We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In this chapter, I show how Peirce's model of mind is grounded in his semeiotic, or general doctrine of signs, a grounding made possible by the logical priority, in Peirce's thought, of the concept of sign over the concept of mind. I then compare this model of mind with some more recent doctrines and theories, and conclude with some comments on Peirce's relevance for cognitive science, including both artificial intelligence and human-computer interaction.
PEIRCE’S DOCTRINE OF SIGNS
Peirce’s doctrine of thought signs was first introduced in his justly famous 1868 articles in The Journal of Speculative Philosophy and later developed in greater detail from 1895 until Peirce’s death in 1914. In his 1868 papers Peirce specifically targeted Descartes and Cartesianism, and argued that we have no ability to think without signs. This argument presupposes a prior argument that all self-knowledge can be accounted for as inferences from external facts and that there is thus no reason to posit any power of introspection (CP 5.247–9). We need, therefore, to look to external facts for evidence of our own thoughts, and it is then a near-tautology to conclude that the only thoughts so evidenced are in the form of signs: “If we seek the light of external facts, the only cases of thought which we can find are of thought in signs” (CP 5.251).
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.