> On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Personally, I tend to side with the latter of the two schools, based on the > observation that the science of physics does not need semiotics in the > description of its subject matter (only in its theory of science) while > biology, on all levels, involves spontaneous semiotic concepts, from > biochemistry to ecology and ethology you'll find "genetic code", > "Information", "signals", "cues" etc. which presumably form part of the > subject matter of biology.
Could you clarify what you mean with this distinction? I know physics is cast in various guises. Even in basic mechanics. But I just don’t see the distinction. (Undoubtedly a failing on my part) While physics is often thought through in terms of secondness, I’m not sure one can actually describe physics in that manner.
----------------------------- 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 .
