Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T08:18:06.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abandoning the code metaphor is compatible with semiotic process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2019

Terrence W. Deacon  and
Joanna Rączaszek-Leonardi Open the ORCID record for Joanna Rączaszek-Leonardi [Opens in a new window]
Terrence W. Deacon
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, [email protected]
Joanna Rączaszek-Leonardi
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, 00-183Warsaw, Poland. [email protected]://hill.psych.uw.edu.pl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree with Brette's assessment that the coding metaphor has become more problematic than helpful for theories of brain and cognitive functioning. In an effort to aid in constructing an alternative, we argue that joining the insights from the dynamical systems approach with the semiotic framework of C. S. Peirce can provide a fruitful perspective.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e224
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Bickhard, M. H. (2009) The interactivist model. Synthese 166(3):547–91. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9375-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, T. W. (2018) Beneath symbols: Convention as a semiotic phenomenon. In: Evolution & Contextual Behavioral Science: A Reunification. ed. Hayes, S. C. & Wilson, D. S.. New Harbinger.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990b) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42(1–3):335–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartshorne, C. & Weiss, P., eds. (1931–1963) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. I–VI. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pattee, H. H. (1973) The physical basis and origin of hierarchical control. In: Hierarchy theory. The challenge of complex systems, ed. Pattee, H. H. & Braziller, G., pp. 73–108.Google Scholar
Pattee, H. H. (1997) The physics of symbols and the evolution of semiotic controls. In: Control mechanisms for complex systems: Issues of measurement and semiotic analysis, ed. Coombs, M. & Sulcoski, M., University of New Mexico Press, pp. 9–25.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1968) Life's irreducible structure. Science 160:1308–12. doi:10.1126/science. 160.3834.1308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raczaszek-Leonardi, J. (2009) Symbols as constraints: The structuring role of dynamics and self-organization in natural language. Pragmatics and Cognition 17:653–76. doi:10.1075/pc.17.3.09ras.Google Scholar
Raczaszek-Leonardi, J., Nomikou, I., Rohlfing, K. J. & Deacon, T.W. (2018) Language development from an ecological perspective: Ecologically valid ways to abstract symbols. Ecological Psychology 30:39–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. E. (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Systems Technical Journal 27(3):379–423, 623–56. Available at: https://archive.org/details/bellsystemtechni27amerrich/page/379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar