3-1c2e3.1 It’s symbols all the way down
1-2g3.1 It’s explanations all the way down
10-1b4.1 Peirce - One needs ‘interpretant’ for language to get off the ground
1-2g2s7b3 An explanation for how something really works cannot rely on infinitydevelop
1-1a1a Our mind is not necessarily composed linearly or hierarchically. It could be a connected web of nodes and reflexive.
It IS reflexive. That’s the meaning of using symbols!develop
1-1a1a1 Ability to think recursively allows such thing as categorization of tasks into sub-tasks. Recursion is a property of thought (and not language per se).
1-2g1c3c Self = A sequence of experiences (‘recursive definition of the self’)
3-1c3a2 情報の起源に触れることは物理的に不可能
1-1a1b The mind includes inexplicit as well as unconscious
1-1a2e7 Dark matter both help and impede our perception of the world
1-1a2a1 Human nature is variable (Cultures ⇒ Flexible human brains ⇒ Variable dark matters ⇒ Variable ‘human natures’ ⇒ Cultures …)
5-1b1a2d Knowledge is by definition unpredictable
3-1c2e0 There is no minimum idea
- Peirce’s ‘infinite semiosis’ (HLB 4)
- 3-1c2e5 Symbols are constructed of other symbols
- 3-1c2e4 There is no limit to the number of symbols available to humans for languages
- There is no beginning or end to symbols, signs, and ideas
- Peirce anticipated both Levinson and Silverstein, however, in proposing that symbols are constructed of other symbols. In Peirce’s writings, the phrase ‘infinite semiosis’ means that there is no limit to the number of symbols available to humans for languages. This in turn is based on the view that signs are multifunctional. Each sign determines an interpretant, but an interpretant is also a sign, so every sign embodies a second sign. This is a kind of conceptual recursion, concepts within concepts, and represents a huge step forward in human communication. It means that a string of signs always contains other signs. According to Peirce, this can be understood when we see infinity even in a simple sequence like:
- Sign1/Interpretant1 → Sign2/Interpretant2 … → Sign n
- 10-1b4.1 Peirce - One needs ‘interpretant’ for language to get off the ground
- Put differently, we always have yet-to-be-explicated-interpretant that precedes the current explicated interpretant
- 10-1b4.1 Peirce - One needs ‘interpretant’ for language to get off the ground
- Sign1/Interpretant1 → Sign2/Interpretant2 … → Sign n
- This representation looks finite until we realise that Sign n cannot be the end because if it lacks an interpretant it is not a sign. Likewise, Sign1 cannot really be the beginning, because by definition it is connected to an interpretant of an earlier sign. So there is no beginning or end to symbols and signs. The process that creates them is infinite because it is recursive. Any random sign is always partially composed from another sign.
- Is the implication of this is that, as long as you use symbols, that means you are using recursivity, even if your language doesn’t have recursive syntax?
- Peirce anticipated both Levinson and Silverstein, however, in proposing that symbols are constructed of other symbols. In Peirce’s writings, the phrase ‘infinite semiosis’ means that there is no limit to the number of symbols available to humans for languages. This in turn is based on the view that signs are multifunctional. Each sign determines an interpretant, but an interpretant is also a sign, so every sign embodies a second sign. This is a kind of conceptual recursion, concepts within concepts, and represents a huge step forward in human communication. It means that a string of signs always contains other signs. According to Peirce, this can be understood when we see infinity even in a simple sequence like:
Layer-1 Layer-2 phrasing is probably not the best topology-analogy to understand Ethereum blockchain ecosystem
Everything is connected in rather more complex fashion
Ethereum Network is at the center, and everything else complements that as well as each other
Web2.0 analogy is AWS