Tag Archives: Inquiry

Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relations • 11

Posted on August 24, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • Ravi Sharma In pursuing applications of pragmatic semiotics to scientific research the following distinctions are crucial. We have the relational roles known as Object, Sign, and Interpretant Sign.  These are places or roles a thing may … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Knowledge Representation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Pragmatic Semiotic Information • Discussion 1

Posted on August 22, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Systems Science • Kenneth Lloyd Ken’s comment made me realize that the notation is probably not the best.  It tends to mislead us into thinking we already have in hand, in other words, that we already have perfect information … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Definition, Determination, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Logic of Science, Peirce, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotic Information, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Pragmatic Semiotic Information • Ψ

Posted on August 21, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

I remember it was back in ’76 when I began to notice a subtle shift of focus in the computer science journals I was reading, from discussing X to discussing Information About X, a transformation I noted mentally as whenever … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Definition, Determination, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Logic of Science, Peirce, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Inquiry Driven Systems • Comment 5

Posted on August 19, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • Bruce Schuman I would call that the pragmatic semiotic point of view and not find anything shocking in it. One can find earlier foreshadowings — Plato’s Cratylus and the Stoic lekton are often mentioned in this … Continue reading →

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 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Inquiry Driven Systems • Comment 4

Posted on August 12, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • Matthew West In the systems approach to inquiry I’ve been pursuing, all specifications, state descriptions, or values of variables come in three modalities:  expected, intended, and actually observed. A difference between expectation and observation is accounted … Continue reading →

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 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Constraints and Indications • 2

Posted on July 4, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • Joseph Simpson Coping with collaboration, communication, context, integration, interoperability, perspective, purpose, and the reality of the information dimension demands a transition from conceptual environments bounded by dyadic relations to those informed by triadic relations, especially the … Continue reading →

Posted in Adaptive Systems, Artificial Intelligence, Ashby, C.S. Peirce, Constraint, Control, Cybernetics, Determination, Error-Controlled Regulation, Feedback, Indication, Indicator Functions, Information, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Intentionality, Learning Theory, Peirce, Semiotic Information, Semiotics, Systems Theory, Uncertainty | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Inquiry Driven Systems • Comment 3

Posted on July 2, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • Michael DeBellis I remember Doug Medin from the year I was at Illinois and I recall a colloquium talk Frank Keil gave at Michigan State which intrigued me because he echoed ideas from Kant about the … Continue reading →

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 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Theme One Program • Motivation 6

Posted on June 2, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Comments I made in reply to a correspondent’s questions about delimiters and tokenizing in the Learner module may be worth sharing here. As a part of my M.A. work in psychology I applied my Theme One program to samples of … Continue reading →

Posted in Algorithms, Animata, Artificial Intelligence, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Computation, Computational Complexity, Cybernetics, Data Structures, Differential Logic, Form, Formal Languages, Graph Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Laws of Form, Learning, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Pragmatics, Programming, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Reasoning, Semantics, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Spencer Brown, Syntax, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Theme One Program • Motivation 5

Posted on May 30, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Since I’m working from decades-old memories of first inklings I thought I might peruse the web for current information about Zipf’s Law.  I see there is now something called the Zipf–Mandelbrot (and sometimes –Pareto) Law and that was interesting because … Continue reading →

Posted in Algorithms, Animata, Artificial Intelligence, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Computation, Computational Complexity, Cybernetics, Data Structures, Differential Logic, Form, Formal Languages, Graph Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Laws of Form, Learning, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Pragmatics, Programming, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Reasoning, Semantics, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Spencer Brown, Syntax, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Theme One Program • Motivation 4

Posted on May 20, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

From Zipf’s Law and the category of “things that vary inversely to frequency” I got my first brush with the idea that keeping track of usage frequencies is part and parcel of building efficient codes. In its first application the … Continue reading →

Posted in Algorithms, Animata, Artificial Intelligence, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Computation, Computational Complexity, Cybernetics, Data Structures, Differential Logic, Form, Formal Languages, Graph Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Laws of Form, Learning, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Pragmatics, Programming, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Reasoning, Semantics, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Spencer Brown, Syntax, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments