Tony, what does it mean (for Peirce) to be 'aware of signs AS signs'? The
fact that I can talk about the traffic light breaking down, for example. Is
that what makes humans uniquely semiotic?
Martin
On Sep 21, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Tony Whitson wrote:
Mike, from a Peircean POV, any element of Thirdness is (as such) an
element of ideality.
A response in the Stimulus-Response model might seem unmediated, in the
im-mediate event. From a Peircean POV,a Pavlovian response to a stimulus
is a response to that stimulum AS a sign of (for example) food. Or -- the
salivation is a response to food through the mediation of the bell (or
whatever) as a sign of food. (This way of thinking is a source for the
reflex-arch paper by Peirce's famous student, Dewey.)
From a Peircean POV, the phototropic response of a plant to a light
source
is likewise a sign-mediated response, with the plant responding TO THE
AVAILABLE LIGHT-ENERGY through the mediation of the sensed light-location
as a sign of the energy. This is possible only through the regularity (or
ideality) of the congruence of light source location and energy
availability.
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, mike cole wrote:
Not sure what to make of the
phrase "there is ideality in any generalized sign (as in habituated
responses) since there are habituated responses which are not sign
mediated.
mike
(ex rat psychologist)
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca