Edwina, Jon, lists, If the idea expressed in [biosemiotics:7096] is, in principle, correct that the "new" semiotics can be viewed as a mathematical category comprising physics, biology and linguistics, among others, it may be necessary for natural scientists to become semioticians and semioticians natural scientists.
For example the model of morphogenesis (see attached) proposed in one of the articles collected in the link Edwina provides below states thus: "This image is a representation of a regenerating planarian (100714-1) flatworm. The tail portion, which has been amputated, will regrow perfectly. This illustrates the concept of morphostasisthe ability of some living systems to dynamically restore their pattern. The image shows neoblast stem cells (light red dots), blastema (orange tissue at the wound site), and the bioelectrical gradients that are crucial for maintaining long-range anatomical polarity (yellow field lines). The morphogenetic field of patterning information (the target morphology) which will guide the rebuilding of the tail is schematized as a wire framework (white)a scaffold of force and information underlying the subsequent gene expression and anatomy." One possible explanation for the amputated tail regrowing to its original shape would be the action of the wave-particle duality in morphogenesis, since the standing waves determined by the topology of the whole embryo can guide the regeneration of the appropriate cells (i.e., particles) to form the missing tail. I have not yet read the original paper but I am almost sure that the authors non-local explanation for this phenomenon would be consistent witht he wave-particle dual model here described. >From the wave-particle model to Peircean theory of categories may not be too far, since semiosis would implicate the irreducible triad of physics (a First), biology (a Second) and linguistics/informatics/genetics (a Third). With all the best. Sung ____________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > Jon - these people have attempted to move semiotic analysis out of the > comfort of the pipe-smoke-filled seminar rooms into the pragmatic realm. > So, > they've been exploring the semiotic informational and knowledge processes > that actually take place within artificial intelligence, within economic > processes within societies, within humans both as the individual and as a > collective, within societies as cohesive organisms and of course, within > the > biological realm - where a lot of work is being done within biosemiotics. > Therefore these are not trivial but necessarily very specific outlines of > the informational processes that take place in these systems. > > http://www.dca.fee.unicamp.br/~gudwin/compsemio/ > http://link.springer.com/journal/12304 > http://www.journals.elsevier.com/biosystems/ > > In many cases they refer to Peirce. In many cases they do not but the > actual > analytic framework they are developing and using is a triadic semiosic > unit > with all the complexities of the three categories. > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03032647/109/3 > > > In other areas, they are focusing on semiotics as a dynamic complex > process > not confined to the individual but as operating within the collective..and > not as a single interaction but as a network of interactions.. as in, eg, > the economic processes (and of course within the biological realm) > > http://www.frankfurt-school.de/clicnetclm/fileDownload.do?goid=000000396632AB4 > > And entropy and complexity research further explores the basic nature of > semiosis, again, often referring to semiosis (and Peirce) and often not. > I'm > sure you are aware of the > COMPLEXITY DIGEST and of Entropy online > > http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/9?utm_source=issue_link&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=releaseIssue_entropy > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]> > To: "Peirce List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 8:24 AM > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion > > >> Thread: >> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551 >> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559 >> ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561 >> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14570 >> >> Edwina, List, >> >> I don't recall running across Perlovsky before but I have at least >> skimmed >> a few >> papers coming out of the Computational Semiotics group (or maybe it was >> another >> such group out of Waterloo?) At any rate, aside from my own humble >> efforts it >> has only been the computer science semioticians who actually tackle >> anything >> approaching non-trivial examples of sign relations. By tackling a >> non-trivial >> example I don't mean simply waving ones hands in the direction of a >> complex case >> and remarking how complex it is, but actually articulating a concrete >> example as >> a sign relation proper. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> Jon Awbrey wrote: >>> Edwina, List, >>> >>> I decided the other title was too long, and I like the acronym STOI >>> much >>> better. >>> >>> It's not so much that we touch on learning and reasoning just now as >>> the >>> fact that we've been immersed in them all along. >>> >>> In every realm of inquiry we encounter complementaries, dualities, or >>> trade-offs between two aspects of the phenomena we are trying to >>> understand. Viewed in the setting of a triadic sign relation that >>> encompasses all the relevant objects and all the signs and ideas we >>> have >>> of them, we can often recognize these aspects as corresponding to the >>> denotative and connotative planes of that sign relation. >>> >>> In computer science, especially in AI, one runs smack dab into the >>> problem of integrating data-driven and concept-driven aspects of >>> intelligent functioning. You find yourself recapitulating in the >>> ontogeny of your software development something like the phylogeny of >>> classical oppositions between empiricists and rationalists. >>> >>> Well, it's late ... >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> Edwina Taborsky wrote: >>> > If we are to touch on learning and reasoning, it might be fruitful to >>> > expand the research domain of this blog to include the research areas >>> > of >>> > such people as Leonid Perlovsky and Ricardo Gudwin. Both of them are >>> > involved in cognition, semiotics, learning, evolution. That is, most >>> > of >>> > this list (Peirce list) and its discussions seems devoted to the >>> purely >>> > theoretical area of the philosophical domains of Peirce. These two >>> > (and >>> > others) are focused on the applied, pragmatic domains of cognition, >>> > semiotics, artificial intelligence, bioengineering, and etc. And >>> yes, >>> > both of them have explored Peirce. >>> > >>> > http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com/ >>> > >>> > http://faculty.dca.fee.unicamp.br/gudwin/node/2 >>> > >>> >> >> -- >> >> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA >> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey >> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >> . >> >> >> >> >> > > >
<<< text/html; name="morphogeneic field.htm": Unrecognized >>>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
