Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:51:38.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Can a Symbol System Come into Being?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

David Lumsden
David Lumsden
Affiliation:
University of Waikato
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One holistic thesis about symbols is that a symbol cannot exist singly, but only as apart of a symbol system. There is also the plausible view that symbol systems emerge gradually in an individual, in a group, and in a species. The problem is that symbol holism makes it hard to see how a symbol system can emerge gradually, at least if we are considering the emergence of a first symbol system. The only way it seems possible is if being a symbol can be a matter of degree, which is initially problematic. This article explains how being a cognitive symbol can be a matter of degree after all. The contrary intuition arises from the way a process of interpretation forces an all-or-nothing character on symbols, leaving room for underlying material to realize symbols to different degrees in a way that Daniel Dennett's work can help illuminate. Holism applies to symbols as interpreted, while gradualism applies to how the underlying material realizes symbols.

Résumé

Selon une thèse holistique sur les symboles, un symbole nepeut exister isolément mais doit faire partie d'un système symbolique. Une opinion, elle aussi plausible, veut que les systémes symboliques émergent graduellement chez un individu, un groupe ou une espéce. Le problème c'est qu'on voit mal, si le holisme des systémes symboliques tient, comment un système symbolique peut émerger graduellement, du moins pour la première fois. Ce n'est possible, semble-t-il, que si être un symbole est affaire de degré, thèse au départ problématique. Cet article explique comment être un symbole cognitif peut après tout être affaire de degré. L'intuition contraire vient de ce que le processus d' interprétation nous force au tout ou rien, ce qui laisse unjeu dans la façon dont le matériel sous-jacent réalise les symboles à des degres divers. Les travaux de Daniel Dennett sont à cet égard éclairants. Le holisme vautpour les symboles tels qu'ils sont interprétés, tandis que le gradualisme vaut pour la façon dont le matériel sous-jacent réalise les symboles.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , Winter 2005 , pp. 87 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John, eds. 1992 The Adapted Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek 1998 “Catastrophic Evolution.” In Approaches to the Evolution of Language. Edited by Hurford, J., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deacon, Terrence 1997 The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel 1978 “Intentional Systems.” In Brainstorms. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel 1987 “True Believers.” In The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel 1988 “Précis of the Intentional Stance.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11:495–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, Daniel 1998 “Real Patterns.” In Brainchildren: Essays on Designing Minds. London: Penguin Books, and Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferdinand, De Saussure 1966 Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Bally, Charles and Sechehaye, Albert. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry 1975 The Language of Thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry 1983 The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry 1998 Concepts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry, and Lepore, Ernest 1992 Holism: A Shopper's Guide. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry, and Pylyshyn, Zenon W. 1988 “Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis.” Cognition, 28: 3–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, Stephen Jay 1980 “Episodic Evolutionary Change.” In The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Klir, George J., and Yuan, Bo 1995 Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Lumsden, David 2002 “Crossing the Symbolic Threshold: A Critical Review of Terrence Deacon's The Symbolic Species.” Philosophical Psychology, 15:155–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, Ruth 1989 “Biosemantics.” The Journal of Philosophy, 86: 281–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1955 Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Edited by Buchler, Justus. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven 1997 How the Mind Works. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim 2003 Thought in a Hostile World: The Evolution of Human Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar