Thread:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14570
Edwina, List,
I don't recall running across Perlovsky before but I have at least skimmed a few
papers coming out of the Computational Semiotics group (or maybe it was another
such group out of Waterloo?) At any rate, aside from my own humble efforts it
has only been the computer science semioticians who actually tackle anything
approaching non-trivial examples of sign relations. By tackling a non-trivial
example I don't mean simply waving ones hands in the direction of a complex case
and remarking how complex it is, but actually articulating a concrete example as
a sign relation proper.
Regards,
Jon
Jon Awbrey wrote:
Edwina, List,
I decided the other title was too long, and I like the acronym STOI much
better.
It's not so much that we touch on learning and reasoning just now as the
fact that we've been immersed in them all along.
In every realm of inquiry we encounter complementaries, dualities, or
trade-offs between two aspects of the phenomena we are trying to
understand. Viewed in the setting of a triadic sign relation that
encompasses all the relevant objects and all the signs and ideas we have
of them, we can often recognize these aspects as corresponding to the
denotative and connotative planes of that sign relation.
In computer science, especially in AI, one runs smack dab into the
problem of integrating data-driven and concept-driven aspects of
intelligent functioning. You find yourself recapitulating in the
ontogeny of your software development something like the phylogeny of
classical oppositions between empiricists and rationalists.
Well, it's late ...
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> If we are to touch on learning and reasoning, it might be fruitful to
> expand the research domain of this blog to include the research areas of
> such people as Leonid Perlovsky and Ricardo Gudwin. Both of them are
> involved in cognition, semiotics, learning, evolution. That is, most of
> this list (Peirce list) and its discussions seems devoted to the purely
> theoretical area of the philosophical domains of Peirce. These two (and
> others) are focused on the applied, pragmatic domains of cognition,
> semiotics, artificial intelligence, bioengineering, and etc. And yes,
> both of them have explored Peirce.
>
> http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com/
>
> http://faculty.dca.fee.unicamp.br/gudwin/node/2
>
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
