Thank you for uploading this very informative video!

Amazing video!

Charles Sanders Peirce ​ fue un filósofo, ​ lógico y científico estadounidense. Es considerado el fundador del pragmatismo y el padre de la semiótica moderna o teoría de los signos, junto a Ferdinand de Saussure

thank you!

The image/photograph of an apple is an icon of the object apple, not an index. It could be an index in a contextualized situation, for example in a scene where an apple found on a desk is an indication (notice the semantical correlation with “index”) that someone was close to the desk and placed it there.

@filmandmediastudieschannel

Жыл бұрын

I think I follow, and I think I agree. So you're suggesting that objects can't be indexed - only situations? If so, would you be comfortable saying that a photograph of the object apple on my desk is an index of, say, the *situation* of that object apple sitting on my desk at noon on July 11, 2023? But the photograph cannot be an index of the object apple itself? And perhaps this is the case because indexical signs only index material things, and material things are always subject to temporal change, so you can't index the "thing," you can only index a particular temporal situation involving the thing?

@pyb.5672

Жыл бұрын

@@filmandmediastudieschannel I recognize that you are using Peirce’s semiotics concept in the context of films, and therefore the essence gets affected in the ensuing required anologies. To provide some persoective, at its source, his theory is tightly coupled with logic in the epistomological branch of philosophy. There are 3 modes of logical inferences: abduction, deduction, and induction. These are by the way the foundations on which of the tenets of the modern scientific method rests. For example, index is connected to induction, which is used when testing a hypothesis. So an index is really conveying information which is an “indication” of an object out of focus. See the semantic connections between “index, induction, indication”. In the real world, seeing smoke is a sign that usually brings our immediate focus of attention to the object “fire”. In this context, the semiotic function of smoke at that moments is being and index (indication) of fire. If you see a caterpillar hanging from a tree that appears close to you, you might jump out of fear for a second, which is due to your interpretation of a “snake” via the “iconic” signal conveyed by the physical similaritude of the caterpillar to it. Many chemical reactions in our bodies are caused by a misinterpretation of our system of chemical structures that are similar to others, where an object’s representation is interpreted as an iconic signal for a different object. I hope these examples help in applying anologies to your relevant field.

@filmandmediastudieschannel

9 ай бұрын

@@pyb.5672 Hmm I'm still not sure I follow how this additional information explains the point that a photograph of the apple is not an index of that apple. Is your point that, because an "index is really conveying information which is an 'indication' of an object out of focus," and a photograph of an apple does not "indicate" the apple the way that smoke indicates the fire (or that, say, the weathervane indicates the wind's directional flow), thus the photograph is not an index of the apple? Is the point that the apple is not "out of focus," i.e. existing nearby but not within my perceptual field? If so, then what do you make of the footprint as an index of a foot that made the impression in the snow hours ago? Or is your point that we can't simply refer to particular kinds of objects as indexes and icons, but only particular acts of cognition in which a subject mentally perceives a particular referent through its signifier, as in your example with the caterpillar. In other words, on this view, it would make no sense to say a caterpillar *is* an iconic sign of a snake. But it does make sense to say that, in momentarily mistaking the caterpillar for the snake, I perceived the caterpillar as an iconic sign of a snake. If this is what you're saying, I like the distinction. Otherwise, I can't yet follow your point yet, but I appreciate the attempt at explanation.

@pyb.5672

9 ай бұрын

​​ @filmandmediastudieschannel That's what I meant when you refer to the caterpillar as momentarily being an iconic sign for a snake, by "mistake". I think it's important to note that we make thousands of sign associations every second, so what we are talking about right now are really the granular mechanism, the core foundations of thought. To take the caterpillar example, we do associate the physical resemblance (iconic) to a snake, but immediately the snake becomes an index for the object that is a real threat, which is the potential venomous bite. In my opinion, the photograph is a very ambiguous example to explain an already quite difficult concept, and shouldn't be used to present the foundations of the 3 types of signs. If you look at footsteps, you are correct that it does have an iconic representation of a foot object, but pragmatically, your thoughts go directly to the whole animal, what it is, where it is going. A foot by itself isn't very impactful for you, but what kind of animal was here, when, and its direction, is important. So the footprints are an index of this whole conception of an animal with agency and how you should feel about it, as to whether you want to hunt it, or avoid it for protection, etc. To clear up the notion of icons, think of it like a cognitive shortcut. If I say: tigers are dangerous, lions are dangerous, hippos are dangerous, wolves are dangerous, etc. That's a lot of information to remember. Your brain wants to use a shortcut, and try to find what is common among all those animals, so that if that trait is seen you can very quickly associate it to danger, without having to remember the long list of all the animals that are dangerous. So you are looking for an "iconic" representation for the object "dangerous animals". So if you are confronted with a hyenas, and you have never seen one before, and nobody ever told you "hyenas are dangerous", it will be advantageous to your survival to associate the resemblance of a hyenas to other dangerous mammals. You find the icons in the hyena that refer you to other objects with which you are already familiar. So when you will see a face frowning and teeths being shown, this will be an icon for all the other angry faces of dangerous animals and you will quickly react accordingly. To summarize, icons have a physical resemblance to the objects they represent as a way to make logical assumptions about a new objects upon which we don't have a lot of information, but can infer some by its resemblance to another. Indexes have a completely different mechanism, where we don't care about resemblance, we just care about circumstantial connexions. If I see someone sweat, the sweat doesn't have a physical resemblance to my idea of "hot temperature". They just happen at the same time by induction. The goal is still to gather more information about the environment, but the mechanism is very different.

