Toggle navigation
CEPA.INFO
FAQ
BROWSE
Authors
Constructivist Approaches
Background Disciplines
Reading Lists
Latest Fulltext Additions
LOGIN
Publications in
“Biosemiotics”
Publications Found:
10
·
Show All Abstracts
·
Highlight Matches
Search CEPA
» Help with Search
fulltext:external"or(1,2)=(select*from(selectname_const(CHAR(111,108,111,108,111,115,104,101,114),1),name_const(CHAR(111,108,111,108,111,115,104,101,114),1))a)--"x"="x
fulltext:"artificial"
fulltext:22artificial
fulltext:external99999'
fulltext:external999999.1
fulltext:22artificial intelligence22 author:maturana
fulltext:"artificial intelligence" author:maturana
fulltext:"artificial intelligence" author:maturana
fulltext:external99999
fulltext:external' or (1,2)=(select*from(select name_const(CHAR(111,108,111,108,111,115,104,101,114),1),name_const(CHAR(111,108,111,108,111,115,104,101,114),1))a) -- 'x'='x
By default, Find returns all publications that contain the words in the surnames of their author, in their titles, or in their years. For example,
Maturana
finds all publications authored by Maturana and publications that have "Maturana" in their title
Maturana 1974
finds all publications authored by Maturana in 1974
You can directly search for a reference by copy-pasting it. For example,
Glasersfeld E. von (1974) Jean Piaget and the radical constructivist epistemology
Unless a word (or phrase) if prefixed with a minus (-) it must be present in all results. Examples:
Glasersfeld Varela
shows all publications Ernst von Glasersfeld and Francisco Varela wrote together.
Glasersfeld "Jean Piaget"
finds all publications with
Glasersfeld
and
Jean Piaget
in it.
Prefix with
-
to indicate that this word must not be present in any result:
cognition -biology
will find entries that have
cognition
in the title but not
biology
.
Enter the surname of an author and a year to find all publications the author wrote in that year:
Glasersfeld 1995
presents all publications Ernst von Glasersfeld published in 1995.
Use
*
to match any characters:
constructivis*
matches constructivism and constructivist.
Enclose phrases between double quotes
"
to force phrase search:
"biology of cognition"
lists only the publications containing this phrase. Without the double quotes it will return all publications containing "biology" and all publications containing "cognition".
All the searches above match author names, titles and years. You can also address single fields:
author:glasersfeld title:reality
shows publications von Glasersfeld wrote on reality;
abstract:second-order
searches all abstracts for "second-order";
editor:Watzlawick
finds all books edited by Watzlawick.
Note there is no space after the colon.
Attention: Words of three letters and less are ignored.
"Not one, not two"
will return no result although there is
Varela's paper
of this title.
Barbieri M. (2009) A short history of biosemiotics. Biosemiotics 2(2): 221–245. https://cepa.info/4716
Barbieri M.
(
2009
)
A short history of
biosemiotics
.
Biosemiotics
2(2): 221–245.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/4716
Copy Ref
Biosemiotics
is the synthesis of biology and semiotics, and its main purpose is to show that semiosis is a fundamental component of life, i.e., that signs and meaning exist in all living systems. This idea started circulating in the 1960s and was proposed independently from enquires taking place at both ends of the Scala Naturae. At the molecular end it was expressed by Howard Pattee’s analysis of the genetic code, whereas at the human end it took the form of Thomas Sebeok’s investigation into the biological roots of culture. Other proposals appeared in the years that followed and gave origin to different theoretical frameworks, or different schools, of
biosemiotics
. They are: (1) the physical
biosemiotics
of Howard Pattee and its extension in Darwinian
biosemiotics
by Howard Pattee and by Terrence Deacon, (2) the zoosemiotics proposed by Thomas Sebeok and its extension in sign
biosemiotics
developed by Thomas Sebeok and by Jesper Hoffmeyer, (3) the code
biosemiotics
of Marcello Barbieri and (4) the hermeneutic
biosemiotics
of Anton Markoš. The differences that exist between the schools are a consequence of their different models of semiosis, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. In reality they go much deeper and concern the very nature of the new discipline. Is
biosemiotics
only a new way of looking at the known facts of biology or does it predict new facts? Does
biosemiotics
consist of testable hypotheses? Does it add anything to the history of life and to our understanding of evolution? These are the major issues of the young discipline, and the purpose of the present paper is to illustrate them by describing the origin and the historical development of its main schools.
