judgment occupies a region on some sort of sweetness continuum. — ToothyMaw

The trickiness lies in the fact that what we call 'concrete' and 'abstract' are not binary but exist along a continuum. Sweet and sweetness, hard and hardness—these different facets of the same relational phenomena, depend on how we interact with them.

Think of how we know of a diamond's hardness. Hardness isn’t revealed in isolation but through an interaction—scratching a diamond against another material or measuring its resistance. This interplay demonstrates the relational nature of what might seem like a static property.

Hard and hardness might follow the same relational logic. Hard is often tied to an immediate sensory experience (Secondness), while hardness is a concept that emerges from systematic comparisons (Thirdness).

The 'hypo' static nature of 'hardness' is quite real, but a nominalist may say this is an unnecessary category (Thirdness) to consider.

Phaneroscopy includes this category in synechistic/phaneroscopic inquiry, phenomenology does not.

Nominalists might gravitate toward phenomenology because it aligns with analyzing discrete, immediate experiences. But phaneroscopy challenges us to consider continuity and relational emergence—how sweet is not isolated but tied to sweetness, and how hard relates to hardness through interactions that reveal their connections.

Habit in autopoietic momentum is a highly important aspect of Thirdness to be aware of. It reveals itself in all complex systems. Our neglect of understanding Thirdness is extremely dangerous. Nominalism is the cause of the blindness.


Something I wrote that might be helpful to read.
https://medium.com/@SarahCTyrrell/a-case-involving-claude-ai-b4b76bd6249e

Habit in autopoietic momentum is a highly important aspect of Thirdness to be aware of. It reveals itself in all complex systems. Our neglect of understanding Thirdness is extremely dangerous. Nominalism is the cause of the blindness. — Mapping the Medium

I was understanding you (I think?) until this last paragraph. That's a real head-scratcher as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what to make of what you said there. Habit in autopoietic momentum is a highly important aspect, I'm with you up to that point. But then you say "of Thirdness to be aware of".

I'll just say it, since I consider you a friend at this point, even though I joined this Forum less than I week ago:

I don't understand Peirce when he talks about Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. I've thought about this for decades. I've read papers about it. I've had people explain it to me. I still don't get it. It's like, I can't even imagine it, like what is he talking about? It's so abstract that I can't even picture it. Like, what is it? What do I compare it to? I feel utterly dumb when I try to understand Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. Is it like "I, you, they"? Is it like "he, she, they"? I don't get it. Please, can you help me understand just the very concept under discussion here? I can't wrap my head around it, it's too abstract for my simple capacity to understand things.

Please, can you help me understand just the very concept under discussion here? — Arcane Sandwich

Did you read the link at the bottom of the post?

I am not able to continue this discussion right now (I'm working), but I hope you will read and explore more on your own.

Taking your idea as a sketch, let me see if I can add some color to it. I would say:

(a) This honey tastes sweet to a human being.
(b) Therefore, this honey possesses sweetness in itself, if by "in itself" we mean an object-subject relation.
(c) Any object-subject relation can be reduced (abstracted away) to a something-something relation.
(d) And in a something-something relation, there are two individual variables, "x" and "y", such that something binds them, and that something is a relation.

However, that relation itself, can be treated either as a unary predicate, or as an individual variable "z", but then you would need a fourt element to play the role of the ternary, binding predicate.

Does that make any sense? I'm not sure that it does. — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, I think that makes sense. The object-subject relation between the honey and perceived sweetness is provided by relations that should be able to be abstracted until we can isolate it as two variables bound by some relation in the form of a unary predicate or something. At that point I suppose we could say that we have achieved...something.

