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