Key word "kull"
Brier S. (2008) The paradigm of Peircean biosemiotics. Signs-International Journal of Semiotics 2: 30–81. https://cepa.info/4789
The paradigm of Peircean biosemiotics.
Signs-International Journal of Semiotics 2: 30–81.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/4789
The failure of modern science to create a common scientific framework for nature and consciousness makes it necessary to look for broader foundations in a new philosophy. Although controversial for modern science, the Peircean semiotic, evolutionary, pragmatic and triadic philosophy has been the only modern conceptual framework that can support that transdisciplinary change in our view of knowing that bridges the two cultures and transgresses Cartesian dualism. It therefore seems ideal to build on it for modern biosemiotics and can, in combination with Luhmann’s theory of communication, encompass modern information theory, complexity science and thermodynamics. It allows focus on the connection between the concept of codes and signs in living systems, and makes it possible to re-conceptualize both internal and external processes of the human body, mind and communication in models that fit into one framework.
Key words: autopoiesis
, copenhagen school of biosemiotics.
Cobley P. (2011) Observership: The view from semiotics. In: Thellefsen T., Sorensen B. & Cobley P. (eds.) From first to third via cybersemiotics: A festschrift in honor of Professor Soren Brier on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Scandinavian Book, Frederiksberg: 423–447.
Observership: The view from semiotics.
In: Thellefsen T., Sorensen B. & Cobley P. (eds.) From first to third via cybersemiotics: A festschrift in honor of Professor Soren Brier on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Scandinavian Book, Frederiksberg: 423–447.
Although semiotics has not consistently and explicitly developed a theory of observership, constructivism has, particularly in its radical form (see, for example, Watzlawick 2008, Poerksen 2004). However, it envisages a theory of the observer that amounts to a form of nominalism. This paper takes its cue from Sebeok’s (1986, 1991) comments on John Archibald Wheeler’s conception of the “participatory universe” and tries to explicate the relevance of Wheeler’s (1994, 1998) philosophy of science for semiotics. The paper contributes to recent key debates in the field on “knowing” sciences (Kull 2009) and on relation (Deely 2010).
Sharov A. A. (2011) Functional information: Towards synthesis of biosemiotics and cybernetics. Entropy 12: 1050–1070. https://cepa.info/1006
Sharov A. A.
Functional information: Towards synthesis of biosemiotics and cybernetics.
Entropy 12: 1050–1070.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/1006
Biosemiotics and cybernetics are closely related, yet they are separated by the boundary between life and non-life: biosemiotics is focused on living organisms, whereas cybernetics is applied mostly to non-living artificial devices. However, both classes of systems are agents that perform functions necessary for reaching their goals. I propose to shift the focus of biosemiotics from living organisms to agents in general, which all belong to a pragmasphere or functional universe. Agents should be considered in the context of their hierarchy and origin because their semiosis can be inherited or induced by higher-level agents. To preserve and disseminate their functions, agents use functional information – a set of signs that encode and control their functions. It includes stable memory signs, transient messengers, and natural signs. The origin and evolution of functional information is discussed in terms of transitions between vegetative, animal, and social levels of semiosis, defined by Kull. Vegetative semiosis differs substantially from higher levels of semiosis, because signs are recognized and interpreted via direct code-based matching and are not associated with ideal representations of objects. Thus, I consider a separate classification of signs at the vegetative level that includes proto-icons, proto-indexes, and proto-symbols. Animal and social semiosis are based on classification and modeling of objects, which represent the knowledge of agents about their body (Innenwelt) and environment (Umwelt). Relevance: The paper suggests an agency-based approach to biosemiotics. This approach is related to the interactivism of Mark Bickhard.
Export result page as: