On evolution of thinking about semiosis: semiotics meets cognitive science

Piotr Konderak

Abstract


The aim of the paper is to sketch an idea—seen from the point of view of a cognitive scientist—of cognitive semiotics as a discipline. Consequently, the article presents aspects of the relationship between the two disciplines: semi- otics and cognitive science. The main assumption of the argumentation is that at least some semiotic processes are also cognitive processes. At the methodo- logical level, this claim allows for application of cognitive models as explana- tions of selected semiotic processes. In particular, the processes of embedded interpretation (in contrast to interpretability in principle) are considered: belief revision, dynamic organization of meaning and metaknowledge. The explanations are formulated in terms of artificial cognitive agents of the GLAIR/SNePS cognitive architecture. Finally, it is suggested that even if some- one rejects the idea of artificial cognitive systems as simulations of semiotic processes, they may acknowledge the usefulness of cognitive modeling in analysis of semiotic processes in virtual, simulated worlds and in the area of “new media”.


Keywords


cognitive semiotics; cognitive science; computational modeling; semiosis; Peirce

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andersen, P.B. 1990. A Theory of Computer Semiotics: Semiotic Approaches to Construc- tion and Assessment of Computer Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, J. 1993. Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Anderson, J. 2007. How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe? New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, J., et al. 2004. An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4): 1036–1060.

Anderson, J.R., Bower, G.H. 1973. Human associative memory. Washington, DC: Winston and Sons.

Brandt, P.Å. 2004. Spaces, Domains and Meanings. Essays in Cognitive Semiotics. Bern: Peter Lang.

Carruthers, P. 2002. The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25: 657–726.

Chalupsky, H., Shapiro, S.C. 1994. SL: A subjective, intensional logic of belief. Proceed- ings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum: 165–170.

Clark, A., Toribio, J. 1994. Doing without representing. Synthese, 101: 401–431.

Clarke, R. 2001. Studies in Organisational Semiotics: an Introduction. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 8(2): 75–82.

Cohors-Fresenborg, E., Kaune, C. 2001. Mechanisms of the Taking Effect of Metacogni- tion in Understanding Processes in Mathematics Teaching. Developments in Mathe- matics Education in German-Speaking Countries, Selected Papers from the Annual Conference on Didactics of Mathematics: 29–38. Ludwigsburg, Germany: Goettingen University Press.

Cox, M.T. 2005. Metacognition in computation: A selected research review. Artificial Intelligence, 169(2): 104–141.

Eco, U. 1999. Semiotics in the Next Millennium, http://www.umbertoeco.- it/CV/Semiotics%20in%20the%20next%20millennium.pdf

Fetzer, J.H. 1997. Thinking and Computing: Computers as Special Kinds of Signs. Minds and Machines, 7(3): 345–364.

Fetzer, J.H. 2001. Computers and Cognition: Why Minds Are Not Machines. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Fodor, J., Lepore, E. 1992. Holism: A Shopper’s Guide. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Gudwin, R.R. 1999. From Semiotics to Computational Semiotics, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of the German Society for Semiotic Studies, 7th International Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies (IASS/AIS). Dresden.

Harnad, S. 1994. Computation Is Just Interpretable Symbol Manipulation: Cognition Isn’t. Minds and Machines, 4(4).

Hintikka, J. 1962. Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Cornell University Press.

Konderak, P. 2005. Model kognitywny zdolności językowych [Cognitive Model of Lan- guage Faculty] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Maria Curie-Sklodowska Uni- versity, Lublin.

Konderak, P. 2015. On a cognitive model of semiosis. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 40 (53),129-144.

Marinier, L.P., Laird, J.E. 2004. Toward a comprehensive computational model of emo- tions and feelings. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum: 172–177.

McCarthy, J. 1977. Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-77), vol. 2: 1038–1044. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann, Inc.

Mehler, A. 2003. Methodological Aspects of Computational Semiotics. S.E.E.D. Journal (Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development), 3(3): 71–80.

Meinong, A. 1981. The Theory of Objects. Realism and the Background of Phenomenolo- gy. Chisholm, R. (ed.). Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview: 76–117.

Moses, L.J., Baird, J.A. 1999. Metacognition., The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sci- ences. Wilson, R. A., Keil, F. (eds.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 533–535.

Paśniczek, J. 1986. Czy sprzeczność może być racjonalna? [Can Contradiction Be Ratio- nal?]. Czy sprzeczność może być racjonalna? Jodkowski, K. (ed.), Lublin: Wydawnic- two UMCS: 193–208.

Peirce, Ch.S. 1931-58. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Peirce, Ch.S. 1982, The Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition. vol. 1–6, 8. Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington I.N: Indiana University Press.

Piaget, J. 1945. La formation du symbole chez l’enfant. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.

Quillian, R.M. 1968. Semantic Memory. Semantic Information Processing. Minsky, M. (ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press: 227–270.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. Two Dogmas of Empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60: 20–43.

Rapaport, W. 2005. In Defense of Contextual Vocabulary Acquisition: How to Do Things with Words in Context. Proceedings of the 5th International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (Context 2005): Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3554, Berlin: Springer Publishing: 396–409.

Rapaport, W. 2012. Semiotic Systems, Computers and the Mind: How Cognition Could Be Computing, International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems, 2(1): 32–71.

Rapaport, W., Ehlich, K. 2000. A Computational Theory of Vocabulary Acquisition. Nat- ural Language Processing and Knowledge Representation: Language for Knowledge and Knowledge for Language. Iwańska, Ł., Shapiro, S. (eds.). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press: 347–375.

Saussure, F. de ([1916] 1983). Course in General Linguistics.

Harris, R. (trans.). London: Duckworth.

Shapiro, S., Bona, J. 2009. The GLAIR Cognitive Architecture. Biologically Inspired Cog- nitive Architectures II. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press: 141–152.

Shapiro, S., Rapaport, W., Kandefer, M., Johnson, F.J., Goldfain, A. 2007. Metacognition in SNePS. AI Magazine, 28(1): 17–29.

Sokolowski, R. 2000. Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Sonesson, G. 2009. The view from Husserl’s lectern: Considerations on the role of phe- nomenology in cognitive semiotics. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 16(3–4): 107– 148.

Sonesson, G. 2012. The Phenomenological Road to Cognitive Semiotics, Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies (IASS/AIS). Universidade da Coruña: 855–866.

Sun, R. 2002. Duality of the Mind: A Bottom-up Approach Toward Cognition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sun, R. 2006. The CLARION cognitive architecture: Extending cognitive modeling to social simulation. Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction, Sun, R. (ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York.

Taatgen, N.A., Anderson, J.R. 2008. Constraints in cognitive architectures. The Cam- bridge Handbook of Computational Psychology. Sun, R. (ed.). Cambridge University Press: 170–185.

Zlatev, J. 2003. Meaning = Life (+ Culture). An outline of a unified biocultural theory of meaning. Evolution of Communication, 4(2): 253–296.

Zlatev, J. 2012. Cognitive Semiotics: An emerging field for the transdisciplinary study of meaning. The Public Journal of Semiotics, 4(1): 2–24.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Piotr Konderak