Did you read the link at the bottom of the post? — Mapping the Medium

Yes, I did. Not all of it, though. I skimmed through certain parts. My take on A.I. (if that's what you're asking, I'm not sure. Forgive me if not) is that Claude, the A.I. that you were prompting, is not aware. I would compare Claude to a parrot. A very sophisticated parrot, but still an entity that has no "awareness of the meaning of the words that it repeats", so to speak. In that sense, Claude is more like Deep Blue, the A.I. from the 90's that only played chess, and that beat Garry Kasparov. Deep Blue wasn't aware that it was playing a game of chess. It played masterfully, like the best human players, it had grand strategies and detailed tactics, like the best human generals. But it had no concept of what it was actually doing, it had no real awareness. And I believe that the same goes for Claude, and for ChatGPT, and every other A.I.: they are not aware of what it is exactly that they are doing, despite their claims to the contrary.

they are not aware of what it is exactly that they are doing, — Arcane Sandwich

You should carefully and thoroughly read it.

I got ChatGPT to tell me I solved the double-slit experiment once. Needless to say, it turned out to almost certainly be bullshit.

Not that AI is useless. Maybe I'll read what you linked.

I got ChatGPT to tell me I solved the double-slit experiment once. Needless to say, it turned out to almost certainly be bullshit. — ToothyMaw

If you carefully and thoroughly review my work, you will see how right you are and that nominalism is the problem.

I got ChatGPT to tell me I solved the double-slit experiment once. Needless to say, it turned out to almost certainly be bullshit. — ToothyMaw

There's a meme of someone who asked for the best way to use glue in a recipe for a homemade pizza, and ChatGPT gave her a list of instructions in which glue is indeed one of the ingredients.

It has no awareness of what it is actually saying to the prompter. I has no mind, since the series of processes that it undergoes are not brain processes, and meaning is something that requires a living brain.

You should carefully and thoroughly read it. — Mapping the Medium

Should I? Why? I'd read your parts, but what Claude the A.I. tells you seems fishy to me.

If you carefully and thoroughly review my work, you will see how right you are and that nominalism is the problem. — Mapping the Medium

I don't know if I've said anything that goes against nominalism, honestly. I would just separate the abstract notion of hardness from something actually being "hard" in some cases, for example. I don't really think hardness as an idea is an independent entity, as it exists as a result of our perceptions and mental models of the world. No to mention, we couldn't have hardness if there was not a variety of things of various "hardnesses" as it might be measured, so these abstract continuums and such seem to arise naturally to me. Or maybe I'm being naive. I don't know.

what Claude the A.I. tells you seems fishy to me. — Arcane Sandwich

If you really think that I am trying to promote AI in my work, you are sorely mistaken, and there is no reason to discuss this further.

what Claude the A.I. tells you seems fishy to me.
— Arcane Sandwich

If you really think that I am trying to promote AI in my work, you are sorely mistaken, and there is no reason to discuss this further. — Mapping the Medium

No one is skeptical of you or your intentions, I think he just doesn't think much of AI.

No, that's not what I think. Why would you assume that about me? Why would you assume that I have ill intent? I'm being charitable towards you, am I not? Why would it be wrong for me to expect the same courtesy from you? Honest question.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

No, that's not what I think. Why would you assume that about me? Why would you assume that I have ill intent? I'm being charitable towards you, am I not? Why would it be wrong for me to expect the same courtesy from you? Honest question. — Arcane Sandwich

I am not assuming that about you at all. I was just being clear. ... My experience has taught me that sometimes that is necessary when someone doesn't take the time to read or get to know the topic better before dismissing it. ... If that does not apply to you, then no worries.

Or maybe I'm being naive. — ToothyMaw

Not at all.

I am not assuming that about you at all. I was just being clear. ... My experience has taught me that sometimes that is necessary when someone doesn't take the time to read or get to know the topic better before dismissing it. ... If that does not apply to you, then no worries. — Mapping the Medium

You seem very... "extreme", in some sense of the word. You speak with absolute confidence, is what I'm saying. Is it because you put no stock in the concept of good, honest doubt? Or is it for some other reason? I'm curious.

