Søren wrote: "Even to produces thoughts and feeling demands work. (073114-1) That would be a biosemiotic view (but one that we have not discussed much). But I think you are correct in saying that Peirce did not do any work on this aspect of sign production."
I am glad to learn this fact about Peircean semiotics. If Statement (073114-1) is true, I think we can legitimately conclude that "Peircean semiotics is incomplete because it does (073114-2) not address the energetics of semiosis, and no semiosis can occur without being supported by energy dissipation, i.e., converting free energy into heat." Another more picturesque way of stating the same conclusion, using the Sohl-Guhs pine tree and birds legend described in my reply to Ben in PEIRCE-L dated July 30, 2014, may be: Semioticians ignoring the energetics of semiosis is akin to (073114-3) Sohl-Guhs birds ignoring the difference between a painted pine tree and a real one. To construct a more complete semiotics (which may be conveniently named the neo-Peircean semiotics), I suggest that It may be necessary to combine both the informatics of (073114-4) semiosis largely embodied in the traditional Peircean semiotics, and the energetics of semiosis that began to emerge only after Peirces passing, for example, in molecular and cell biology. With all the best. Sung _________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > Dear Clark and list > > My I add a few thoughts? I agree that sign are reals, but when they > manifests as tokens their Secondness must enter the world of physics and > thermodynamics must apply. It is work to make signs emerge in non-verbal > communication or as language from ones feeling and thoughts. Even to > produces thoughts and feeling demands work. That would be a biosemiotic > view (but one that we have not discussed much). But I think you are > correct in saying that Peirce did not do any work on this aspect of sign > production. > > Best > > Søren > > Fra: Clark Goble [mailto:[email protected]] > Sendt: 31. juli 2014 20:11 > Til: Sungchul Ji; Peirce-L > Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for > > > On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Sungchul Ji > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Yes. That is what I am saying, and I too distinguish between material > process of semiotics and semiotics in general. My working hypothesis is > that > > "Physics of words/signs is necessary but (073114-2) > not sufficient for their semiosis." > > or that > > "No equilibrium structures can carry out semiosis (073114-3) > unless and until transformed into dissipative > structures by being activated by input of free > energy. For example, words on a piece of paper > must be lit before they can convey information." > > Right, but again that is an ontological assumption of the underlying > substrate for semiotic process. Those who adopt a more idealist rather > than materialist ontology will simply not agree with that. And indeed > Peirce, in both his early and mature phases, would disagree with that > conception. (Again, noting that one can simply mine Peircean semiotics > without taking all his thought) > > Thus my point about knowledge of a system and whether that system can be > conceived of semiotically. > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
