Re: Vedr.: Re: info & physics

In reply to Soren,

Soren Brier said: "in Fuschl we greed on accepting "levels of
existence" in some kind of heterachy (inspired by Len Troncale), where
it made sense to distinguish between physical causality, informational
causality and semiotic causality"

Edwina: I don't understand this 'heterarchy' of causes and how they
operate within levels of existence. The four Aristotelian causes
(material, formal, efficient and final) are much clearer and operate
within ALL levels of existence. Surely the Fuschl group didn't
conclude that the different realms of existence (physico-chemical,
biological and socioconceptual, as I see them) operate within isolate
causes, so - I find the above statement confusing. Again- I don't know
what 'semiotic causality' is. I've never heard of it. Same with
'informational causality'.

Soren Brier said: "Now Peirce sets Aristotle's ontology into
evolutionary motion. Peirce is not only a hyle-morphist but also
hylozoist. Matter is alive inside (with the pure feeling of
Firstness).Thus the world is bound together, not by an ideal potential
pattern as in Aristotle, but by a continuum (plenum) with pure
feeling's spontaneity and the law of minds tendency to take habits and
become effete. Matter is effete mind says Peirce"

Edwina: Actually - Aristotle doesn't use an 'ideal potential
pattern'. That's Plato and Aristotle is quite opposed. Aristotl'e
potentiality is dynamic and is evolutionary, operating within a basic
'infinite motion', and moving along 'with' final cause...which is a
communal pragmatic cause.
And with Peirce, the world is bound together, as Soren says, by that
pure feeling (Firstness) as constrained within Mind or Thirdness (not
human mind but universal mind) and become particular within
Secondness.

Soren Brier said: "Thus Edwina is right that everything exists in
relations, but I do not find it useful to call all relations semiotic.
In the living we are working with more than ten different kinds of
semiosis or semiotic levels (see the last figure in my paper).

Edwina: Well- I guess we'll have to disagree. I call all relations
semiotic and there are not ten different kinds of semiosis - but there
are ten basic semiosic signs, as outlined by Peirce.

Soren: I would prefer - also for historical reasons and not to make
the new vision too strange for the scientists - when talking about
nature to accept an entangled form of causality on the quantum level,
a physical-energetic causality on the physical-chemical level (as
described in physics as exchange of energy), an informational-signal
organizational causality in dissipative structures and the like and
then a semiotic causality in living systems and finally a
linguistic-communicative causality in human conscious and social
systems. I agree with Rafael that the information concepts spins of
from this our communicative relation.

Edwina: But- all systems are energy-exchange and therefore
'dissipative'. Again - I have no idea what a 'semiotic causality'
means. I've never heard the term.

Soren: "Peirce's world view is interactive, so you are right (maybe
with Maturana and Varela) that to a certain degree (with constraints
of secondness and thirdness) "we bring forth a world" when we perceive
and interpret it. It is fairly strait forward in social relations, but
it has to go all the way down to inanimate nature but only to a very
minor degree. We cannot give up the objective resistance of forces and
willpower that is Secondness and the regularity and stability coming
form Thirdness, (making Maya exists!),. Although we may all be one in
the firstness of the pure feeling of mind at the deepest level of
existence the world is still there.

Edwina: Actually, I'm not a follower of Maturana and Varela. I don't
feel comfortable with closure and self organized systems. I prefer
complex adaptive systems..and everything in our universe fits into
those processes. ..so, I don't agree with 'only a minor degree'.
However, our relations with the world are not subjective phenomena.
Our relations have to express pragmatic validity. No matter how much I
might wish I could fly off the 8th floor of my condo building - I
think I'd be surprised if I tried. As for Secondness and Thirdness -
why and how could they be given up? The three categories are
operational at all realms of existence...and I'm not into holism or
oneness.

I too have overstepped the 'two posts a week' limit.

Regards,

Edwina Taborsky
Received on Wed May 22 01:14:21 2002