Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Information = Comprehension Ã— Extension - Revision history

Jon Awbrey: update

2016-11-09T19:40:23Z

update

Jon Awbrey: update

2016-09-30T19:12:16Z

update

Jon Awbrey: update

2016-09-23T12:40:05Z

update

Show changes

Jon Awbrey: add categories

2013-07-06T15:24:51Z

add categories

Jon Awbrey: /* Commentary Work Note 3 */ center figures

2013-05-14T04:32:15Z

Commentary Work Note 3: center figures

Jon Awbrey: /* Commentary Work Note 2 */ center figures

2013-05-14T04:20:36Z

Commentary Work Note 2: center figures

Jon Awbrey: /* Commentary Work Note 1 */ center figure

2013-05-14T04:18:14Z

Commentary Work Note 1: center figure

Jon Awbrey: /* Commentary Note 14 */ center figure

2013-05-14T04:16:12Z

Commentary Note 14: center figure

Jon Awbrey: /* Commentary Note 13 */ center figures

2013-05-14T04:14:16Z

Commentary Note 13: center figures

Jon Awbrey: /* Commentary Note 12 */ center figures

2013-05-14T04:12:48Z

Commentary Note 12: center figures

@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 {| align="center" border="0" cellspacing="10" style="text-align:center; width:100%"
-| [[File:ICE Comment 1 Alt 3.jpg|center]]
+| [[File:ICE Figure 1.jpg|center]]
 |-
 | height="20px" | <math>\text{Figure 1.} ~~ \text{Conjunctive Term}~ z, ~\text{Taken as Predicate}\!</math>
@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 {| align="center" border="0" cellspacing="10" style="text-align:center; width:100%"
-| [[File:ICE Comment 2.jpg|center]]
+| [[File:ICE Figure 2.jpg|center]]
 |-
 | height="20px" | <math>\text{Figure 2.} ~~ \text{Disjunctive Term}~ u, ~\text{Taken as Subject}\!</math>
@@ Line 238: / Line 238: @@
 {| align="center" border="0" cellspacing="10" style="text-align:center; width:100%"
-| [[File:ICE Comment 3a.jpg|center]]
+| [[File:ICE Figure 3.jpg|center]]
 |-
 | height="20px" | <math>\text{Figure 3.} ~~ \text{Conjunctive Predicate}~ z, ~\text{Abduction of Case}~ \texttt{(} x \texttt{(} y \texttt{))}\!</math>
@@ Line 246: / Line 246: @@
 {| align="center" border="0" cellspacing="10" style="text-align:center; width:100%"
-| [[File:ICE Comment 3b.jpg|center]]
+| [[File:ICE Figure 4.jpg|center]]
 |-
 | height="20px" | <math>\text{Figure 4.} ~~ \text{Disjunctive Subject}~ u, ~\text{Induction of Rule}~ \texttt{(} v \texttt{(} w \texttt{))}\!</math>
@@ Line 260: / Line 260: @@
 {| align="center" border="0" cellspacing="10" style="text-align:center; width:100%"
-| [[File:ICE Comment 1 Alt 3.jpg|center]]
+| [[File:ICE Figure 1.jpg|center]]
 |-
 | height="20px" | <math>\text{Figure 1.} ~~ \text{Conjunctive Term}~ z, ~\text{Taken as Predicate}\!</math>
@@ Line 274: / Line 274: @@
 {| align="center" border="0" cellspacing="10" style="text-align:center; width:100%"
-| [[File:ICE Comment 1 Alt 3.jpg|center]]
+| [[File:ICE Figure 1.jpg|center]]
 |-
 | height="20px" | <math>\text{Figure 1.} ~~ \text{Conjunctive Term}~ z, ~\text{Taken as Predicate}\!</math>
@@ Line 284: / Line 284: @@
 Viewed in the light of the above analysis, Peirce's example of abductive reasoning exhibits an especially strong form of inference, almost deductive in character.&nbsp; Do all abductive arguments take this form, or may there be weaker styles of abductive reasoning that enjoy their own levels of plausibility?&nbsp; That must remain an open question at this point.
 ===Selection 7===
@@ Line 556: / Line 566: @@
 |}
-===Discussion 6===
+===Discussion 7===
 If you dreamed that this inquiry had come full circle then I inform you of what you already know, that there are always greater circles.  I revert to Peirce's Harvard University Lectures of the year before, to pick up additional background material and a bit more motivation.

