Senders, Receivers, and Symbolic Artifacts

Biological Theory 12 (4):275-286 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A “sender–receiver” framework based on models developed in several fields can provide a general treatment of communicative and symbolic phenomena, replacing traditional semiotic theories that have failed to live up to the hopes of their advocates. Sender–receiver models have mostly been applied to linguistic behavior, gestures, and other ephemeral interactions between individuals. I look at the application of this framework to enduring artifacts, including pictures, using indigenous rock art in Australia as a case study.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A teleosemantic approach to information in the brain.Rosa Cao - 2012 - Biology and Philosophy 27 (1):49-71.
Deception in Sender–Receiver Games.Manolo Martínez - 2015 - Erkenntnis 80 (1):215-227.
Signs and Symbolic Behavior.Peter Godfrey-Smith - 2014 - Biological Theory 9 (1):78-88.
The ontology of artifacts.Lynne Rudder Baker - 2004 - Philosophical Explorations 7 (2):99 – 111.
A taxonomy of cognitive artifacts: Function, information, and categories.Richard Heersmink - 2013 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4 (3):465-481.
The Nature of Artifacts.Steven Vogel - 2003 - Environmental Ethics 25 (2):149-168.
The shrinking difference between artifacts and natural objects.Lynne Rudder Baker - 2008 - American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-09-21

Downloads
52 (#299,806)

6 months
8 (#342,364)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Smith
Harvard University

References found in this work

Convention: A Philosophical Study.David Kellogg Lewis - 1969 - Cambridge, MA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Meaning.Herbert Paul Grice - 1957 - Philosophical Review 66 (3):377-388.

View all 25 references / Add more references