Dear Loet I know that we have very divergent understandings of biosemiotics. The biosemiotic understanding of living systems is not based on a mechanistic either monistic or dualistic ontology but on a semiotic process philosophy based on an non-dual emptiness ontology that has some similarities to Bertallanffy’s General systems theory’s organicism or Aristotle’s hylozoism. I have tried to explain these differences in ontology in the papers from JPBMB below. I have summed up the cybersemiotic view as it looked some years ago here https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf
Best wishes Søren Brier New articles in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology How Peircean semiotic philosophy connects Western science with Eastern emptiness ontology https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7KI6VGXcej and Peircean cosmogony's symbolic agapistic self-organization as an example of the influence of eastern philosophy on western thinking https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7KI6VGXceX 2017 JPBMB Focused Issue on Integral Biomathics: The Necessary Conjunction of Western and Eastern Thought Traditions for Exploring the Nature of Mind and Life<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/131> * * free promotional access to all focused issue articles until June 20th 2018 Brier, S. (2017). C.S. Peirce’s Phenomenological, Evolutionary and Trans-disciplinary Semiotic Conception of Science and Religion. Research as Realization: Science, Spirituality and Harmony. Editor / Ananta Kumar Giri. Delhi : Primus Books, 2017. pp. 53-96 From: l...@leydesdorff.net [mailto:leydesdo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: 26. februar 2018 19:03 To: Søren Brier <sbr....@cbs.dk>; Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Soren, I agree with Stan's wording, but your wording is ambiguous. The meaning is not biologically given, but constructed in a discourse among biologists. The discourse can also be theological and then one obtains "theological" meaning. Best, Loet ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ.<http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> Beijing; Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en ------ Original Message ------ From: "Søren Brier" <sbr....@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr....@cbs.dk>> To: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssal...@binghamton.edu<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>; "fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Sent: 2/26/2018 6:41:25 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Thanks Stan. I agree: Behind production and interpretation of all quantitative data, there is either an biological or an existential or a religious or a philosophical framework of meaning. Best Søren From: Stanley N Salthe [mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>] Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19 To: Søren Brier <sbr....@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr....@cbs.dk>>; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Following upon Søren: Meaning is derived for a system by way of Interpretation. The transmitted information has no meaning without interpretation. STAN On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier <sbr....@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr....@cbs.dk>> wrote: Dear Xueshan The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such a paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory with it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf Cordially yours Søren Brier Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 2000 Frederiksberg Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , cybersemiotics.com<http://cybersemiotics.com>. Fra: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] På vegne af Xueshan Yan Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47 Til: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Emne: [Fis] A Paradox Dear colleagues, In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline “Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, the study of human information is called Human Informatics. Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have the following corollary: A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics. According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human Informatics, so we have another corollary: B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics. Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a subject, but how should we understand this paradox? Best wishes, Xueshan _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
