28 Aug
2023
28 Aug
'23
4:20 a.m.
Alex, Doug F,
I'm attaching a PDF of the article I sent yesterday. This version has diagrams that
will clarify many of the issues.
Figure 2 is fundamental, and Figures 3 and 4 clarify some of the details. (To Alex :
every diagram is a structure, and every structure is a diagram. They serve exactly the
same purpose.)
Doug F> Even if most everybody often thinks in diagrams, that doesn't mean it is
the sole method of thinking. If i am listening to a bird or insect making
noises outside my window, my attempt to recognize the type of animal is
not diagramatic. If i am smelling a flower blindfolded, my attempt to
recognize the type of bloom is not diagramatic. If i am petting my cat
while reading and detect a bur in her fur, that is not diagramatic.
[JFS> All those sensations and actions are continuous. But if you want to talk about
them or relate them to your inner stock of discrete words/concepts, you must simplify them
to a structure/diagram that is constructed of discrete parts.]
DF> If I taste something i am cooking to determine whether to add more (and which)
herb or spice, i am not engaged in diagrammatic thinking.
[JFS> Now you have converted the continuous perceptions to discrete units
(concepts/words). That can be represented as a structure or diagram. A sentence made up
of words is just a one-dimensional diagram/structure. A moving multidimensional diagram
can be a much closer map to your perceptions, plans, and actions. That is what Peirce
called diagrammatic thinking.]
In every one of those examples, the percept is a continuous reflection of external
imagery. As Figures 2, 3, and 4show, that continuous information must be mapped to
discrete units before they can be mapped to and from any language that has discrete words
or concepts.
Peirce used the word 'diagram', and Alex used the word 'structure', you
could also use words like graph, hypergraph, or whatever. But the critical issue is that
some discrete structure of some kind must serve as the intermediate stage between a
continuous world and any discrete set of words or concepts used to talk about it. I also
attached a long list of references, which represent a small subset of the things I have
consulted while developing the ideas in that article. I invite you to explore them
(and/or any others you may prefer).
John
28 Aug
28 Aug
3:45 p.m.
New subject: [ontolog-forum] Diagrammatic Reasoning and AI
John, list
Thank you for an impressive paper and outline of diagrammatic thinking.
My question is - in your paper, do you explain how a diagram becomes [ as operative in the
categorical mode of Thirdness] a primary mediative force in the movement from sensation
[of the object] to an Interpretant [of that object]. That is, the diagram is not always
in a non-interfering mode of Firstness or Secondness but can become, so to speak,
agential [ as in ideology, as in a defective immune system,,as well, of course, when we
identify the bird or insect outside the window].
Edwina
On Aug 27, 2023, at 10:20 PM, John F Sowa
<sowa(a)bestweb.net> wrote:
Alex, Doug F,
I'm attaching a PDF of the article I sent yesterday. This version has diagrams that
will clarify many of the issues.
Figure 2 is fundamental, and Figures 3 and 4 clarify some of the details. (To Alex :
every diagram is a structure, and every structure is a diagram. They serve exactly the
same purpose.)
Doug F> Even if most everybody often thinks in diagrams, that doesn't mean it is
the sole method of thinking. If i am listening to a bird or insect making
noises outside my window, my attempt to recognize the type of animal is
not diagramatic. If i am smelling a flower blindfolded, my attempt to
recognize the type of bloom is not diagramatic. If i am petting my cat
while reading and detect a bur in her fur, that is not diagramatic.
[JFS> All those sensations and actions are continuous. But if you want to talk about
them or relate them to your inner stock of discrete words/concepts, you must simplify them
to a structure/diagram that is constructed of discrete parts.]
DF> If I taste something i am cooking to determine whether to add more (and which)
herb or spice, i am not engaged in diagrammatic thinking.
[JFS> Now you have converted the continuous perceptions to discrete units
(concepts/words). That can be represented as a structure or diagram. A sentence made up
of words is just a one-dimensional diagram/structure. A moving multidimensional diagram
can be a much closer map to your perceptions, plans, and actions. That is what Peirce
called diagrammatic thinking.]
In every one of those examples, the percept is a continuous reflection of external
imagery. As Figures 2, 3, and 4show, that continuous information must be mapped to
discrete units before they can be mapped to and from any language that has discrete words
or concepts.
Peirce used the word 'diagram', and Alex used the word 'structure', you
could also use words like graph, hypergraph, or whatever. But the critical issue is that
some discrete structure of some kind must serve as the intermediate stage between a
continuous world and any discrete set of words or concepts used to talk about it. I also
attached a long list of references, which represent a small subset of the things I have
consulted while developing the ideas in that article. I invite you to explore them
(and/or any others you may prefer).
John
<PhanAbst.pdf>_______________________________________________
CG mailing list -- cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cg-leave(a)lists.iccs-conference.org
10:20 p.m.
New subject: [ontolog-forum] Diagrammatic Reasoning and AI
Edwina, Alex, and Doug F,
In my note to Alex, I said that every diagram is a structure, and every structure is a
diagram. But I was too hasty in saying that. I should have said that a diagram is a kind
of structure that may be used to represent the significant aspects of something else.
A diagram could be isomorphic to the structure it represents, but more often than not, a
diagram represents only some aspect of a structure that is considered significant for some
purpose. That significance is the Thirdness.
For example, an architect's blueprint for a building only represents a small, but
important part -- namely a map of the major parts and how they fit together. As a
simplified outline, it would be Secondness. But as an intentional plan, it would
beThirdness.
In any case, it's safe to say that every diagram is a structure. Its relationship to
some other structure could be secondness if it if just happens to resemble it. But the
relationship would be thirdness if the person who drew the diagram had intended some
purpose for it, such as a plan for building something, for teaching something, for selling
something, for repairing something, or for destroying something.
And for Doug F, I would emphasize that the purpose of the diagram might be conscious in
the mind of the person who draws it, but the reasoning methods in the cerebellum for
constructing the diagram would not be conscious. An expert painter freely uses techniques
that may have required years of conscious thought to learn.
John
----------------------------------------
From: "Edwina Taborsky" <edwina.taborsky(a)gmail.com>
John, list
Thank you for an impressive paper and outline of diagrammatic thinking.
My question is - in your paper, do you explain how a diagram becomes [ as operative in the
categorical mode of Thirdness] a primary mediative force in the movement from sensation
[of the object] to an Interpretant [of that object]. That is, the diagram is not always
in a non-interfering mode of Firstness or Secondness but can become, so to speak,
agential [ as in ideology, as in a defective immune system,,as well, of course, when we
identify the bird or insect outside the window].
Edwina
261
days inactive
261
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Edwina Taborsky -
John F Sowa