Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

On Peirce’s Pragmatic Notion of Semiosis—A Contribution for the Design of Meaning Machines

Abstract

How to model meaning processes (semiosis) in artificial semiotic systems? Once all computer simulation becomes tantamount to theoretical simulation, involving epistemological metaphors of world versions, the selection and choice of models will dramatically compromise the nature of all work involving simulation. According to the pragmatic Peircean based approach, semiosis is an interpreter-dependent process that cannot be dissociated from the notion of a situated (and actively distributed) communicational agent. Our approach centers on the consideration of relevant properties and aspects of Peirce’s pragmatic concept of semiotics. Upon developing this approach, we have no pretensions of our being able to present an exhaustive analysis of the differences between Peirce and other theoretical positions. Nevertheless, our contribution will serve to demonstrate how theorists contribute toward revealing certain fundamental ‘semiotic constraints’ that will be of interest and importance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    ‘Meaning Machines’; available at: http://web.media.mit.edu/~dkroy.

  2. 2.

    We shall follow the practice of citing from the Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Peirce, 1931–1935, 1958) by volume number and paragraph number, preceded by ‘CP’; the Essential Peirce by volume number and page number, preceded by ‘EP’. References to the microfilm edition of Peirce’s papers (Harvard University) will be indicated by ‘MS’, followed by the manuscript number.

  3. 3.

    For further on categories, see: Hookway 1985; Murphey 1993; Potter 1997; Merrell 1997; Short 2007.

  4. 4.

    Emergence theory in the context of complexity sciences and applied to semiotic systems, and computational experiments that simulate this process, are described elsewhere (see Queiroz and El-Hani 2006; Gomes et al. 2007).

  5. 5.

    The idea that all kind of knowledge or thought is a sign can be found in many sections of Peirce’s philosophical work (e.g. CP 5.234, 5.251, 5.318; NEM 3: 883), and comprises a pragmatic theory of cognition originating from the years 1868–1869 (W2: 193–272). This idea has many forms, and culminate in another form of correspondence: “Logic, in its general sense, is, as I believe I have shown, only another name for semiotic ({sémeiötiké}), the quasi-necessary, or formal, doctrine of signs” (CP2.227; see also CP1.539, 1.191, 1.313, 7.355, 8.191).

  6. 6.

    See Whobrey (2001) for a detailed interpretation of Fetzer’s arguments.

References

  1. Avni, O. (1990). The resistance of reference: Linguistics, philosophy, and the literary text. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  2. Batali, J. (1994). Innate biases and critical periods: Combining evolution and learning in the acquisition of syntax. In R. Brooks & P. Maes (Eds.), Artificial life IV (pp. 160–171). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

  3. Batali, J. (1998). Computational simulations of the emergence of grammar. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language—social and cognitive bases (pp. 405–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  4. Bergman, M. (2000). Reflections on the role of the communicative sign in semeiotic. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, Spring, XXXVI(2), 225–254.

  5. Brunning, J., & Forster, P. (Eds.). (1997). The rule of reason. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  6. Cangelosi, A., & Parisi, D. (1998). The emergence of a language in an evolving population of neural networks. Connection Science, 10(2), 83–97. doi:10.1080/095400998116512.

  7. Cangelosi, A., & Parisi, D. (Eds.). (2002). Simulating the evolution of language. London: Springer.

  8. Cangelosi, A., & Turner, H. (2002). L’emergere del linguaggio. In A. M. Borghi & T. Iachini (Eds.), Scienze della Mente (pp. 227–244). Bologna: Il Mulino.

  9. Chemero, A. (2000). Anti-representationalism and the dynamical stance. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 625–647. doi:10.1086/392858.

  10. Chemero, A. (2007). Gibsonian affordances for roboticists. Adaptive Behavior, 15(4), 473–480. doi:10.1177/1059712307085098.

  11. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, Bradford Books.

  12. Colapietro, V. (1989). Peirce’s approach to the self: A semiotic perspective on human subjectivity. New York: State University of New York Press.

  13. de Saussure, F. (1966). Course in general linguistics. (W. Baskin, trans.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  14. De Tienne, A. (2003). Learning qua semiosis. S.E.E.D. Journal—semiotics. evolution, energy, and development, 3, 37–53.

  15. Deacon, T. (1997). Symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton.

  16. Deacon, T. (1999). Memes as signs. The Semiotic Review of Books, 10(3), 1–3.

  17. Donnellan, K. (1972). Proper names and identifying descriptions. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 356–379). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

  18. Dowman, M. (2008). The nature of words in human protolanguages: It’s not a holophrastic-atomic meanings dichotomy. Artificial Life, 14, 445–465. doi:10.1162/artl.2008.14.4.14403.

  19. Dreyfus, H. L. (2002). Intelligence without representation-Merleau-Ponty’s critique of mental representation: The relevance of phenomenology to scientific explanation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. Special issue on Dreyfus and Representationalism, 1(4), 367–383.

  20. Dummett, M. (1972). Frege: Philosophy of language. New York: Harper and Row.

  21. Emmeche, C. (2003). Causal processes, semiosis, and consciousness. In J. Seibt (Ed.), Process theories: Crossdisciplinary studies in dynamic categories (pp. 313–336). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  22. Fetzer, J. H. (1988). Signs and minds: An introduction to the theory of semiotic systems. In J. Fetzer (Ed.), Aspects of artificial intelligence (pp. 133–161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

  23. Fetzer, J. H. (1997). Thinking and computing: computers as special kinds of signs. Minds and Machines, 7, 345–364. doi:10.1023/A:1008230900201.

  24. Fisch, M. (1986). Peirce, semeiotic, and pragmatism. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

  25. Fitzgerald, J. (1966). Peirce’s theory of signs as foundation for pragmatism. The Hague: Mouton & Co.

  26. Flower, E., & Murphey, M. (1977). A history of philosophy in America (Vol. 2). New York: Capricorn Books.

  27. Freadman, A. (2004). The machinery of talk—Charles Peirce and the sign hypothesis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  28. Freeman, E. (1983). The relevance of Charles Peirce. La Salle: Monist Library of Philosophy.

  29. Frege, G. (1970). On sense and reference. In P. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 56–78). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  30. Gomes, A., El-Hani, C., Gudwin, R., & Queiroz, J. (2007). Towards the emergence of meaning processes in computers from Peircean semiotics. Mind & society—cognitive studies in economics and social sciences, 6, 173–187.

  31. Habermas, J. (1995). Peirce and communication. In K. Ketner (Ed.), Peirce and contemporary thought: Philosophical inquiries (pp. 243–266). NY: Fordham University Press.

  32. Hacking, I. (1993). On Kripke’s and Goodman’s uses of ‘Grue’. In D. Stalker (Ed.), Grue! The new riddle of induction (pp. 193–223). LaSalle: Open Court.

  33. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D. Nonlinear Phenomena, 42, 335–346. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6.

  34. Hartmann, S. (1996). The world as a process: Simulations in the natural and social sciences. In R. Gegselmann, et al. (Eds.), Modelling and simulaton in the social sciences from the philosophy of science point of view (pp. 77–100). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  35. Haugeland, J. (1985). Artificial intelligence: The very idea. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

  36. Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

  37. Hookway, C. (1985). Peirce. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  38. Houser, N. (1997). Introduction: Peirce as a logician. In N. Houser, D. Roberts, & J. Evra (Eds.), Studies in the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce (pp. 1–22). Indiana: Indiana University Press.

  39. Houser, N., Roberts, D. D., & Evra, J. (Eds.). (1997). Studies in the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  40. Hulswit, M. (2001). Semeiotic and the cement of the universe: A Peircean process approach to causation. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, Summer, XXXVII(3), 339–363.

  41. Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves: Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  42. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

  43. Jakobson, R. (1980). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style and language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

  44. Johansen, J. D. (1993). Dialogic semiosis. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

  45. Kirby, S. (1999). Learning, bottlenecks and infinity: A working model of the evolution of syntactic communication. In K. Dautenhahn & C. Nehaniv (Eds.), Proceedings of the AISB’99 Symposium on Imitation in Animals and Artifacts (pp. 55–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  46. Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 253–355). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

  47. Kripke, S. (1977). Speaker reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 255–276. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1977.tb00045.x.

  48. Kripke, S. (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  49. Kvasnicka, V., & Pospichal, J. (1999). An emergence of coordinated communication in populations of agents. Artificial Life, 5, 319–342. doi:10.1162/106454699568809.

  50. Loula, A., Gudwin, R., & Queiroz, J. (Eds.). (2007). Artificial cognition systems. Hershey: IGI Publishing.

  51. Lyon, C., Nehaniv, C. L., & Cangelosi, A. (Eds.). (2007). Emergence of communication and language. Netherlands: Springer.

  52. MacLennan, B. J. (2002). Synthetic ethology: a new tool for investigating animal cognition. In M. L. Magnani & N. J. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning. Science, technology, values. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

  53. Merrell, F. (1997). Peirce, signs, and meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  54. Misak, C. (Ed.). (2004). The Cambridge companion to Peirce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  55. Murphey, M. G. (1993). The development of Peirce’s philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett.

  56. Parisi, D. (2001). Simulazioni—la realtà rifatta nel computer. Bologna: Il Mulino.

  57. Parker, K. (1998). The continuity of Peirce’s thought. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

  58. Peirce, C. S. (EP1, EP2). The essential Peirce. Selected philosophical writings. Vol. 1, 1867–1893. Ed. by N. Houser, & C. Kloesel (Eds.), Vol. 2, 1893–1913. Ed. by the Peirce Edition Project. (Ed.), Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992 and 1998. (quoted as EP1, EP2)

  59. Peirce, C. S. (CP). (1931–1935). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Electronic edition reproducing. Vols. I–VI, [Ed. by C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 1931–1935]. Vols. VII–VIII, [A. W. Burks (Ed.), same publisher, 1958]. Charlottesville: Intelex Corporation. (quoted as CP).

