In some theories of ontology, the focus on scientific principles tends to omit or downgrade the importance of goals, intentions, and feelings. Such issues are often deprecated as "anthropomorphic". Other systems, which emphasize neuroscience, downgrade any kind of memory or reasoning that is not based on neurons. Even the field of biosemiotics puts more emphasis on animals with brains than single-celled protozoa, which have no neurons. The semiotics of plants was usually ignored. But in recent years, biologists have discovered the complex methods of communication, memory, and learning by plants. For a review of those methods, see "The secret life of plants: How they memorize, communicate, problem solve, and socialize": https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-secret-life-of-plants-how-they-memorise-communicate-problem-solve-and-socialise?utm_source=pocket-newtab These developments show the importance of broadening the foundations of ontology to include phytosemiotics as well as zoosemiotics. Those issues are fundamental to every aspect of life from bacteria on up. They cannot be dismissed as "unscientific". John
----------------------------- 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 .
