ONT Re: What Is Information That A Sign May Bear It? -- Discussion
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
WIS Discussion. Note 10
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
FK = Frances Catherine Kelly
Re: WIS Discussion 9. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05306.html
FK: This note may come be too late for you to consider before your next message
on the topic, but my random impressions on Peircean information in signs
may serve some orienting use. My phrases singled out for clarification
are not from Peirce strictly speaking, but are my paraphrases for his
terms and ideas on information in signs.
FK: What is basically being driven at here by me is that the
literal or written notation of logical relations signifies
a polarity of correlates in a ground that is identified.
Can you give me examples of things that fall under the following descriptions?
1.1. "literal or written notation"
1.2. "logical relations"
1.3. "literal or written notation of logical relations"
2.1. "a polarity of correlates"
2.2. "a ground that is identified"
2.3. "a polarity of correlates in a ground that is identified"
Can you show me how your example of a thing that
falls under description 1.3 has the property
that it "signifies" some example of a thing
that falls under description 2.3?
FK: The information in the ground of the relation
here seems dyadic, as any such relation will be, ...
Why do you say that "any such relation" will be dyadic?
What are the assumptions about "such" that would bring
you to assert this?
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o