Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact

2015-08-24 Thread Gary Richmond 
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  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 
> 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
>> 
>> [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
>> [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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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 [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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact

2015-08-24 Thread Sungchul Ji 
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 
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
> 
> [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
> [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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
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 [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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact

2015-08-24 Thread Gary Richmond 
; 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
> <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
> [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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact

2015-08-24 Thread Edwina Taborsky 
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 [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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Anticipation and Semiotics: One Cannot Not Interact

2015-08-24 Thread Gary Richmond 
 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

[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 [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 .