Re: SUO: Re[2]: SUO and New Semiotics
John,
Suppose now there is more wide point of view to the biosemiotics. For
example look at some quotations from
http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/txt/biosem.html which may be
interesting for SUO .
"...biosemiotics appears to be an applied branch of semiotics which adopts
semiotic concepts to biology. I
think we need the mutual dialogue between biology and semiotics, though.
So, we shall interpret the term
'biosemiotics' wider, not only as borrowing semiotic terms into biology but
also as enriching semiotics with
biological concepts, especially with functional-evolutionary approach."
" These laws [common semiotic laws in human society and in animal world]
, if they
exist, have to be formulated in non-anthropomorphic terms, based not on
subjective experience but on
observable events. Such non-anthropomorphic interpretation of semiotic
terms at first may seem to be
strange and unusual, but I see no other way of solving the problem. It is
impossible to invent a new
language for biosemiotics - it would be ambiguous and inconvenient."
" Two forms of information will be distinguished: potential and actual.
Potential information does not function
and is separated from the receiver. Actual information is either initially
bound with the system in which it
functions, or percepted by such a system and controls its activity (it may
be not only physical activity but
mental activity as well). The essence of information is expressed only in
its active form."
Regards,
Leonid
============================================================================
=================
Leonid Ototsky, leo@mmk.ru, www.mgn.ru/~ototsky/ototskyhome.html,
www.mgn.ru/~abzakovo/photos/finish.html
Chief Specialist of the Computer Center,
Iron&Steel Works (MMK) , www.mmk.ru/old/eng/index.html,
Magnitogorsk, www.mgn.ru/magnitogorsk/Photos/photos_eng.htm
Russia
============================================================================
=================
----- Original Message -----
From: John F. Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net>
To: Leonid Ototsky <lototsky@mail.ru>; <sowa@bestweb.net>; Leonid Ototsky
<leo@mmk.ru>; West, Matthew MR SSI-GPEA-UK <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>;
<apease@teknowledge.com>; <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: SUO: Re[2]: SUO and New Semiotics
>
> Leonid,
>
> >Thanks for the info. But what about the SUO intention to take
> >into account the biosemiotics ?
>
> I believe that semiotics is very important. I also agree
> with Peirce that there is a continuity of semiotic processes
> at every level of living organisms. Peirce even mentioned
> "crystals and bees" as examples. If he had known about DNA,
> he would have been ecstatic.
>
> However, the SUO is not a living organism that has any
> intentions of its own. If anything gets into SUO, someone
> will have to develop a specific proposal, present it in
> detail, show how the semiotic (including biosemiotic)
> concepts can be formalized, and demonstrate that the
> formalization can solve some serious practical problems.
>
> That is a nontrivial amount of work. It is a task that
> I would be interested in working on, along with the other
> 2317 unfinished projects on my input stack.
>
> John Sowa