Dear John, list -
There are several issues here with which I do not agree.
1) I do not think it makes any sense to say that sun and earth communicate.
There is a large-scale interaction of different physical processes between the
two. But there is arguably physical interaction between any two p
Dear Jerry -
The figures in Diagrammatology are quotes from standard textbook accounts of
chemotaxis in E. Coli. So, the terminology in those figures is not mine (nor
Peirce's).
In Peircean terminology, I will consider the signs processed in the E.Coli
detection of carbohydrates as symbols - for
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:36 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
>
>> Edwina, Pansemiotics carries the connotation of panpsychism. Physiosemiosis
>> has no such connotation. And the term “pansemiosis” carries just the
>> opposite of what you attribute, namely, the idea that the universe IS
>> composed exclus
Frederik:
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt 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
(I’ll combine a bunch of short replies to various people)
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Deely, John N. wrote:
>
> Sun and earth do communicate, but resulting directly dyadic rather than
> triadic relations, and with no involvement of cognition. The point can be
> generalized: communication is
Sun and earth do communicate, but resulting directly dyadic rather than triadic
relations, and with no involvement of cognition. The point can be generalized:
communication is broader than cognition.
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 15:02
To: Frederi