  60. Peirce, C. S. (MS). (1967). Annotated catalogue the papers of Charles S. Peirce. R. S. Robin (Ed.), Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. (quoted as MS).

  61. Pietarinen, A. (2005a). Signs of logic: Peircean themes on the philosophy of language, games, and communication. Netherlands: Springer.

  62. Pietarinen, A. (2005b). Relevance theory through pragmatic theories of meaning, Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Alpha: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1767–1772.

  63. Port, R., & van Gelder, T. (Eds.). (1995). Mind as motion. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  64. Potter, V. (1997). Charles S. Peirce: On norms & ideals. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

  65. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1983). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam.

  66. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of meaning. In H. Putnam (Ed.), Mind, language, reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  67. Queiroz, J., & El-Hani, C. N. (2006). Semiosis as an emergent process. Transaction of C.S. Peirce Society, 42(1), 78–116. doi:10.1353/csp.2006.0013.

  68. Queiroz, J., & Merrell, F. (2006). Semiosis and pragmatism: Toward a dynamic concept of meaning. Sign System Studies, 34(1), 37–66.

  69. Ransdell, J. (1977). Some leading ideas of Peirce’s semiotic. Semiotica, 19(3/4), 157–178.

  70. Ransdell, J. (2003). The relevance of Peircean semiotic to computational intelligence augmentation. S.E.E.D. Journal (Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development, 3(3), 5–36. http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol3-3/Ransdell.htm.

  71. Rescher, N. (1996). Process metaphysics: An introduction to process philosophy. New York: State University of New York Press.

  72. Rosenthal, S. (1994). Charles Peirce’s pragmatic pluralism. NY: State University of New York Press.

  73. Roy, D. (2005a). Grounding words in perception and action: Insights from computational models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(8), 389–396. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.06.013.

  74. Roy, D. (2005b). Semiotic schemas: A framework for grounding language in the action and perception. Artificial Intelligence, 167(1–2), 170–205. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2005.04.007.

  75. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

  76. Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  77. Skagested, P. (1993). Thinking with machines: Intelligence augmentation, evolutionary epistemology, and semiotic. The Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 16(2), 157–180.

  78. Skagested, P. (2004). Peirce’s semeiotic model of the mind. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Peirce (pp. 241–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  79. Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole Publishing Co.

  80. Stampe, D. W. (1979). Towards a causal theory of linguistic representation. In P. A. French, T. E. Uehling, & H. K. Wettstein (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language (pp. 81–102). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  81. Steels, L. (1999). The talking heads experiment: Vol I. Words and meanings. Pre-edition. Antwerpen: VUB Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Laboratorium.

  82. Steels, L., & Kaplan, F. (1999). Situated grounded word semantics. In T. Dean (Ed.), IJCAI’99 Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 862–867). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

  83. Steels, L., Kaplan, F., Mcintyre, A., & Van Looveren, J. (2002). Crucial factors in the origins of word-meaning. In A. Wray (Ed.), The transition to language (pp. 252–271). Oxford: Oxford Press.

  84. Stjernfelt, F. (2007). Diagrammatology—An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics. Synthese Library, Netherlands: Springer.

  85. Sun, R. (2000). Symbol grounding: A new look at an old idea. Philosophical Psychology, 13(2), 149–172. doi:10.1080/09515080050075663.

  86. Thom, R. (1975). Structural stability and morphogenesis (W. M. Brooks & D. Rand, Trans.). West Sussex: Ellis Horwood.

  87. Tiercelin, C. (1995). The relevance of Peirce’s semiotic for contemporary issues in cognitive science. In L. Haaparanta & S. Heinämaa (Eds.), Mind and cognition: Philosophical perspectives on cognitive science and artificial intelligence (pp. 37–74). (Acta Philosophica Fennica 58).

  88. Varela, F. J. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

  89. Wheeler, M. (2005). Reconstructing the cognitive world—the next step. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

  90. Whobrey, D. (2001). Machine mentality and the nature of the ground relation. Minds and Machines, 11(3), 307–346. doi:10.1023/A:1017521226571.

  91. Ziemke, T., & Sharkey, N. E. (2001). A stroll through the worlds of robots and animals: Applying Jakob von Uexküll’s theory of meaning to adaptive robots and artificial life. Semiotica, 134(1–4), 701–746. doi:10.1515/semi.2001.050.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to J. H. Moor, and anonymous reviewers of our paper for their comments. J. Q. thanks the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) and the State of Bahia Foundation for Research Support (FAPESB).

Author information

Correspondence to João Queiroz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Queiroz, J., Merrell, F. On Peirce’s Pragmatic Notion of Semiosis—A Contribution for the Design of Meaning Machines. Minds & Machines 19, 129–143 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-008-9129-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Meaning
  • Semiosis
  • Semiotic systems
  • Simulation
  • C. S. Peirce