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 .
