Inquiry Driven Systems • Discussion 8

Re: Category TheorySimon Burton

From what I’ve noticed there are two kinds of mathematical thinking:  manipulating abstract syntax, versus direct experience/perception of concrete mathematics.  These two are intertwined in various ways, but in my experience people generally excel in one of these two styles of thinking and not the other.  I think that many famous collaborations between two mathematicians are divided along these lines.

Dear Simon.

Susan Awbrey and I have worked a lot and written a little on a variety of “two-culture” and “cognitive style” questions from a broadly pragmatic perspective informed by the work of C.S. Peirce, John Dewey, and like-minded thinkers.  The three dimensional spaces of Peirce’s triadic sign relations afford a perspective on the ways diverse thinkers can specialize their thought to different planes or facets of a sign relation’s full volume.  Various issues along these lines are discussed in the following paper.

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Inquiry Driven SystemsLaws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3)

This entry was posted in Animata, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Intelligent Systems, Learning Systems, Logic, Logical Graphs, Peirce, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Visualization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Inquiry Driven Systems • Discussion 8

  1. Pingback: Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.