Re: [PEIRCE-L] [ontolog-forum] Re: FYI:Human brain singularity hypothesis

Completely agree about this John. Just in case anyone is interested MIT’s Dept of Brain and Cognitive Sciences is sponsoring a conference about my work that touches on these and many related issues of interest inlinguistics and cog sci. Everett Festschrfit 2023tedlab.mit.eduDanOn May 14, 2023, at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] nonlinear semiotics

Yes this is a well-known issue. Thus in principle there can be no first human, except as a theoretical decision. I discuss this briefly in How Language Began and my lengthy discussions of hominin evolution. DanOn May 14, 2023, at 13:18, John F Sowa wrote:Dan, Gary F, et al.,There was a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] nonlinear semiotics

Dan, Gary F, et al., There was a discussion jn Ontolog Forum about some issues on related topics. Alex Shkotin had cited some important articles about aspects of human cognition, and I added further comments. John From: "John F Sowa" Sent: 5/14/23

Re: [PEIRCE-L] nonlinear semiotics

THanks, Gary. I certainly agree that Peirce believed in what we would now call embodied cognition. Enactive cognition (which is related to older work by JJ Gibson and his “resonance theory” - which I also discuss in the forthcoming book) is a step further. I have given this a lot of thought.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] nonlinear semiotics

Thanks for your comments, Dan. What I was trying to show, in a nutshell, is that Peirce anticipated what is now called an “enactive” approach to cognition, as defined by Varela here in Turning Signs. I think it is obvious that this approach is closely