I'm — Arcane Sandwich

I understand doubt quite well. As for whatever it is you are reading in me, perhaps that doubt has helped me through more than 50 years of research and study.

perhaps that doubt has helped me through more than 50 years of research and study. — Mapping the Medium

Perhaps. I'm sure it has. But it doesn't "seep through" your words, currently. It's as if you've already figured out something that requires no further contribution from anyone else, human or machine. Is that right? But it can't be. Why not? Well, you're here, aren't you? You're speaking to fellow humans on a Forum. You're also speaking to a machine when you speak to Claude. So, by necessity, it follows that you haven't figured out what I just said. But then I just don't know why your tone is rock-solid confident. Is it merely because you've been researching and studying for more than 50 years? Perhaps. But I know intellectuals that have been researching and studying for the same stretch of time, and in other cases, even longer. They don't speak with such confidence, in fact their doubts are very noticeable in their speech and their writing. Their speech patterns, that is, and their writing patterns, that is. They express doubt in their patterns, and manifestly so. That's all I'm saying, mate. I literally mean no offense by it.

I literally mean no offense by it. — Arcane Sandwich

No offense taken

You're speaking to fellow humans on a Forum. You're also speaking to a machine when you speak to Claude. So, by necessity, it follows that you haven't figured out what I just said. But then I just don't know why your tone is rock-solid confident. — Arcane Sandwich

Believe it or not, there is confidence to be found in understanding uncertainty, but I realize that this idea is very foreign to most people, especially in Western culture.

One of the reasons I explore artificial intelligence is because it is very relevant to this topic and our future. Because of this, I became Microsoft certified, and I am an artificial intelligence researcher.

Please, can you help me understand just the very concept under discussion here? I can't wrap my head around it, it's too abstract — Arcane Sandwich

If you would like to understand Thirdness better, perhaps there is some type of complex system you would like to explore. .... Are you familiar with Ilya Prigogine? ... Because of nominalism, time was excluded from classical science. There is a lot to be learned about that by studying Leibniz. The idea was, that for God, everything is there, eternally, so science was focused on static objects, and we inherited all of this in materialism. ... Descartes' philosophy played a decisive role in the development of Leibniz's thought, and much of Descartes 'thought' was based on nominalism's stance that only static, discrete, individual things exist, (per Ockham, otherwise God would not be omnipotent and be able to damn an individual sinner or save an individual saint). .... I have a whole series of learning videos on this topic, in case you are interested. It's all human history, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with 'opinions'. I have found that some people prefer watching videos over reading, so I made some. ... Anyway, Ilya Prigogine wrote a book called 'From Being to Becoming'. His work with dissipative structures and thermodynamics showed that temporal processes mean that existence and being is a necessarily open system (relational). A closed system becomes stagnant and dies. ... Next, you might want to explore the idea of autopoiesis. ... So, to get a 'feel' for what Thirdness is, combine all of that. ... The abstract philosophical and logic aspects of this can be difficult for many people to grasp.

I'm really not trying to be difficult, but it is centuries of history to cover, and time is of the essence in the work that I do.

I am an artificial intelligence researcher. — Mapping the Medium

Where are you from? Or, what is your Native Language? I speak Spanish and English. I do not speak "Machine", as in, I cannot "talk" to you with Zeros and Ones. No human can do that for the purposes of communication.

Ilya Prigogine? — Mapping the Medium

No, I am not.

Because of nominalism, time was excluded from classical science. — Mapping the Medium

Are you sure of that? That's a pretty loaded claim, girl. What evidence supports your claim, there?

There is a lot to be learned about that by studying Leibniz. The idea was, that for God, everything is there, eternally, so science was focused on static objects, and we inherited all of this in materialism — Mapping the Medium

I don't think so. I mean, I can imagine it, but it's like, here's a hand, mate. Here's a Moore-like argument to the contrary. Here's a hand, mate. Like, it's not a big deal. Solipsism is false. That's no secret to anyone, ey.

Descartes' philosophy played a decisive role in the development of Leibniz's thought, and much of Descartes 'thought' was based on nominalism's stance that only static, discrete, individual things exist, (per Ockham, otherwise God would not be omnipotent and be able to damn an individual sinner or save an individual saint). .... I have a whole series of learning videos on this topic, in case you are interested. — Mapping the Medium

I don't know, girl. It's like, it sounds way to mystical for my taste. I say that from an Aesthetic POV, which I think is just as valid and legit as yours, innit.

It's all human history, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with 'opinions'. I have found that some people prefer watching videos over reading, — Mapping the Medium

I pitty the fools.

Next, you might want to explore the idea of autopoiesis. ... — Mapping the Medium

Yeah, you've been saying that for a while, now. What do you mean, like Maturana, the biologist? I kinda just don't believe him, know what I'm sayin'. Like, I just don't. I'm on the science team, not the vitalistic spirituality whatever-you-want-to-call-it team.

So, to get a 'feel' for what Thirdness is, combine all of that. ... The abstract philosophical and logic aspects of this can be difficult for many people to grasp. — Mapping the Medium

Girl, I think you need to be a mind flayer to grasp that. Like, I don't have the biological brain that I need in order to understand that, I'm not a mind flayer, and no such creatures exist. Which lead me to the suspicion that you, perhaps, are not human. Do you see why I'm worried about your extremely confident tone?

I'm really not trying to be difficult, but it is centuries of history to cover, and time is of the essence in the work that I do. — Mapping the Medium

Can I just share a music video with you, then? Maybe it will improve your work, since my words are not improving it, it seems.

Think of how we know of a diamond's hardness. Hardness isn’t revealed in isolation but through an interaction—scratching a diamond against another material or measuring its resistance. This interplay demonstrates the relational nature of what might seem like a static property.

Hard and hardness might follow the same relational logic. Hard is often tied to an immediate sensory experience (Secondness), while hardness is a concept that emerges from systematic comparisons (Thirdness). — Mapping the Medium

My gut tells me you are switching the order of qualitative and quantitative differences . The diamond is a a real "thing": It stays in form if left alone, it is a solid body.

The diamond is a a real "thing": It stays in form if left alone, it is a solid body. — Heiko

Thank you, but that doesn't pertain to what we were doing in this exercise in logic.

Here's the problem with Peirce's philosophical semiotics:

The terms "Firstness", "Secondness", and "Thirdness" allow one to say that there is also "Fourthness". And if there's such a thing as Fourthness, why not Fithness? How about A-Trillionth-Billionth-Six-Hundred-Forty-Seventhness?

It just makes no damn sense, woman. It's meaningless. Like, it's not real talk.

So let me ask you this: are you a human being?

Thank you, but that doesn't pertain to what we were doing in this exercise in logic. — Mapping the Medium

I really do not understand what you are up to. Do you think we need to restrict what can be communicated and (consciously) experienced like in "Who has always lived in cold places does not need a heater because he would not feel the 'cold'?" Is deprivation a solution?

Or is it the other way around: Do you think that the assumption of already knowing everything leads to disaster?

The terms "Firstness", "Secondness", and "Thirdness" allow one to say that there is also "Fourthness". And if there's such a thing as Fourthness, why not Fithness? How about A-Trillionth-Billionth-Six-Hundred-Forty-Seventhness?

It just makes no damn sense, woman. It's meaningless. Like, it's not real talk.

So let me ask you this: are you a human being? — Arcane Sandwich

You seem to misunderstand the rigor behind Peirce’s triadic categories. Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness are not arbitrary—they are grounded in Peirce’s phenomenological exploration of how reality presents itself. The categories are exhaustive, not endlessly additive, because they describe the irreducible modes of being: possibility, interaction, and mediation.

Suggesting ‘Fourthness’, ect., overlooks the logic behind these distinctions. Peirce didn’t invent these categories as a playful exercise; they reflect the foundational structure of reality as understood through relationality. I’m curious to know whether or not you’ve engaged directly with Peirce’s writings on this, such as The Categories in Detail or his Lectures on Pragmatism.”

And calling me 'woman' is not an appropriate way to encourage quality dialogue.

I really do not understand what you are up to. — Heiko

Yes. It does seem quite clear that you do not.