BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - thank you so very much for this post. I agree with your
comments about plants - and as you say- from bacteria up. Peirce
would even include chemical processes.
Edwina
On Fri 17/04/20 12:09 PM , "John F. Sowa" s...@bestweb.net sent:
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 .
