Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 18

Figure 2. Signs and Inquiry in Dewey

Re: Peirce List DiscussionTom Gollier

Let me dispel any notion that “the interpretant introduces the person as part of the object-sign-interpretant structure”.  We may have left it implicit or unclear in the text but the lower case “i” and the dashed lines in the figure were meant to suggest the agency of the interpreter and the circumstance that signs and interpretants reside nearer the personal sphere than the objects, generally speaking.  As a rule, for all sorts of reasons, primers in semiotics tend to start out talking about interpreters and only gradually abstract away to interpretants.  But I see now that it was faulty notation, as it’s more usual to read a lower case “i” as indicating a member of a local set I.  Next time I will use a Greek iota for the interpretive agent.

Reference

This entry was posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Computation, Computational Complexity, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Logic, Peirce, Problem Solving, Semiotics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 18

  1. Pingback: Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s