Cybersemiotics
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Evgenii Rudnyi
Jun 23, 2013, 9:07:08 AM6/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary
Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the
Interaction Between Nature and Culture, INTEGRAL REVIEW, June 2013, Vol.
9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
"Cybersemiotics constructs a non-reductionist framework in order to
integrate third person knowledge from the exact sciences and the life
sciences with first person knowledge described as the qualities of
feeling in humanities and second person intersubjective knowledge of the
partly linguistic communicative interactions, on which the social and
cultural aspects of reality are based. The modern view of the universe
as made through evolution in irreversible time, forces us to view man as
a product of evolution and therefore an observer from inside the
universe. This changes the way we conceptualize the problem and the role
of consciousness in nature and culture. The theory of evolution forces
us to conceive the natural and social sciences as well as the humanities
together in one theoretical framework of unrestricted or absolute
naturalism, where consciousness as well as culture is part of nature.
But the theories of the phenomenological life world and the hermeneutics
of the meaning of communication seem to defy classical scientific
explanations. The humanities therefore send another insight the opposite
way down the evolutionary ladder, with questions like: What is the role
of consciousness, signs and meaning in the development of our knowledge
about evolution? Phenomenology and hermeneutics show the sciences that
their prerequisites are embodied living conscious beings imbued with
meaningful language and with a culture. One can see the world view that
emerges from the work of the sciences as a reconstruction back into time
of our present ecological and evolutionary selfunderstanding as semiotic
intersubjective conscious cultural and historical creatures, but unable
to handle the aspects of meaning and conscious awareness and therefore
leaving it out of the story. Cybersemiotics proposes to solve the
dualistic paradox by starting in the middle with semiotic cognition and
communication as a basic sort of reality in which all our knowledge is
created and then suggests that knowledge develops into four aspects of
human reality: Our surrounding nature described by the physical and
chemical natural sciences, our corporality described by the life
sciences such as biology and medicine, our inner world of subjective
experience described by phenomenologically based investigations and our
social world described by the social sciences. I call this alternative
model to the positivistic hierarchy the cybersemiotic star. The article
explains the new understanding of Wissenschaft that emerges from
Peirce’s and Luhmann’s conceptions."
Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the
Interaction Between Nature and Culture, INTEGRAL REVIEW, June 2013, Vol.
9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
"Cybersemiotics constructs a non-reductionist framework in order to
integrate third person knowledge from the exact sciences and the life
sciences with first person knowledge described as the qualities of
feeling in humanities and second person intersubjective knowledge of the
partly linguistic communicative interactions, on which the social and
cultural aspects of reality are based. The modern view of the universe
as made through evolution in irreversible time, forces us to view man as
a product of evolution and therefore an observer from inside the
universe. This changes the way we conceptualize the problem and the role
of consciousness in nature and culture. The theory of evolution forces
us to conceive the natural and social sciences as well as the humanities
together in one theoretical framework of unrestricted or absolute
naturalism, where consciousness as well as culture is part of nature.
But the theories of the phenomenological life world and the hermeneutics
of the meaning of communication seem to defy classical scientific
explanations. The humanities therefore send another insight the opposite
way down the evolutionary ladder, with questions like: What is the role
of consciousness, signs and meaning in the development of our knowledge
about evolution? Phenomenology and hermeneutics show the sciences that
their prerequisites are embodied living conscious beings imbued with
meaningful language and with a culture. One can see the world view that
emerges from the work of the sciences as a reconstruction back into time
of our present ecological and evolutionary selfunderstanding as semiotic
intersubjective conscious cultural and historical creatures, but unable
to handle the aspects of meaning and conscious awareness and therefore
leaving it out of the story. Cybersemiotics proposes to solve the
dualistic paradox by starting in the middle with semiotic cognition and
communication as a basic sort of reality in which all our knowledge is
created and then suggests that knowledge develops into four aspects of
human reality: Our surrounding nature described by the physical and
chemical natural sciences, our corporality described by the life
sciences such as biology and medicine, our inner world of subjective
experience described by phenomenologically based investigations and our
social world described by the social sciences. I call this alternative
model to the positivistic hierarchy the cybersemiotic star. The article
explains the new understanding of Wissenschaft that emerges from
Peirce’s and Luhmann’s conceptions."
