[PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf http://l.facebook.com/l/VAQGMDKVvAQGJ132n81efy1uUwZdfD1Jrw_TeQ0Vj6Gc8lA/www.uttv.ee/naita?id=22396 [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
Gary, list, There is a minor error in Slide 23: R should be associated with quali, sin, and legi, and O should be associated with icon, index and symbol. All the best. Sung On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote: List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf http://l.facebook.com/l/VAQGMDKVvAQGJ132n81efy1uUwZdfD1Jrw_TeQ0Vj6Gc8lA/www.uttv.ee/naita?id=22396 [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 718%20482-5690* - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean sign exists on its own; it's always networked. And I have a problem with his definition of the sign as a 'unity' ...[no, that implies closure and the point of the semiosic sign is its openness]..of represented object (O), means of representation (R) and process (infinite) of interpretation (I). Just a small point but I don't think that the Representamen is the 'means of representation' but the action of mediative transformation. Perhaps that's what he means by the phrase 'means of representation'. His contrast of machines is nice, with their rejection of ambiguity (thank goodness - we don't need machines debating between Stop and Go)and life, which is necessarily open to interpretation. The best conference, I think, on anticipation - within computers, AI, economics, biology and physics - remains Daniel Dubois CASYS (Computing Anticipatory Systems) in Liege, Belgium. Edwina - Original Message - *From:* Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com *To:* Peirce-L peirce-l@list.iupui.edu *Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2015 3:21 PM *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf http://l.facebook.com/l/VAQGMDKVvAQGJ132n81efy1uUwZdfD1Jrw_TeQ0Vj6Gc8lA/www.uttv.ee/naita?id=22396 [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 718%20482-5690* -- - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
Gary, thanks for the link to Nadin's Powerpoint. Just a brief comment - Nadin uses the triangle as an image for the Peircean triad - and I consider this a problem. The image of the triangle is closed and linear; the best image for the Peircean triad is the one Peirce himself used: (1.347), the three-spoked umbrella. It's not linear; it's interactive; it enables, importantly, networking...for no Peircean sign exists on its own; it's always networked. And I have a problem with his definition of the sign as a 'unity' ...[no, that implies closure and the point of the semiosic sign is its openness]..of represented object (O), means of representation (R) and process (infinite) of interpretation (I). Just a small point but I don't think that the Representamen is the 'means of representation' but the action of mediative transformation. Perhaps that's what he means by the phrase 'means of representation'. His contrast of machines is nice, with their rejection of ambiguity (thank goodness - we don't need machines debating between Stop and Go)and life, which is necessarily open to interpretation. The best conference, I think, on anticipation - within computers, AI, economics, biology and physics - remains Daniel Dubois CASYS (Computing Anticipatory Systems) in Liege, Belgium. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:21 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482-5690 -- - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact
Sung, list, Yes, the slide titled The coherence of semiotics should be corrected in the way you stated. I know from putting together slide shows for presentations that errors like this can happen easily enough, and no doubt that's the case for this slide of Nadin's ppt presentation. Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote: Gary, list, There is a minor error in Slide 23: R should be associated with quali, sin, and legi, and O should be associated with icon, index and symbol. All the best. Sung On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote: List, Cary Campbell of the Semiotic Research Group posted this summary of a lecture, Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact and gives a link to the accompanying ppt slideshow by Mihai Nadin (he inadvertently misspells his first name as 'Mihou') on that group's Facebook page. Many years ago I read a number of Nadin's papers and had a fascinating off-list discussion with him on his work, then focusing squarely on Peirce's semiotic theory and, as I recall, especially Peirce's understanding of virtuality. While Nadin has gone on to consider applications of semiotic theory to computer science, HCI, and other fields, it appears that his work continues to be 'grounded' in Peircean semiotics. Best, Gary Cary wrote: This is a super topical lecture from engineer/scientist/semiotician Mihou Nadin; quite inspiring. He talks about man’s current and developing relations with technology and how these relationships are slowly automating the human away; in which the emphasis has shifted, since his pioneering work in interfaces and AI, from making machines more like humans to making humans more like machines. This leads him to assert that the dynamism and complexity of life (Godel defines complexity as the ability to interact) is not reducible to the machine. Or in other words, signs (in the Peircean understanding that always open up something new to an interpreter) are not reducible to signals, which carry preformed and static data. Naturally, this calls for him to explore Peircian interpretative semiotics. Here is also a pdf of his presentation to accompany the video: http://www.nadin.ws/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tartu_presentation.pdf http://l.facebook.com/l/VAQGMDKVvAQGJ132n81efy1uUwZdfD1Jrw_TeQ0Vj6Gc8lA/www.uttv.ee/naita?id=22396 [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 718%20482-5690* - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
