ONT Re: Information = Comprehension x Extension -- Discussion
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
ICE. Discussion Note 6
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
AK = Antti Karttunen
JA = Jon Awbrey
AK: But this puzzles me:
CSP: | In the same way, when he learns that 'D' is red,
| the term 'D-like red' becomes equivalent to 'red'.
AK: Because here D belongs to the realm of
Sphere, Extension, and Breadth, so how
can you compare it with "red"? (What is
"D-like" red, or "Antti Karttunen-like red"?)
my guess is that "x-like" means "having all of the discourse-relative
or currently noted properties of x". but we have in this discourse
currently noted only the property Red of D, or properties that are
immediate implications of that. in effect, D serves merely as
yet another exemplar of the quality Red, as that is all the
information that we have of it.
more generally, peirce's use of "particulars" and "properties" is more
like particles and waves than the usual hard lines that the descent of
mind that de-evolved from atomic logicism imagines it can draw between
absolute individuals and absolute predicates.
AK: Up till later, as so far I have printed and read only 17 pages of that
over hundred pages Peirce-notes you sent me. Sometimes his language is
quite hard to follow, but fortunately, "the logic of science" seems to be
translated to Finnish as well. Tomorrow I'll go again to the University
library in Helsinki, and get few other translations of Leibniz and Couturat.
happy reading ...
jon awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o