Dear Loet

I know that we have very divergent understandings of biosemiotics. The 
biosemiotic understanding of living systems is not based on a mechanistic 
either monistic or dualistic ontology but on a semiotic process philosophy 
based on an non-dual emptiness ontology that has some similarities to 
Bertallanffy’s General systems theory’s organicism or Aristotle’s hylozoism. I 
have tried to explain these differences in ontology in the papers from JPBMB 
below. I have summed up the cybersemiotic view as it looked some years ago here

Best wishes

Søren Brier

New articles in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology
How Peircean semiotic philosophy connects Western science with Eastern 
emptiness ontology    and
Peircean cosmogony's symbolic agapistic self-organization as an example of the 
influence of eastern philosophy on western thinking
2017 JPBMB Focused Issue on Integral Biomathics: The Necessary Conjunction of 
Western and Eastern Thought Traditions for Exploring the Nature of Mind and 
Life<>  *
* free promotional access to all focused issue articles until June 20th 2018
Brier, S. (2017). C.S. Peirce’s Phenomenological, Evolutionary and 
Trans-disciplinary Semiotic Conception of Science and Religion. Research as 
Realization: Science, Spirituality and Harmony. Editor / Ananta Kumar Giri. 
Delhi : Primus Books, 2017. pp. 53-96

From: [] On Behalf Of Loet 
Sent: 26. februar 2018 19:03
To: Søren Brier <>; Stanley N Salthe <>; 
fis <>
Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] A Paradox

Dear Soren,

I agree with Stan's wording, but your wording is ambiguous. The meaning is not 
biologically given, but constructed in a discourse among biologists. The 
discourse can also be theological and then one obtains "theological" meaning.


Loet Leydesdorff
Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <> ;
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <> University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ.<>, Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <> Beijing;
Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck<>, University of London;

------ Original Message ------
From: "Søren Brier" <<>>
To: "Stanley N Salthe" <<>>; 
"fis" <<>>
Sent: 2/26/2018 6:41:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Thanks Stan. I agree: Behind production and  interpretation of all quantitative 
data, there is  either an biological or an existential or a religious or a 
philosophical framework of meaning.


From: Stanley N Salthe 
Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19
To: Søren Brier <<>>; fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Following upon Søren:  Meaning is derived for a system by way of 
Interpretation.  The transmitted information has no meaning without 


On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier 
<<>> wrote:
Dear  Xueshan

The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass 
information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such a 
paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory  with 
it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here:

Cordially yours

                 Søren Brier

Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 
2000 Frederiksberg
Mobil 28494162<> ,<>.

Fra: Fis 
[<>] På 
vegne af Xueshan Yan
Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47
Til: FIS Group <<>>
Emne: [Fis] A Paradox

Dear colleagues,
In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the 
following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia 
Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and 
strictly limit our discussion within the human context.

Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media 
of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A 
and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline “Earthquake 
Occurred in Armenia Last Night”:
Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence?
A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.
Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence?
A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.
Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or 
strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, 
the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, 
the study of human information is called Human Informatics.
Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of 
human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic 
Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without 
loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard 
Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same.
Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main 
task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the 
disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human 
information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have 
the following corollary:
A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics.
According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for 
transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human 
Informatics, so we have another corollary:
B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics.
Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a 
paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement 
about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a 
subject, but how should we understand this paradox?

Best wishes,

Fis mailing list<>

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to