Reading :: Mind as an External Sign

 Mind as an External Sign: A Semiotic Externalist Philosophy of Cognitive Science

by Pedro Atã and João Queiroz

I just reviewed Early Body Ornaments and the Origins of Our Semiotic Mind by Antonis Iliopoulos. Like that book, this one attempts to synthesize Peirce’s semiotic system with cognition — in this case, distributed cognition rather than MET. 

Ata & Quieroz begin by discussing the semiotic turn in distributed cognition, stating that “Mind is sign action—an emergent process of cognitive niche construction” and arguing for “a semiotic turn in distributed cognition [because t]he central problems of externalist cognitive science should be examined from the perspective of sign action” (p.1). They add, “A semiotic turn in distributed cognition asks us to understand artifacts, problem-solving tasks, and cognitive niches as semiosis (sign-in-action). The word ‘sign’, here, refers not only to the physical artifacts as such, but to the artifacts as embodiments of sign processes” (p.2). 

To make this argument, in Section I, they describe semiotic emergence, introducing Peirce and describing semiosis as an emergent process, using ballet as an example. 

In Section II, they “describe semiosis as a problem-solving process … by modeling externalist cognition as a triadic interaction between artifacts, problems, and solutions” (p.4), drawing on examples of representing a subway system and of poetry improvisation. 

In Section III, they “describe semiosis as a niche construction process” through “the emergent self-organization of semiosis in situated environments, and how agents participate in this process (authorship, experimentation in arts)” (p.6). The example here is artwork authorship.

The book is a really interesting comparison/contrast with Iliopoulos’. Both books synthesize Peircean semiotics with a materialist framework, and both review cognitivist approaches that connect mind with material environment. Both examine semiotic emergence. On the other hand, whereas Iliopoulos began with the question of body ornaments, Ata and Quieroz begin with the semiotic turn. And whereas Iliopoulos describes scaffolding across different types of signs, Ata and Quieroz describe chains of triads (p.33). And whereas Iliopoulis sticks with the case of early body ornaments, Ata and Quieroz examine a variety of much more contemporary cases. 

Reading these two books in close proximity may be rewarding to those who are interested in this question. Certainly it was helpful to me — the two different starting points led to two different bodies of literature and two different angles on the basic relationship between materiality and sociality. If you’re similarly interested, definitely read this book!