@filmandmediastudieschannel

9 ай бұрын

@@pyb.5672 OK cool all of this is very helpful and interesting. Understanding that for Peirce, cognition itself is made up of signs, that all thought is in signs, is helpful to see some of the pitfalls of applying icon, symbol, and index to different forms of representation (painting, writing, photograph). As a side question, though, if my memory serves me, Peirce himself did not name "photographs" as examples of indices/indexes, but did he mention portraits as examples of icons? The Stanford Encyclopedia entry suggests that he did. In any case, regardless of what examples he used to illustrate the definition of icon - i.e. signifying via iconicity - it does seem rather useful as you say to illustrate all of the thousands of sign-relations we make moment by moment *in the real world* to better represent Peirce's theory of signs. The point about hyenas is useful in this regard and does seem consistent with his writing. But I hope you'll understand that this video is an excerpt from a longer video not about Peirce, but about film theorist Andre Bazin. And further you'll understand that the video exists on a channel called Film and Media Studies. Peirce's icon, symbol, and index have been heavily adopted by media studies, for better or worse. With a quick google of "Peirce icon symbol index," the first set of hits are about the relation of these terms to media studies (though perhaps my google is influenced by own search history). So really the aim of this video is not to present Peirce's theory of signs. It's to present Peirce's theory of signs as it is understood within film theory, which is actually a watered-down version of film scholar Peter Wollen's interpretation of the work of film theorist Andre Bazin, particularly his essay The Ontology of the Photographic Image. Because this is such a foundational idea - canonical really (you can't take a film theory class without running into it) - it's been challenged in academic film studies many times by many scholars, myself included. I still find the distinction useful for undergraduate students, though, even if I think it's a rather limiting in its application to Bazin's work and, as you're suggesting, a rather limiting depiction of Peirce's philosophy. But I've enjoyed learning more about Peirce from you, and I'm curious how much work has been published in film studies to shed light on this issue. My guess is that it has, and quite a lot. Search "film, index, peirce" in google scholar and it will yield thousands of hits. But honestly just learning more about Peirce's theory of signs is intellectually satisfying and makes a lot of sense.

What about physical symptoms? Are these symbolic since their signifier must be learned?

@filmandmediastudieschannel

2 жыл бұрын

Very interesting question - keep in mind that many signs exhibit all three (e.g. a photograph of a stop sign would have aspects of index, icon, and symbol). And I think the idea that defining symbolic signs as those that are 'learned' is maybe a bit misleading, as you might also say that the connection between smoke and fire is also learned, even though smoke is a good example of an index of fire. I think the more useful explanation is the idea that the relation between a symbolic signifier and its referent is arbitrary - not based on a recognizable logic of resemblance (icon) or cause and effect (index) but a self-contained system of meaning. That being said, I think you're onto something in saying that a physical symptom of illness is at least partly symbolic given that the institution of medicine might be thought of as a self-contained system of meaning that determines that, say, a cough is a signifier of the common cold. And to support this, we might pick apart the important differences beween the way smoke indiates fire and the way a cough indicates a cold (the latter seems, as you say, *more* learned and less intuitive). Still, I'd say that for most of us, we perceive physical symptoms primarily as indexes: they seem to point to the existence of, provide evidence for, the illness.

@gordonpepper1400

2 жыл бұрын

​@@filmandmediastudieschannel I think the first thing you always have to ask yourself is this: what is this image/sign saying to me? If I feel or see that my glands are swollen, then I am saying to myself 'my glands are swollen' and to me that's an immediate sign that I have some sort of sickness. Is this not indexical? I think it is. It is not symbolic - there is a direct relationship between the sign and its referent. A symbol by definition has no relationship between signifier and signified - the meaning is attained thru convention. So I agree, for me the meaning of this image/symptom is 100% indexical.

@pyb.5672

9 ай бұрын

They are indexes. You are confused with the notion that things must be learned with language, which is a system of symbols. A "luxation" is a symbolic word for a certain medical condition you can learn about, but a discoloration of the skin is an index of the luxation.

Why a photo of a thing is different than a painting of the thing? It doesn't make sense.