@@ Line 266: / Line 266: @@
 The relationship between conjunctive terms and iconic signs may be understood as follows.  If there is anything that has all the properties described by the conjunctive term &mdash; ''spherical bright fragrant juicy tropical fruit'' &mdash; then sign users may use that thing as an icon of an orange, precisely by virtue of the fact that it shares those properties with an orange.  But the only natural examples of things that have all those properties are oranges themselves, so the only thing that can serve as a natural icon of an orange by virtue of those very properties is that orange itself or another orange.
 ===Selection 7===
@@ Line 538: / Line 556: @@
 |}
-===Discussion 5===
+===Discussion 6===
 If you dreamed that this inquiry had come full circle then I inform you of what you already know, that there are always greater circles.  I revert to Peirce's Harvard University Lectures of the year before, to pick up additional background material and a bit more motivation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 6 July 2013
Line 4,984:		Line 4,984:

	[[Category:Charles Sanders Peirce]]		[[Category:Charles Sanders Peirce]]
		+	[[Category:Information Theory]]
		+	[[Category:Inquiry]]
		+	[[Category:Inquiry Driven Systems]]
		+	[[Category:Logic]]
		+	[[Category:Pragmatism]]
		+	[[Category:Scientific Method]]
		+	[[Category:Semiotics]]
		+	[[Category:Sign Relations]]

@@ Line 3,274: / Line 3,274: @@
 Here is the rougher draft of the two, a diptych impaneled of an object fold and a sign fold, an interpretant being, after all, just another passing moment in the life cycle of a sign, and so there is an object ''o'', with its intensions ''p ''through ''q'', collectively constellating the comprehension of any sign ''s''<sub>''k''</sub>, above the instances, instantiations, or instants ''i'' through ''j'' of the object ''o'', aggregatively constituting the extension of any sign ''s''<sub>''k''</sub> that is said to denote ''o'' or its plurality below.
 <font face="courier new"><pre>
 o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
@@ Line 3,291: / Line 3,293: @@
 o-----------------------------------------------------------o
 </pre></font>
 I should mention, in no uncertain terms, that Peirce's present account does not yet count this ''abstract hypostasis'' or ''hypostatic object'' ''o'' in any explicit way, though I think it is inherent in the very form of his thinking.  So let us keep an eye out, as we proceed with the story, for when, if ever, this particular character first treads on the scene.
@@ Line 3,296: / Line 3,299: @@
 For future reference, I will go ahead and post here this advance notice of what may well be the next stage in the developmental differentiation of this, my embyronic autopoetics, but let's just see what we shall see.
 <font face="courier new"><pre>
 o-----------------------------------------------------------o
@@ Line 3,319: / Line 3,324: @@
 o-----------------------------------------------------------o
 </pre></font>
 ===Commentary Work Note 4===

@@ Line 3,202: / Line 3,202: @@
 |}
 <font face="courier new"><pre>
 o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
@@ Line 3,230: / Line 3,232: @@
 | Conjunctive Predicate "P" and Abductive Case "S => M"     |
 o-----------------------------------------------------------o
 o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
 |     Objective Framework     |   Interpretive Framework    |
@@ Line 3,259: / Line 3,266: @@
 o-----------------------------------------------------------o
 </pre></font>
 ===Commentary Work Note 3===

@@ Line 2,948: / Line 2,948: @@
 With the clarity afforded by a reflective interval, my third thought, the relatively ultimate, more perfect interpretant of the intervening struggle toward that final, hopefully neither dying nor raging light, begins to look ever more like the fitting icon of my first impression.
-I was trying to understand the things that Peirce said and wrote about the conventional, disjunctive, indexical, inductive complex of notions in the period 1865–1867.  And I was focused for the moment on this bit:
+I was trying to understand the things that Peirce said and wrote about the conventional, disjunctive, indexical, inductive complex of notions in the period 1865&ndash;1867.  And I was focused for the moment on this bit:
 {| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%" <!--QUOTE-->
@@ Line 2,967: / Line 2,967: @@
 I've gotten as far as sketching this picture of the possible readings:
 <font face="courier new"><pre>
 o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
@@ Line 2,997: / Line 2,999: @@
 o-----------------------------------------------------------o
 </pre></font>
 In order of increasing ''objectivity'', here are three alternatives:

@@ Line 2,755: / Line 2,755: @@
 Let's redraw the ''New List'' pictures of Abduction and Induction in a way that is a little less cluttered, availing ourselves of the fact that logical implications or lattice subsumptions obey a transitive law to leave unmarked what is thereby understood.
 <font face="courier new"><pre>
 o-------------------------------------------------o
@@ Line 2,782: / Line 2,784: @@
 | Icon Q of Object M, Abduction of Case "S is M"  |
 o-------------------------------------------------o
 o-------------------------------------------------o
 |                                                 |
@@ Line 2,810: / Line 2,817: @@
 o-------------------------------------------------o
 </pre></font>
 The main problem that I have with these pictures in their present form is that they do not sufficiently underscore the distinction in roles between signs and objects, and thus we may find it a bit jarring that the middle term of a syllogistic figure is described as an ''object'' of iconic and indexic signs.