Dear Stan, This looks like a very useful tack and I am looking forward to reading about it. My "language" for situations where context does not affect the object-system interaction is that there is no adequate contradictorial relation in the interaction, and classical logic applies. We may still ask the question, however, about what to do where the property CANNOT be modeled in the way proposed. Is this a situation where the biotic informational approach of Kauffmann, Logan et al. (which everyone recalls, of course) is appropriate? How would you, Stan, describe the relation between physiosemiosis and biotic information? Logan (please correct me if I am mixing things up here) in fact talked about "topological semiosis"? Are similar readings of Peirce involved? Thank you and best wishes, Joseph ----Ursprüngliche Nachricht---- Von: ssal...@binghamton.edu Datum: 01.04.2011 21:38 An: <fis@listas.unizar.es> Betreff: Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering Principles It seems obvious to me that any property held by a very complex entity (e.g., human being), IF it can be modeled, then that model can be used to generalize that property ANYWHERE we wish to. On these grounds I have been busy working on 'physiosemiosis' using the triadic formulation of semiosis of Charles Peirce. I have proposed that the 'sign' emerges from the context of an interaction between object and system. If context has no effect on the interaction, there is no semiosis. If, on the contrary, context affects the interaction, then we have semiosis, even in a pond. The key is whether the trait involved can be modeled; on these grounds it has not yet been shown that 'qualia' can be generalized beyond the human experience, yet even a child can see, for example, that a mother hen is very unhappy when her chicks are threatened. STAN
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
