks/patolog4.pdf (and the other slides before and after
plus all the references in the slides and at the end).
John
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - I quibble with your 'hidden' definition of the Sign.You say
that: .."That term includes every kind of language, logic, patterns,
notations, books, documents, web pages, representations, images,
diagrams, virtual reality."..
I consider that the above definition refers only to the mediative
site, the Representamen, which holds the logic, patterns, etc, that
transform raw input sensate data into an Interpretant of that raw
data. This function of mediation is termed by Peirce, both as 'sign'
and as 'representamen'. I consider this confusing, since this nodal
site does not exist 'per se' but only within an irreducible triadic
process of Object-Representamen-Interpretant.
I consider the full triad as the Sign in that it is an existential
entity [whether a word, a thought, a cell, a molecule] made up of
these three nodal sites in constant processing/interpretation of
input data.
Data itself is a triadic Sign - whether it be a chemical molecule
moving into an organism or... And it includes its own pattern of
organization..
Edwina
On Mon 06/12/21 11:59 AM , "John F Sowa" sowa(a)bestweb.net sent:
Azamat> I have an impression that many big problems in science and
technology could be solved by recognizing Data as a Prime Ontological
Category Yes, of course. That is absolutely true!!!! The failure to
recognize and emphasize that point is the primary reason why the ISO
standard for ontology is hopelessly obsolete. But instead of the
word "Data", I recommend the more general word "Signs". That term
includes every kind of language, logic, patterns, notations, books,
documents, web pages, representations, images, diagrams, virtual
reality... independent of any media, substrate, or equipment on which
the signs may be stored, displayed, processed, or transmitted. In
fact, an ontology that does not include signs as a fundamental
category is incapable of representing or talking about itself. Every
theory of mathematics and logic is a formal system of signs that are
related by formal signs called axioms and rules of inference. For
an ontology that has a two-way split at the top (Signs and Physics),
see slide 30 of http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/patolog4.pdf [1] Those
are the slides for day 4 of a short course on Patterns of Logic and
Ontology. For the slides of the other days, see patlog1, 2, 3, and
5. John
Links:
------
[1] http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/patolog4.pdf
