Talk:Biosemiotics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-Class) | ||
|---|---|---|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles about the idea of systems. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid importance within Systems. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
[edit] Copyright problem
Hi,
Angela indicated that there might be a copyright problem with the text on biosemiotics I posted yesterday, because it is published at this link:
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/pages/biosemioticsdef.html
which is a page of the S.E.E.D. journal.
However, (1) I was the author of that page (with kind cunsulting help from Kalevi Kull), and (2) my entry on biosemiotics was expanded and modified, so the two entries are not identical, and (3) I hope they will diverge even more in wikipedian textual evolution, because my purpose of posting the entry to Wikipedia is that I like the idea of having made only a seed to let other people (biologists, biosemioticians and other interested parties) join and let the text grow. Symbols grow, as Peirce said. Peirce as a major inspiration for biosemiotics, and Peirce would have admired the idea of a truly collective encyclopedia.
Sincerely yours, Claus E.
The problem is that biosemiotics in its end will say just “everything is alive”. Simply because any single movement of any single molecule could be a sign for some system. Therefore despite the good will it will not resolve Cartesian duality but simply deny the existence of physical “dead” world, saying – probably it is true – that there is only “live world”, where “death” means creation of billions of other lives, with their own signal systems. So, as soon as the basic idea could not be falsified (or it can be? Then how?), biosemiotics should not be considered as science per se, but rather as it is defined now – another perspective on the phenomenon of life. Best, D. Poltavets (denis.poltavets@gmail.com)
- This is not correct. Thomas Sebeok, a major proponent of biosemiotics, has strongly emphasised that semiosis begins with life, and that cells are the elementary semiotic systems (also claimed by Copenhagen-Tartu School of biosemiotics). Oldekop (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for enhancement
This sounds interesting, but is this a science? Did it make any predictions? Can someone add them to the article? --Argav ۞ 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
