Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Jon Awbrey

unread,
May 1, 2023, 6:00:41 PM5/1/23
to Cybernetic Communications, Laws of Form, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG
Cf: Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 6
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/04/30/inquiry-into-inquiry-discussion-6/

Re: Mathstodon • Nicole Rust
https://mathstodon.xyz/@Nicol...@neuromatch.social/110197230713039748

<QUOTE NR:>
Computations or Processes —
How do you think about the building blocks of the brain?
</QUOTE>

I keep coming back to this thread about levels, along with others
on the related issue of paradigms, as those have long been major
questions for me. I am trying to clarify my current understanding
for a blog post. It will start out a bit like this —

A certain amount of “level” language is natural in the sciences
but “level” metaphors come with hidden assumptions about higher and
lower places in hierarchies which don't always fit the case at hand.
In complex cases what look at first like parallel strata may in time
be better comprehended as intersecting domains or mutually recursive
and entangled orders of being. When that happens we can guard against
misleading imagery by speaking of domains or realms instead of levels.

To be continued …

Regards,

Jon

Jon Awbrey

unread,
Aug 17, 2023, 5:40:37 PM8/17/23
to Cybernetic Communications, Laws of Form, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG
Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 7
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/08/17/inquiry-into-inquiry-discussion-7/

All,

Dan Everett has prompted a number of discussions on Facebook recently
which touch on core issues in Peirce's thought — but threads ravel on
and fray so quickly in that medium one rarely gets a chance to fill out
the warp. Not exactly at random, here's a loose thread I think may be
worth the candle.

Re: Facebook • Daniel Everett

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0be89MXhhCm8rxahRn4PXif6HHSCmkdiUFfMZ3qS1mNqSzRzUWfqej5a8cyz8TcyJl&id=100093271525294

My Comment —

Compositionality started out as a well-defined concept, arising
from the composition of mathematical functions, abstracted to the
composition of arrows and functors in category theory, and generalized
to the composition of binary, two-place, or dyadic relations. In terms
of linguistic complexity it's associated with properly context-free languages.
That all keeps compositionality on the dyadic side of the border in Peirce's
universe. More lately the term has been volatilized to encompass almost any
sort of information fusion, which is all well and good so long as folks make it
clear what they are talking about, for which use the term “information fusion”
would probably be sufficiently vague.

Regards,

Jon

cc: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/110299510074465249

Jon Awbrey

unread,
Aug 18, 2023, 5:28:25 PM8/18/23
to Cybernetic Communications, Laws of Form, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG
Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 8
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/08/18/inquiry-into-inquiry-discussion-8/

Re: Milo Gardner
https://www.academia.edu/community/Lbxjg5?c=yqXVog

MG: ❝Peirce sensed that bivalent syntax was superceded by trivalent syntax,
but never resolved that nagging question.❞

My Comment —

The main thing is not a question of syntax but a question of
the mathematical models we use to cope with object realities
and real objectives (“pragmata”). Signs, syntax, and systems
of representation can make a big difference in how well they
represent the object domain and how well they serve the purpose
at hand but they remain accessory to those objects and purposes.

Jon Awbrey

unread,
Aug 19, 2023, 9:30:32 AM8/19/23
to Cybernetic Communications, Laws of Form, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG
Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 9
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/08/19/inquiry-into-inquiry-discussion-9/

Re: Milo Gardner
https://www.academia.edu/community/VBqzR5?c=Q4jJVy

MG: ❝Do you agree that Peirce was limited to bivalent logic?❞

My Comment —

Taking classical logic as a basis for reasoning is no more limiting than
taking Dedekind cuts as a basis for constructing the real number line.
For Peirce's relational approach to logic as semiotics the number of
dimensions in a relation is more important than the number of values
in each dimension. That is where 3 makes a difference over 2.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages