| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| public:t_720_atai:atai-21:knowledge_representation [2021/09/29 15:14] – [Symbols, Models, Syntax] thorisson | public:t_720_atai:atai-21:knowledge_representation [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| ==== Symbols ==== | ==== Symbols ==== |
| |
| | \\ What are Symbols? | Peirce's Theory of Semiotics (signs) proposes 3 parts to a sign: \\ **a //sign/symbol//, an //object//, and an //interpretant//**. \\ Example of symbol: an arbitrary pattern, e.g. a written word (with acceptable error ranges whose threshold determine when it is either 'uninterpretable' or 'inseparable from other symbols'. \\ Example of object: an automobile (clustering of atoms in certain ways). \\ Example of interpretant: Your mind as it experiences something in your mind's eye when you read the word "automobile". The last part is the most complex thing, because obviously what //you// see and what //I// see when we read the word "automobile" will never be exactly the same. | | | \\ What are Symbols? | Peirce's Theory of Semiotics (signs) proposes 3 parts to a sign: \\ **a //sign/symbol//, an //object//, and an //interpretant//**. \\ Example of symbol: an arbitrary pattern, e.g. a written word (with acceptable error ranges whose threshold determine when it is either 'uninterpretable' or 'inseparable from other symbols'). \\ Example of object: an automobile (clustering of atoms in certain ways). \\ Example of interpretant: Your mind as it experiences something in your mind's eye when you read the word "automobile". The last part is the most complex thing, because obviously what //you// see and what //I// see when we read the word "automobile" will never be exactly the same. | |
| | Do Symbols Carry Meaning Directly? | No. Symbols are initially meaningless arbitrary patterns, and without an interpretant they are also meaningless. \\ What gives them the ability to //carry// meaning (see below) is a mutual //contract// between two communicators (or, more strictly, and encoding-decoding process pair). | | | Do Symbols Carry Meaning Directly? | No. Symbols are initially meaningless arbitrary patterns, and without an interpretant they are also meaningless. \\ What gives them the ability to //carry// meaning (see below) is a mutual //contract// between two communicators (or, more strictly, and encoding-decoding process pair). | |
| | \\ "Symbol" | Peirce used various terms for this, including "sign", "representamen", "representation", and "ground". Others have suggested "sign-vehicle". What is meant in all cases is that a pattern that can be used to stand for something else, and thus requires an interpretation to be used as such. | | | \\ "Symbol" | Peirce used various terms for this, including "sign", "representamen", "representation", and "ground". Others have suggested "sign-vehicle". What is meant in all cases is that a pattern that can be used to stand for something else, and thus requires an interpretation to be used as such. | |
| | \\ Peirce's Innovation | Detaching the symbol/sign from the object it signified, and introducing the interpretation process as a key entity. This makes it possible to explain why people misunderstand each other, and how symbols and meaning can grow and change in a culture. | | | Peirce's Innovation | Detaching the symbol/sign from the object it signified, and introducing the interpretation process as a key entity. This makes it possible to explain why people misunderstand each other, and how symbols and meaning can grow and change in a culture. | |
| |
| \\ | \\ |