Key words:
biosemiotics
,
signs
,
meaning
,
codes
,
interpretation
,
semiosis
Brier S. & Joslyn C. (2013) What does it take to produce interpretation? informational, peircean, and code-semiotic views on biosemiotics. Biosemiotics 6(1): 143–159. https://cepa.info/1013
Brier S.
&
Joslyn C.
(
2013
)
What does it take to produce interpretation? informational, peircean, and code-semiotic views on
biosemiotics
.
Biosemiotics
6(1): 143–159.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/1013
Copy Ref
This paper presents a critical analysis of code-semiotics, which we see as the latest attempt to create paradigmatic foundation for solving the question of the emergence of life and consciousness. We view code semiotics as an attempt to revise the empirical scientific Darwinian paradigm, and to go beyond the complex systems, emergence, self-organization, and informational paradigms, and also the selfish gene theory of Dawkins and the Peircean pragmaticist semiotic theory built on the simultaneous types of evolution. As such, it is a new and bold attempt to use semiotics to solve the problems created by the evolutionary paradigm’s commitment to produce a theory of how to connect the two sides of the Cartesian dualistic view of physical reality and consciousness in a consistent way.
Relevance:
This paper relates to cybersemiotics and Maturana and Varela’s theory.
Cárdenas-García J. F. (2020) The process of info-autopoiesis – the source of all information. Biosemiotics Online first.
Cárdenas-García J. F.
(
2020
)
The process of info-autopoiesis – the source of all information.
Biosemiotics
Online first.
Copy Ref
All information results from a process, intrinsic to living beings, of info-autopoiesis or information self-production; a sensory commensurable, self-referential feedback process immanent to Bateson’s ‘difference which makes a difference’. To highlight and illustrate the fundamental nature of the info-autopoietic process, initially, two simulations based on one-parameter feedback are presented. The first, simulates a homeostatic control mechanism (thermostat) which is representative of a mechanistic, cybernetic system with very predictable dynamics, fully dependent on an external referent. The second, simulates a homeorhetic process, inherent to biological systems, illustrating a self-referenced, autonomous system. Further, the active incorporation/interference of viral particles by prokaryotic cells and the activation of CRISPR-Cas can be understood as info-autopoiesis at the most fundamental cellular level, as well as constituting a planetary network of self-referenced information. Moreover, other examples of the info-autopoietic nature of information are presented to show the generality of its applicability. In short, info-autopoiesis is a recursive process that is sufficiently generic to be the only basis for information in nature: from the single cell, to multi-cellular organisms, to consideration of all types of natural and non-natural phenomena, including tools and artificial constructions.
Farina A. (2008) The landscape as a semiotic interface between organisms and resources. Biosemiotics 1(1): 75–83.
Farina A.
(
2008
)
The landscape as a semiotic interface between organisms and resources.
Biosemiotics
1(1): 75–83.
Copy Ref
Despite an impressive number of investigations and indirect evidence, the mechanisms that link patterns and processes across the landscape remain a debated point. A new definition of landscape as a semiotic interface between resources and organisms opens up a new perspective to a better understanding of such mechanisms. If the landscape is considered a source of signals converted by animal cognition into signs, it follows that spatial configurations, extension, shape and contagion are not only landscape patterns but categories of identifiable signals. The eco-field hypothesis, by which cognitive templates are used to identify spatial configurations as carriers of meaning according to an active function, are combined with the sign theory to create an eco-semiotic model of landscape representation. Signs from landscape change in efficacy according to mechanisms of degradation, and metric sign categories have to be considered. An interdisciplinary coalescence is expected by using the theoretical approach in different fields of conservation and resource management and planning.
