Movatterモバイル変換

Biosemiotics argues that “sign” and “meaning” are two essential concepts for the explanation of life. Peircean biosemiotics, founded by Tomas Sebeok from Peirce’s semiotics and Jacob von Uexkül’s studies on animal communication, today makes up the mainstream of this discipline. Marcello Barbieri has developed an alternative account of meaning in biology based on the concept of code. Barbieri rejects Peircean biosemiotics on the grounds that this discipline opens the door to nonscientific approaches to biology through its use of the concept (...) of “interpretation.” In this article, it is noted that Barbieri does not adequately distinguish among Peirce’s semiotics, Peircean biosemiotics, and “interpretation-based” biosemiotics. Two key arguments of Barbieri are criticized: his limited view of science and his rejection of “interpretation-based” biosemiotics. My argument is based on tools taken from a different approach: Robert Rosen’s relational biology. Instead of “signs” and “meanings,” the study begins in this case from the “components” and “functions” of the organism. Rosen pursues a new definition of a law of nature, introduces the anticipatory nature of organisms, and defines the living being as a system closed to efficient cause. It is shown that Code Biosemiotics and Peircean biosemiotics can share a common field of study. Additionally, some proposals are suggested to carry out a reading of Rosen’s biology as a biosemiotic theory. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

Robert Rosen’s relational biology and biosemiotics share the claim that life cannot be explained by the laws that apply to the inanimate world alone. In this paper, an integrated account of Rosen’s relational biology and Peirce’s semiosis is proposed. The ultimate goal is to contribute to the construction of a unified framework for the definition and study of life. The relational concepts of component and mapping, and the semiotic concepts of sign and triadic relation are discussed and compared, and a (...) representation of semiotic relations with mappings is proposed. The role of the final cause in two theories that account for what differentiates living beings, natural selection and relational biology, is analyzed. Then the presence of the final cause in Peirce’s semiosis is discussed and, with it, the similarities and differences between the theories of Rosen and Peirce are deepened. Then, a definition of a semiotic relation in an organism is proposed, and Short’s definition of interpretation is applied. Finally, a method to identify and analyze semiotic actions in an organism is proposed. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

In the ‘Barbieri’s Concept of Mechanisms’ section on page 12 of above mentioned article.

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

In a previous paper, an integrated account of Rosen’s relational biology and Peirce’s semiosis has been proposed. Both theories have been compared and basic concepts have been posited for the definition of a unified framework for the study of biology, as well as a method for the identification and analysis of the presence of signs in an organism. The analysis of the existence of semiotic actions in an organism must, without a doubt, begin by considering each of the rules that (...) constitute the genetic code as a candidate for a semiotic relation. Transcription and translation, which constitute protein synthesis, are the basis of the specificity that the organism needs to maintain itself in its environment and reproduce, and the precondition of the existence of any other possible semiosis. Applying the concepts and method of the aforementioned work, this paper analyzes which of the biological processes involved in protein synthesis correspond to semiotic actions and the type of the signs identified, according to Peirce’s classification of icons, indices and symbols. The results of this work demonstrate the theoretical consistency and the practical utility of integrating the theories of Rosen and Peirce, offer a way to identify other signs in an organism, and support a critical analysis of code biology and protosemiosis, two accounts that deny the possibility of explaining the signs in an organism with Peirce’s semiosis. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation