Jon - these people have attempted to move semiotic analysis out of the
comfort of the pipe-smoke-filled seminar rooms into the pragmatic realm. So,
they've been exploring the semiotic informational and knowledge processes
that actually take place within artificial intelligence, within economic
processes within societies, within humans both as the individual and as a
collective, within societies as cohesive organisms and of course, within the
biological realm - where a lot of work is being done within biosemiotics.
Therefore these are not trivial but necessarily very specific outlines of
the informational processes that take place in these systems.
http://www.dca.fee.unicamp.br/~gudwin/compsemio/
http://link.springer.com/journal/12304
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/biosystems/
In many cases they refer to Peirce. In many cases they do not but the actual
analytic framework they are developing and using is a triadic semiosic unit
with all the complexities of the three categories.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03032647/109/3
In other areas, they are focusing on semiotics as a dynamic complex process
not confined to the individual but as operating within the collective..and
not as a single interaction but as a network of interactions.. as in, eg,
the economic processes (and of course within the biological realm)
http://www.frankfurt-school.de/clicnetclm/fileDownload.do?goid=000000396632AB4
And entropy and complexity research further explores the basic nature of
semiosis, again, often referring to semiosis (and Peirce) and often not. I'm
sure you are aware of the
COMPLEXITY DIGEST and of Entropy online
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/9?utm_source=issue_link&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=releaseIssue_entropy
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
To: "Peirce List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 8:24 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
Thread:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14570
Edwina, List,
I don't recall running across Perlovsky before but I have at least skimmed
a few
papers coming out of the Computational Semiotics group (or maybe it was
another
such group out of Waterloo?) At any rate, aside from my own humble
efforts it
has only been the computer science semioticians who actually tackle
anything
approaching non-trivial examples of sign relations. By tackling a
non-trivial
example I don't mean simply waving ones hands in the direction of a
complex case
and remarking how complex it is, but actually articulating a concrete
example as
a sign relation proper.
Regards,
Jon
Jon Awbrey wrote:
Edwina, List,
I decided the other title was too long, and I like the acronym STOI much
better.
It's not so much that we touch on learning and reasoning just now as the
fact that we've been immersed in them all along.
In every realm of inquiry we encounter complementaries, dualities, or
trade-offs between two aspects of the phenomena we are trying to
understand. Viewed in the setting of a triadic sign relation that
encompasses all the relevant objects and all the signs and ideas we have
of them, we can often recognize these aspects as corresponding to the
denotative and connotative planes of that sign relation.
In computer science, especially in AI, one runs smack dab into the
problem of integrating data-driven and concept-driven aspects of
intelligent functioning. You find yourself recapitulating in the
ontogeny of your software development something like the phylogeny of
classical oppositions between empiricists and rationalists.
Well, it's late ...
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> If we are to touch on learning and reasoning, it might be fruitful to
> expand the research domain of this blog to include the research areas
> of
> such people as Leonid Perlovsky and Ricardo Gudwin. Both of them are
> involved in cognition, semiotics, learning, evolution. That is, most
> of
> this list (Peirce list) and its discussions seems devoted to the purely
> theoretical area of the philosophical domains of Peirce. These two
> (and
> others) are focused on the applied, pragmatic domains of cognition,
> semiotics, artificial intelligence, bioengineering, and etc. And yes,
> both of them have explored Peirce.
>
> http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com/
>
> http://faculty.dca.fee.unicamp.br/gudwin/node/2
>
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
