Thanks for your paper - a very nice paper - and I agree with you on the
stature of Peirce.
I have a few early comments:
1) I like your outline of the triad [object/representamen/interpretant]
...and you clearly separate the Representamen from 'the sign' - which you
acknowledge has three nodes: BUT, you write:
"For Peirce, the appearance of a sign starts with the representamen, which
is the trigger for a mental image (by the interpretant) of the object [20]."
My view - and I refer you to that 4.551 quote - is that the Representamen is
indeed the ground, by providng the continuity of constraining and organizing
laws, for a hic-et-nunc semiosic act - but - the result is not necessarily
a mental image but can be a material object. That is, you are confining
semiosis to the human process, whereas I - and I think Peirce did as well -
include the biological and physico-chemical realm within semiosis.
2) Continuing with this, you write: "A sign is an understanding of an
“object” as represented through some form of icon, index or symbol, from
environmental to visual to aural or written"
Again, I quibble with your reduction of the Sign [that full triad] to 'an
understanding' [by whom?] and to calling it a 'representation'. Since I
accept biological and physico-chemical semiosis, then, I'd say that the SIGN
[that full triad] is a Transformation of object-data...not a mere
're-presentation' but a transformation, using the normative Laws within the
Representamen. So ,certainly, the odour of a chemical can be 're-presented'
in the mind as an index and symbol ...eg, 'that's sulphur'. But, the actual
chemical of H and O can be transformed by the laws of a Representamen...to
result in an 'Interpretant' of Water.
3) I fully agree with that concept of continuous testing and fine-tuning the
relation between the Object and the Interpretant..and increasing the
knowledge base of the Represntamen.
4) You write: "Because the interpretant is an integral component of the
sign, the understanding of the sign is subject to context and capabilities.
Two different interpretants can derive different meanings from the same
representation, and a given object may be represented by different tokens".
YES!!!! That allows for and enables diversity, flexibility...which is the
basis of adaptation. But, the process enabling this diversity is found, I
suggest, within the fact that the Ground-for-Interpretation, the
Representamen - can be in many categorical modes. The Represntamen can be in
a mode of Firstness, Secondness; or Secondness-as- Firstness..or in any of
the THREE facets of Thirdness [3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. This enormous range of
organizing input data from the data, via the broad categorical range found
within the Representamen - results in that adaptive flexibility.
5) I do, however, quibble with your triangle. Peirce himself didn't use the
triangle. See 1.347, where he uses an 'umbrella spoke triad'. This image
OPENS the semiosic process to networking, whereas the triangle, in my view,
is a closed, one-way linear process and obscures the power of semsiosis.
6) And yes, Thirdness, or even the Representamen in any mode, functions
within probability theory; that's the strength of Peircean semiosis - it
roots the semiosic act within a contextual informational dynamics - where
the 'unit' is gathering data from numerous sources, and 'anticipating
results of decisions'....enabling it to come up with ONE result [known as
the Interpretant] from a number of probable options.
7) And yes, I agree - much of Peircean scholarship seems focused on
'original terminology'.
8) Nice table of the three modal categories - though I continue to balk at
the term of 'triangle'.
9) ...That's as far as I've gotten so far.
Edwina Taborsky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Bergman" <[email protected]>
To: "Peirce List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:17 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce on Knowledge Representation
Hi All,
Here is my take on how Peirce may contribute to knowledge representation
for the area I work in, knowledge-based artificial intelligence:
http://www.mkbergman.com/1932/a-foundational-mindset-firstness-secondness-thirdness/
I welcome any comments or suggestions (or errors of omission or
commission!), since we plan to use this approach much going forward.
Thanks!
Mike Bergman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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
.
-----------------------------
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 .
