On the one hand I agree with you, John. Perhaps there is greater value in sticking with the word imitation, for example, but emphasizing its nuances to the scholars. I can accept that.
However, the more I think about it, imitation is so central that perhaps a case can be made for a more accurate representation of what we really mean. Even Richard Dawkins accepts imitation as utterly vital for understanding culture, in the memetic theory that he developed. But as we realize, what he means by imitation is very different to what we mean. He means imitation as some kind of instinct for copying, "programmed" into the brain... an adaptive response to environmental pressures... an almost trivial after-thought that plays second fiddle to selfish genes. But what we mean by imitation is very, very different... it relates to the core of being, pragmatism, knowing how to be, overcoming entropy, and how existence is even possible. But yes, I agree with you... as unsatisfactory as the term might be, at least it resonates with what the mainstream easily understands. And anyways, it is the nature of signs to change their meaning with history and learning, and so we can envisage a more enlightened, revised interpretation down the track. Imitation it is then :) sj -----Original Message----- From: John F Sowa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 8:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was semantic problem with the term) Edwina, Stephen, list, I don't disagree with the points you're addressing, but I'm concerned about the proliferation of terminology. Formal logic and linguistics (Chomsky, Montague, Kamp, Partee and their PhD students) have had little success for AI and natural language understanding. The next generation of students adopted statistics and neural networks. I believe that Peirce's insights are an excellent foundation for relating and integrating all those areas -- the new and the old. We have an opportunity for bringing Peirce into the mainstream of cognitive science (philosophy, psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and anthropology). Peirce was a pioneer in developing the foundations for all those areas. Edwina > And I'd also agree that imitation is vital, but I'd define such an > action more through the development of common GENERAL habits-of-form > and behaviour than pure active imitation or direct copying. Stephen > I am 100% with you on this. I just did a synonym search on imitation, > without luck. I think we need to invent a new word to more accurately > describe this replication and sharing of signs/behavior. Some new words may be useful, but there's already an overabundance of terminology from several millennia of philosophy, most of which Peirce replaced with a new set of terms. That is the theme of the following article: Signs and Reality http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signs.pdf Criterion for any new terminology: Will it make Peirce's writings more accessible to people who come from other traditions? John
----------------------------- 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 .
