2015
DOI: 10.1080/14688417.2015.1072948
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Steps to a science of biosemiotics

Abstract: In this essay, I argue that we ultimately need to re-ground biosemiotic theory on natural science principles and abandon the analogy with human level semiotics, except as this provides clues for guiding analysis. But, to overcome the implicit dualism still firmly entrenched in the biological sciences requires a third approach that is neither phenomenologically motivated nor based on a code analogy. This approach must preserve the centrality of the concept of interpretation (that is ubiquitous in the phenomenol… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is not our aim here to provide a careful review of all of those traditions (although we will do our best to refer to them wherever relevant). Instead, we see relevance realization as a promising framework that could provide a conceptual bridge between empirical approaches to organismic biology and the cognitive neurosciences, research into artificial intelligence, and intellectual traditions such as evolutionary epistemology (see, for example, Campbell, 1974;Lorenz, 1977;Bradie, 1986;Cziko, 1995;Bradie and Harms, 2023; but also Wimsatt, 2007), ecological psychology (Gibson, 1966(Gibson, , 1997, 4E cognition (Di Paolo et al, 2017;Durt et al, 2017;Newen et al, 2018;Carney, 2020;Shapiro and Spaulding, 2021), and biosemiotics (Favareau, 2010;Pattee & Rączaszek-Leonardi, 2012;Deacon, 2011Deacon, , 2015Barbieri, 2015). We draw from all of these in our argument.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is not our aim here to provide a careful review of all of those traditions (although we will do our best to refer to them wherever relevant). Instead, we see relevance realization as a promising framework that could provide a conceptual bridge between empirical approaches to organismic biology and the cognitive neurosciences, research into artificial intelligence, and intellectual traditions such as evolutionary epistemology (see, for example, Campbell, 1974;Lorenz, 1977;Bradie, 1986;Cziko, 1995;Bradie and Harms, 2023; but also Wimsatt, 2007), ecological psychology (Gibson, 1966(Gibson, , 1997, 4E cognition (Di Paolo et al, 2017;Durt et al, 2017;Newen et al, 2018;Carney, 2020;Shapiro and Spaulding, 2021), and biosemiotics (Favareau, 2010;Pattee & Rączaszek-Leonardi, 2012;Deacon, 2011Deacon, , 2015Barbieri, 2015). We draw from all of these in our argument.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is not our aim here to provide a careful review of all of those traditions (although we will do our best to refer to them wherever relevant). Instead, we see relevance realization as a promising framework that could provide a conceptual bridge between empirical approaches to organismic biology and the cognitive neurosciences, research into artificial intelligence, and intellectual traditions such as evolutionary epistemology (see, for example, Campbell, 1974;Lorenz, 1977;Bradie, 1986;Cziko, 1995;Bradie and Harms, 2023; but also Wimsatt, 2007), ecological psychology (Gibson, 1966(Gibson, , 1997, 4E cognition (Di Paolo et al, 2017;Durt et al, 2017;Newen et al, 2018;Carney, 2020;Shapiro and Spaulding, 2021), and biosemiotics (Favareau, 2010;Pattee & Rączaszek-Leonardi, 2012;Deacon, 2011Deacon, , 2015Barbieri, 2015). We draw from all of these in our argument.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here we join the effort of developing such a science. Focusing on the problem of "learning" new signs, we hope to contribute (i) to place choice at the core of semiotic theory of learning (Kull, 2018) and (ii) to make biosemiotics compatible with the information theoretic perspective that is regarded as currently dominant in physics, chemistry, and molecular biology (Deacon, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%