Edwina, Stephen, list, I don't disagree with the points you're addressing, but I'm concerned about the proliferation of terminology.
Formal logic and linguistics (Chomsky, Montague, Kamp, Partee and their PhD students) have had little success for AI and natural language understanding. The next generation of students adopted statistics and neural networks. I believe that Peirce's insights are an excellent foundation for relating and integrating all those areas -- the new and the old. We have an opportunity for bringing Peirce into the mainstream of cognitive science (philosophy, psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and anthropology). Peirce was a pioneer in developing the foundations for all those areas. Edwina
And I'd also agree that imitation is vital, but I'd define such an action more through the development of common GENERAL habits-of-form and behaviour than pure active imitation or direct copying.
Stephen
I am 100% with you on this. I just did a synonym search on imitation, without luck. I think we need to invent a new word to more accurately describe this replication and sharing of signs/behavior.
Some new words may be useful, but there's already an overabundance of terminology from several millennia of philosophy, most of which Peirce replaced with a new set of terms. That is the theme of the following article: Signs and Reality http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signs.pdf Criterion for any new terminology: Will it make Peirce's writings more accessible to people who come from other traditions? John
----------------------------- 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 .
