Seems very interesting! When Dembski talks about information, does he mean Shannon information? Namely Vinicius Romanini speaks about the difference between Shannon information and what he calls Semiotic information.
Shanon information comes into it, of course, but no, not primarily. He’s talking about something much richer. Can’t really summarize better because I’m not into it enough yet, though
That was an excellent read. I like when you mention that the sign becomes invisible and sort of merges with its object. Very thought provoking, thank you
Glad that you liked it! Yes, the sign seeks to cause the same effect as the object itself would cause. When this works well the sign becomes invisible. The speedometer (index of speed) becomes the speed for us when driving.
Borges asked, rhetorically, "In a riddle whose answer is chess, what is the only word that is prohibited?"
I appreciate everything you wrote, and I think it's mostly correct, but I can't tell if you are tacitly invoking Classical Christian metaphysics or if you are re-inventing the wheel. How do you interpret John 1, "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος"?
Peirce is a challenging thinker, not just because his ideas are complex, but specifically because of the profound implications of his thought.
Many scholars give up when it comes to Peircean metaphysics. They can't accept the continuity of reality (synechism), which implies that matter is effete mind, or that the man is a symbol, or that the universe is a vast symbol. Ideas like these sound outlandish to the modern mind.
Luckily, there are many who make this "leap of faith" into metaphysics, but I believe there is another leap beyond just Peircean metaphysics. I've slowly come to the conclusion that "secular" metaphysics, or intra-cosmic (self-referential) metaphysics, that is metaphysics that doesn't include the idea of the transcendent, isn't enough.
I subscribe to Roger Ward's interpretation, which sees religion and religious beliefs as the driving force in Peirce's work. I also rely on Eric Voegelin, who states very explicitly that the starting point of philosophy is the belief in the transcendent, toward which we move through philosophical inquiry. And yes, that would be God in my book.
But my purpose is not to secretly smuggle in God. Rather, it is that through immersing oneself in Peirce's thought, one inevitably moves toward that conclusion. It is this journey I want to express, not the conclusion.
If we truly see reality as communication, at some point we must confront the question of the reality of God. That is not something imposed but a logical implication when following these ideas to their full fruition. It is this movement I want to highlight.
As for Christian metaphysics, I see them fitting into this picture without much friction. It is worth noting that both Peirce and Voegelin were Christians.
You might be interested in this:
Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information https://a.co/d/6vIlRcL
Arrived very recently and so far I’m really digging it.
Seems very interesting! When Dembski talks about information, does he mean Shannon information? Namely Vinicius Romanini speaks about the difference between Shannon information and what he calls Semiotic information.
https://youtu.be/YCOUphKIS1Y?si=k4VJADltRVEgAhts
Shanon information comes into it, of course, but no, not primarily. He’s talking about something much richer. Can’t really summarize better because I’m not into it enough yet, though
That was an excellent read. I like when you mention that the sign becomes invisible and sort of merges with its object. Very thought provoking, thank you
Glad that you liked it! Yes, the sign seeks to cause the same effect as the object itself would cause. When this works well the sign becomes invisible. The speedometer (index of speed) becomes the speed for us when driving.
Borges asked, rhetorically, "In a riddle whose answer is chess, what is the only word that is prohibited?"
I appreciate everything you wrote, and I think it's mostly correct, but I can't tell if you are tacitly invoking Classical Christian metaphysics or if you are re-inventing the wheel. How do you interpret John 1, "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος"?
Peirce is a challenging thinker, not just because his ideas are complex, but specifically because of the profound implications of his thought.
Many scholars give up when it comes to Peircean metaphysics. They can't accept the continuity of reality (synechism), which implies that matter is effete mind, or that the man is a symbol, or that the universe is a vast symbol. Ideas like these sound outlandish to the modern mind.
Luckily, there are many who make this "leap of faith" into metaphysics, but I believe there is another leap beyond just Peircean metaphysics. I've slowly come to the conclusion that "secular" metaphysics, or intra-cosmic (self-referential) metaphysics, that is metaphysics that doesn't include the idea of the transcendent, isn't enough.
I subscribe to Roger Ward's interpretation, which sees religion and religious beliefs as the driving force in Peirce's work. I also rely on Eric Voegelin, who states very explicitly that the starting point of philosophy is the belief in the transcendent, toward which we move through philosophical inquiry. And yes, that would be God in my book.
But my purpose is not to secretly smuggle in God. Rather, it is that through immersing oneself in Peirce's thought, one inevitably moves toward that conclusion. It is this journey I want to express, not the conclusion.
If we truly see reality as communication, at some point we must confront the question of the reality of God. That is not something imposed but a logical implication when following these ideas to their full fruition. It is this movement I want to highlight.
As for Christian metaphysics, I see them fitting into this picture without much friction. It is worth noting that both Peirce and Voegelin were Christians.
thanks for the response; that's very clarifying
Great piece Markus am currently reading ken wilber sex ecology spirituality and am getting the same vibe