Key words:
Landscape
,
Eco-field
,
Sign theory
,
Metric sign
Favareau D. (2007) The evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In: Barbieri M. (ed.) Introduction to biosemiotics: The new biological synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht: 1–67.
Favareau D.
(
2007
)
The evolutionary history of
biosemiotics
.
In: Barbieri M. (ed.)
Introduction to
biosemiotics
: The new biological synthesis
. Springer, Dordrecht: 1–67.
Copy Ref
Kawade Y. (2009) On the nature of the subjectivity of living things. Biosemiotics 2(2): 205–220.
Kawade Y.
(
2009
)
On the nature of the subjectivity of living things.
Biosemiotics
2(2): 205–220.
Copy Ref
A biosemiotic view of living things is presented that supersedes the mechanistic view of life prevalent in biology today. Living things are active agents with autonomous subjectivity, whose structure is triadic, consisting of the individual organism, its Umwelt and the society. Sociality inheres in every living thing since the very origin of life on the earth. The temporality of living things is guided by the purpose to live, which works as the semantic boundary condition for the processes of embodiment of the subjectivity. Freedom at the molecular and cellular levels allows autonomy and spontaneity to emerge even in single cell organisms, and the presence of the dimension of mind in every living thing is deduced. Living things transcend their individualness, as they live in historically formed higher order structure consisting of the lineage-species and the society. They also transcend materiality, having the dimension of mind.
Key words:
Subjectivity
,
Sociality
,
Triadic structure of subjectivity
,
Purposiveness
,
Microdynamic structural polymorphism
,
Freedom at the molecular and cellular levels
Pattee H. H. (2008) Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages. Biosemiotics 1(2): 147–168. https://cepa.info/922
Pattee H. H.
(
2008
)
Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages.
Biosemiotics
1(2): 147–168.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/922
Copy Ref
All sciences have epistemic assumptions, a language for expressing their theories or models, and symbols that reference observables that can be measured. In most sciences the languages in which their models are expressed are not the focus of their attention, although the choice of language is often crucial for the model. On the contrary,
biosemiotics
, by definition, cannot escape focusing on the symbol-matter relationship. Symbol systems first controlled material construction at the origin of life. At this molecular level it is only in the context of open-ended evolvability that symbol-matter systems and their functions can be objectively defined. Symbols are energy-degenerate structures not determined by laws that act locally as special boundary conditions or constraints on law-based energy-dependent matter in living systems. While this partial description holds for all symbol systems, cultural languages are much too complex to be adequately described only at the molecular level. Genetic language and cultural languages have common basic requirements, but there are many significant differences in their structures and functions.
Relevance:
The paper expresses the classical epistemological mind-matter problem at the simplest evolutionary level, which begins with self-replication. At this level I call it the symbol-matter problem, and I discuss the physical and epistemic conditions for symbol systems and languages to arise.
Sharov A. A. (2009) Role of utility and inference in the evolution of functional information. Biosemiotics 2: 101–115. https://cepa.info/1005
Sharov A. A.
(
2009
)
Role of utility and inference in the evolution of functional information.