Bruno Marchal
Jun 23, 2013, 2:07:49 PM6/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
doing this, Brier makes impossible to change the theories which fail,
and that can lead to the frequent means of hiding the question by a
verbal sort of hypnotism, I think.
If the current explanation does not work, we have to try to understand
why and correct it accordingly.
There are surely good ideas there, but to oppose it to science is like
cutting the branch of the tree where you seat, something like that.
It is almost like saying "we have seriously tried to solve the
problem, but we have failed, so let us try now by being non serious.
I can accept a lack of seriousness in the phenomenological reports,
and that can constitute key data, but the analyses and understanding
have to be made in the usual classical way, I think. If not, you add
bs on bs, I am afraid.
Actually he does present the current Aristotelian view like if it was
granted, which already hides the main problem.
Bruno
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Evgenii Rudnyi
Jun 23, 2013, 4:12:48 PM6/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 23.06.2013 20:07 Bruno Marchal said the following:
>
> I would not oppose this to "scientific classical explanation". By
> doing this, Brier makes impossible to change the theories which fail,
> and that can lead to the frequent means of hiding the question by a
> verbal sort of hypnotism, I think. If the current explanation does
> not work, we have to try to understand why and correct it
> accordingly.
I believe that the author remains within science. Well, this clearly
depends on definition. The author just wanted to include humanitarian
sciences into science. You means that this does not make sense?
> There are surely good ideas there, but to oppose it to science is
> like cutting the branch of the tree where you seat, something like
> that. It is almost like saying "we have seriously tried to solve the
> problem, but we have failed, so let us try now by being non serious.
I am not sure, from what this follows.
> I can accept a lack of seriousness in the phenomenological reports,
> and that can constitute key data, but the analyses and understanding
> have to be made in the usual classical way, I think. If not, you add
> bs on bs, I am afraid.
>
> Actually he does present the current Aristotelian view like if it was
> granted, which already hides the main problem.
The paper is based on the Peircean framework. It is not an Aristotelian
view.
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/06/cybersemiotics.html
>
> On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
>> Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary
>> Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the
>> Interaction Between Nature and Culture, INTEGRAL REVIEW, June
>> 2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
>>
>> http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
...
> On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
>> Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary
>> Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the
>> Interaction Between Nature and Culture, INTEGRAL REVIEW, June
>> 2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
>>
>> http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
>
> I would not oppose this to "scientific classical explanation". By
> doing this, Brier makes impossible to change the theories which fail,
> and that can lead to the frequent means of hiding the question by a
> verbal sort of hypnotism, I think. If the current explanation does
> not work, we have to try to understand why and correct it
> accordingly.
depends on definition. The author just wanted to include humanitarian
sciences into science. You means that this does not make sense?
> There are surely good ideas there, but to oppose it to science is
> like cutting the branch of the tree where you seat, something like
> that. It is almost like saying "we have seriously tried to solve the
> problem, but we have failed, so let us try now by being non serious.
> I can accept a lack of seriousness in the phenomenological reports,
> and that can constitute key data, but the analyses and understanding
> have to be made in the usual classical way, I think. If not, you add
> bs on bs, I am afraid.
>
> Actually he does present the current Aristotelian view like if it was
> granted, which already hides the main problem.
view.
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/06/cybersemiotics.html
Bruno Marchal
Jun 26, 2013, 9:53:35 AM6/26/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 23 Jun 2013, at 22:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> On 23.06.2013 20:07 Bruno Marchal said the following:
>>
>> On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>
>>> Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary
>>> Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the
>>> Interaction Between Nature and Culture, INTEGRAL REVIEW, June
>>> 2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
>>>
>>> http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
>
> ...
>
>>
>> I would not oppose this to "scientific classical explanation". By
>> doing this, Brier makes impossible to change the theories which fail,
>> and that can lead to the frequent means of hiding the question by a
>> verbal sort of hypnotism, I think. If the current explanation does
>> not work, we have to try to understand why and correct it
>> accordingly.
>
> I believe that the author remains within science. Well, this clearly
> depends on definition. The author just wanted to include
> humanitarian sciences into science. You means that this does not
> make sense?
criticizing the use of "classical science", and my point is that this
is exactly what we should not done in the human science. He was, like
the pseudo-priests, excluding humantarian science from science.
>
>> There are surely good ideas there, but to oppose it to science is
>> like cutting the branch of the tree where you seat, something like
>> that. It is almost like saying "we have seriously tried to solve the
>> problem, but we have failed, so let us try now by being non serious.
>
> I am not sure, from what this follows.
>
>> I can accept a lack of seriousness in the phenomenological reports,
>> and that can constitute key data, but the analyses and understanding
>> have to be made in the usual classical way, I think. If not, you add
>> bs on bs, I am afraid.
>>
>> Actually he does present the current Aristotelian view like if it was
>> granted, which already hides the main problem.
>
> The paper is based on the Peircean framework. It is not an
> Aristotelian view.
they follow Peirce, as they are often criticizing the mathematical
logic approach to meaning, which i take as being quite Peircean, and
probably the most convincing approach to semiotics.
Peirce did not really insisted on its objective idealism, and I am not
sure if he relates to Plato, or even understood it.
Now Peirce law --- ((p -> q) -> p) -> p ---- has a lot of charm, but
that's another topic.
Bruno
>
> Evgenii
>
> --
>
> http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/06/cybersemiotics.html
Craig Weinberg
Jun 26, 2013, 9:15:02 PM6/26/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
This was how I started - seeing semiotics as the bridge between mind and matter and therefore pattern as the fundamental feature of nature. The only problem that I have with it is that pattern ultimately in nothing without a capacity for pattern recognition, aka sense. Because we have sense, (or because we *are* sense) it is easy to take patterns for granted and not factor in our own capacity to render them as a coherent experience, but to be absolutely objective about the universe, we cannot overlook ourselves and our own privacy or reduce it to unconscious interactions.
Craig
Evgenii Rudnyi
Jun 28, 2013, 2:35:49 PM6/28/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 26.06.2013 15:53 Bruno Marchal said the following:
"But the theories of the phenomenological life world and the
hermeneutics of the meaning of communication seem to defy classical
scientific explanations."
Or this one
"I begin with a brief introduction to my view of scientific thinking on
deep theories and a few words about the limitation of the word �science�
in the English language and my proposal to use the German
transdisciplinary term �Wissenschaft�, which includes qualitative
research into meaning."
Frankly speaking, I do not see how your comment is related to the paper.
Evgenii
>
> On 23 Jun 2013, at 22:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
>> On 23.06.2013 20:07 Bruno Marchal said the following:
>>>
>>> On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for
>>>> Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful
>>>> Communication and the Interaction Between Nature and Culture,
>>>> INTEGRAL REVIEW, June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
>>>>
>>>> http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> I would not oppose this to "scientific classical explanation".
>>> By doing this, Brier makes impossible to change the theories
>>> which fail, and that can lead to the frequent means of hiding the
>>> question by a verbal sort of hypnotism, I think. If the current
>>> explanation does not work, we have to try to understand why and
>>> correct it accordingly.
>>
>> I believe that the author remains within science. Well, this
>> clearly depends on definition. The author just wanted to include
>> humanitarian sciences into science. You means that this does not
>> make sense?
>
> You should not have unquote it. I remember reading that he was
> criticizing the use of "classical science", and my point is that this
> is exactly what we should not done in the human science. He was, like
> the pseudo-priests, excluding humantarian science from science.
Do you mean this sentence
> On 23 Jun 2013, at 22:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
>> On 23.06.2013 20:07 Bruno Marchal said the following:
>>>
>>> On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for
>>>> Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful
>>>> Communication and the Interaction Between Nature and Culture,
>>>> INTEGRAL REVIEW, June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
>>>>
>>>> http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> I would not oppose this to "scientific classical explanation".
>>> By doing this, Brier makes impossible to change the theories
>>> which fail, and that can lead to the frequent means of hiding the
>>> question by a verbal sort of hypnotism, I think. If the current
>>> explanation does not work, we have to try to understand why and
>>> correct it accordingly.
>>
>> I believe that the author remains within science. Well, this
>> clearly depends on definition. The author just wanted to include
>> humanitarian sciences into science. You means that this does not
>> make sense?
>
> You should not have unquote it. I remember reading that he was
> criticizing the use of "classical science", and my point is that this
> is exactly what we should not done in the human science. He was, like
> the pseudo-priests, excluding humantarian science from science.
"But the theories of the phenomenological life world and the
hermeneutics of the meaning of communication seem to defy classical
scientific explanations."
"I begin with a brief introduction to my view of scientific thinking on
deep theories and a few words about the limitation of the word �science�
in the English language and my proposal to use the German
transdisciplinary term �Wissenschaft�, which includes qualitative
research into meaning."
Frankly speaking, I do not see how your comment is related to the paper.
Evgenii
Evgenii Rudnyi
Jun 28, 2013, 2:46:40 PM6/28/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 27.06.2013 03:15 Craig Weinberg said the following:
> This was how I started - seeing semiotics as the bridge between mind
> and matter and therefore pattern as the fundamental feature of
> nature. The only problem that I have with it is that pattern
> ultimately in nothing without a capacity for pattern recognition, aka
> sense. Because we have sense, (or because we *are* sense) it is easy
> to take patterns for granted and not factor in our own capacity to
> render them as a coherent experience, but to be absolutely objective
> about the universe, we cannot overlook ourselves and our own privacy
> or reduce it to unconscious interactions.
The question what is "I" and "we" remains indeed. Yet, it seems to be
the same for your approach.
By the way, pattern recognition on its own does not solve the problem of
universals. For pattern recognition, it is first necessary to split the
world to an agent and its surrounding.
Evgenii
>
>
> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:07:08 AM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>
>> Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for
>> Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful
>> Communication and the Interaction Between Nature and Culture,
>> INTEGRAL REVIEW, June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
>>
>>
>> http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
>>
...
>
> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:07:08 AM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>
>> Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for
>> Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful
>> Communication and the Interaction Between Nature and Culture,
>> INTEGRAL REVIEW, June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
>>
>>
>> http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
>>
> This was how I started - seeing semiotics as the bridge between mind
> and matter and therefore pattern as the fundamental feature of
> nature. The only problem that I have with it is that pattern
> ultimately in nothing without a capacity for pattern recognition, aka
> sense. Because we have sense, (or because we *are* sense) it is easy
> to take patterns for granted and not factor in our own capacity to
> render them as a coherent experience, but to be absolutely objective
> about the universe, we cannot overlook ourselves and our own privacy
> or reduce it to unconscious interactions.
the same for your approach.
By the way, pattern recognition on its own does not solve the problem of
universals. For pattern recognition, it is first necessary to split the
world to an agent and its surrounding.
Evgenii
Bruno Marchal
Jun 29, 2013, 5:19:27 AM6/29/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
why to subscribe to it given that we have not yet abroad the mind-body
problem.
The problem is not with classical science, but with the fact that the
author seems unable to challenge *some* theories.
But this was from the abstract you gave, so if the paper is more
interesting, don't take this too much seriously. But it seems to me
that he was confusing science with Aristotle metaphysics (like many).
Bruno
>
> Or this one
>
> "I begin with a brief introduction to my view of scientific thinking
> on deep theories and a few words about the limitation of the word
> transdisciplinary term ‘Wissenschaft’, which includes qualitative
> research into meaning."
>
> Frankly speaking, I do not see how your comment is related to the
> paper.
>
> Evgenii
>
>
> Frankly speaking, I do not see how your comment is related to the
> paper.
>
> Evgenii
>
Evgenii Rudnyi
Jun 29, 2013, 7:49:48 AM6/29/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 29.06.2013 11:19 Bruno Marchal said the following:
>> Do you mean this sentence
>>
>> "But the theories of the phenomenological life world and the
>> hermeneutics of the meaning of communication seem to defy classical
>> scientific explanations."
>
> This one, yes. the hermeneutics might defy Aristotle metaphysics, but
> why to subscribe to it given that we have not yet abroad the
> mind-body problem.
>
> The problem is not with classical science, but with the fact that the
> author seems unable to challenge *some* theories.
>
> But this was from the abstract you gave, so if the paper is more
> interesting, don't take this too much seriously. But it seems to me
> that he was confusing science with Aristotle metaphysics (like
> many).
>
I believe that your term "Aristotle metaphysics" is misleading. I am
afraid that you give it your own specific meaning that for example to me
is unclear. I guess that you mean an association of science with
materialism. I am not sure though that Aristotle's philosophy belongs to
materialism. Say, Aristotle has not shared atomistic world view and he
has four causes including final cause. Classic science that Brier refers
to is primarily atomistic and is based on effective cause only. One
could probably find some relationship with Aristotle's metaphysics but
to say that they are equivalent, in my view, it is overkill.
Evgenii
>
> On 28 Jun 2013, at 20:35, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
...
