Frederik: > On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.ku.dk> wrote: > > Let me redescribe my claim. Physics, taken in itself, does not study > cognition and communication processes - biology does.
Perhaps you are seeking to express a more metaphysical argument about the relationships among the basic sciences? In Diagrammatology, p. 208, figure 29, entitled “Receptor-motor coupling", you index several nominal objects which are a consequence of chains of reasoning about natural objects. These objects can all be viewed as exact consequences of third-order cybernetical relations encoded by the E coli genome (DNA) and embodied in material codes. BTW, do you refer to these objects as signs? symbols? or icons? Do you consider these indexes given in Figure 29 to be parts of biological “communication processes”? Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