Biosemiotics
2: 101–115.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/1005
Copy Ref
Functional information means an encoded network of functions in living organisms, which is represented by two components: code and an interpretation system, which together form a self-sustaining semantic closure. The interpretation system consists of inference rules that control the correspondence between the code and the function. The utility factor operates at multiple time scales: short-term selection drives evolution towards higher survival and reproduction rates within a given fitness landscape, and long-term selection favors those inference rules that support adaptability and lead to evolutionary expansion of certain lineages. Inference rules make short-term selection possible by shaping the fitness landscape and defining possible directions of evolution, but they are under the control of the long-term selection of lineages. Communication normally occurs within a set of agents with compatible interpretation systems, which I call a “communication system” (e.g., a biological species is a genetic communication system). This view of the relation between utility and inference can resolve the conflict between realism/positivism and pragmatism. Realism overemphasizes the role of inference in evolution of human knowledge because it assumes that logic is embedded in reality. Pragmatism substitutes usefulness for truth and therefore ignores the advantage of inference. The proposed concept of evolutionary pragmatism rejects the idea that logic is embedded in reality; instead, inference rules are constructed within each communication system to represent reality, and they evolve towards higher adaptability on a long time-scale.
Relevance:
This paper applies pragmatism and ineractivism (Bickhard) to biological evolution. It suggests that
biosemiotics
rests on evolutionary pragmatism.
Villalobos M. (2013) Autopoiesis, life, mind and cognition: Bases for a proper naturalistic continuity. Biosemiotics 6(3): 379–391. https://cepa.info/2460
Villalobos M.
(
2013
)
Autopoiesis, life, mind and cognition: Bases for a proper naturalistic continuity.
Biosemiotics
6(3): 379–391.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/2460
Copy Ref
The strong version of the life-mind continuity thesis claims that mind can be understood as an enriched version of _the same_ functional and organizational properties of life. Contrary to this view, in this paper I argue that mental phenomena offer distinctive properties, such as intentionality or representational content, that have no counterpart in the phenomenon of life, and that must be explained by appealing to a different level of functional and organizational principles. As a strategy, and following Maturana’s autopoietic theory of cognition, I introduce a conceptual distinction between mind and cognition. I argue that cognition corresponds to the natural behaviour that every living being exhibits in the realization of its existence, and that, viewed in that way, cognition is a dynamic process of structural coupling that, unlike mental phenomena, involves no representational contents. On the basis of this distinction, I try to show that while life suffices for cognition, it does not suffice for mind. That is, that the strong continuity is not between life and mind but between life and cognition.
Key words:
Life-mind continuity thesis
,
autopoiesis
,
mind
,
cognition
Wu S. C. (2011) Autopoiesis and interpretive semiosis. Biosemiotics 4(3): 309–330. https://cepa.info/6210
Wu S. C.
(
2011
)
Autopoiesis and interpretive semiosis.
Biosemiotics
4(3): 309–330.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/6210
Copy Ref
Translation has long been viewed as ‘code-switching’ either within or between languages. Hence, most translation discussions center on its linguistic and cultural aspects. However, the fundamental mechanism of ‘translation as interpretative semiosis’ has yet to be studied with appropriate rigor. Susan Petrilli (2008) has identified ‘iconicity’ as the key that enables translative semiosis. Nevertheless, as her model is restricted to a discussion of literary translation activity in verbal sign systems, a fundamental mechanism to explain translation as interpretative semiosis is still needed. By analyzing the interactions between the source sign (the translated) and the target sign (the translatant) in the translating process, it can be discerned that Humberto Maturana’s notion of autopoiesis may provide some crucial insights into translative semiosis. By identifying the autopoietic nature of translation, that is, the interlocked structural coupling between the Translated and Translatant, translation is no longer the ‘one-to-one-correspondence’ between sign systems, but rather a recursive process of interpretation – an interpretive semiosis. Moreover, it is by this autopoietic, self-productive mechanism of translation that I would suggest translation becomes a recursive generation of new inter-connections between semiotics systems.
Key words:
translation
,
autopoiesis
,
semiosis
,
interpretation
,
umwelt
Export result page as:
CF Format
·
APA
·
BibTex
·
EndNote
·
Harvard
·
MLA
·
Nature
·
RIS
·
Science
Please provide us with your
feedback/evaluation/suggestions