> On 28 Jun 2013, at 20:35, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
>> Do you mean this sentence
>>
>> "But the theories of the phenomenological life world and the
>> hermeneutics of the meaning of communication seem to defy classical
>> scientific explanations."
>
> This one, yes. the hermeneutics might defy Aristotle metaphysics, but
> why to subscribe to it given that we have not yet abroad the
> mind-body problem.
>
> The problem is not with classical science, but with the fact that the
> author seems unable to challenge *some* theories.
>
> But this was from the abstract you gave, so if the paper is more
> interesting, don't take this too much seriously. But it seems to me
> that he was confusing science with Aristotle metaphysics (like
> many).
>
afraid that you give it your own specific meaning that for example to me
is unclear. I guess that you mean an association of science with
materialism. I am not sure though that Aristotle's philosophy belongs to
materialism. Say, Aristotle has not shared atomistic world view and he
has four causes including final cause. Classic science that Brier refers
to is primarily atomistic and is based on effective cause only. One
could probably find some relationship with Aristotle's metaphysics but
to say that they are equivalent, in my view, it is overkill.
Evgenii
Bruno Marchal
Jul 1, 2013, 5:12:20 AM7/1/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 29 Jun 2013, at 13:49, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> On 29.06.2013 11:19 Bruno Marchal said the following:
>>
>> On 28 Jun 2013, at 20:35, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>>> Do you mean this sentence
>>>
>>> "But the theories of the phenomenological life world and the
>>> hermeneutics of the meaning of communication seem to defy classical
>>> scientific explanations."
>>
>> This one, yes. the hermeneutics might defy Aristotle metaphysics, but
>> why to subscribe to it given that we have not yet abroad the
>> mind-body problem.
>>
>> The problem is not with classical science, but with the fact that the
>> author seems unable to challenge *some* theories.
>>
>> But this was from the abstract you gave, so if the paper is more
>> interesting, don't take this too much seriously. But it seems to me
>> that he was confusing science with Aristotle metaphysics (like
>> many).
>>
>
> I believe that your term "Aristotle metaphysics" is misleading. I am
> afraid that you give it your own specific meaning that for example
> to me is unclear.
the word, like in the literature, except that I have eleraged it a
bit. We are not trying to do history.
By Aristotelian I mean someone defending the doctrine that there is
primary matter, or that we have to assume matter in the TOE, and so
that matter is not an emergent notion.
By Platonist, I mean the doctrine that matter and the whole physical
reality is not the primitive reality, that it is only the border of
something else (notably with comp, some aspect of arithmetical truth
when seen from inside).
> I guess that you mean an association of science with materialism.
> I am not sure though that Aristotle's philosophy belongs to
> materialism.
Aristotle made explicit that primary matter is assumed in his
metaphysics.
> Say, Aristotle has not shared atomistic world view and he has four
> causes including final cause. Classic science that Brier refers to
> is primarily atomistic and is based on effective cause only. One
> could probably find some relationship with Aristotle's metaphysics
> but to say that they are equivalent, in my view, it is overkill.
Bruno
Craig Weinberg
Jul 15, 2013, 6:06:58 PM7/15/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Friday, June 28, 2013 2:46:40 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 27.06.2013 03:15 Craig Weinberg said the following:
>
>
> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:07:08 AM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>
>> Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for
>> Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful
>> Communication and the Interaction Between Nature and Culture,
>> INTEGRAL REVIEW, June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
>>
>>
>> http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
>>
...
> This was how I started - seeing semiotics as the bridge between mind
> and matter and therefore pattern as the fundamental feature of
> nature. The only problem that I have with it is that pattern
> ultimately in nothing without a capacity for pattern recognition, aka
> sense. Because we have sense, (or because we *are* sense) it is easy
> to take patterns for granted and not factor in our own capacity to
> render them as a coherent experience, but to be absolutely objective
> about the universe, we cannot overlook ourselves and our own privacy
> or reduce it to unconscious interactions.
The question what is "I" and "we" remains indeed. Yet, it seems to be
the same for your approach.
My approach is to see sensory-motive experience as the fundamental. To ask what "is" relies on the sense of expectation that there 'is' any such thing as 'is'.
By the way, pattern recognition on its own does not solve the problem of
universals. For pattern recognition, it is first necessary to split the
world to an agent and its surrounding.
Before you can split anything you need to have a sense of what 'split' is.
Craig
Evgenii
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages