Thanks for bringing Soren Brier's summary statement to our attention, Gary. I put a link to it up at Arisbe.  (Soren was on the PEIRCE-L list for quite a while some years back.)  Does anyone know anything about what he calls "the critical realist" movement?  With whom does that originate?
 
Joe Ransdell
 
-- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: [Fwd: [Fis] Søren Brier, Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School is defending his doctoral thesis: "Cybersemiotics - Why information is not enough!" ]

<>Excerpt perhaps summarizing a 15 page abstract in English of Brier’s Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough!
 http://www.cbs.dk/content/download/36989/554713/file/doctoralsummary.pdf

The Cybersemiotic paradigm combines a non-mechanistic universal evolutionary semiotic approach to epistemology, ontology, and signification with a systemic and cybernetic approach to self-organization, drawing on Luhmann’s theories of social communication. This combines a semiotics of nature with pragmatic linguistics in a second-order approach, reflecting the role of the observer as the producer of meaningful contexts that makes processes and differences information. Bateson claimed that information is a difference that makes a difference, whereas Maturana and Verela clarified that structurally coupled autopoiesis is necessary for any cognition to take place. Like Peirce I will claim that an interpretant, and therefore a sign process, must be established to create signification, which differs from objective information because of its meaning content.

<>A short version of how integration between the different approaches can be made could be the following: Individuals [sic] interpreters see differences in their world that make a difference to them as information. Thus “the world” is the world of Heidegger (1962) in which the observer is thrown among things “ready at hand”, through which a “breakdown” of the original unconscious unity become [sic] “present at hand”. This situation is possible only by assigning signs to differences and interpreting them against a general non-reducible context. Living autopoietic systems do this by producing signs as parts of life forms. Signs can thus be said to obtain meanings through sign games. In the human social spheres forms of life give rise to language games. This part of social autopoiesis is what Luhmann calls social communication, employing what Peirce calls genuine triadic signs. Thus cognition and communication are self-organizing phenomena on all three levels: biological, psychological, and sociological/cultural. They produce meaningful information by brining forth an Umwelt, which in Cybersemiotics is called a signification sphere, connected to specific life practices such as mating, hunting, tending the young, defending etc. These characteristics distinguish cognition and communication in living systems from the simulations of these processes by computers. The forces and regularities of nature influence and constrain our perceptions and spark evolution. This process can be explained scientifically to some degree, but probably never in any absolute or classical scientific conception of the word, as Laplace thought. In my opinion, meaning cannot be defined independently from an observer and a world. Meaning is only created when a difference makes such a difference to the living system that it must make signs, join a group of communicating observers, and produce a meaningful world.


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.8/260 - Release Date: 2/14/2006

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

Reply via email to