an example - if we take the comment:
" However it has recently been uncovered that more than 40 per cent
of proteins have no well-defined structure at all".
This suggests to me that Firstness is a basic component of an
organism, an organism that is obviously operating within the
processes of Thirdness and Secondness - and that this component of
Firstness within its boundaries, enables adaptation and evolution.
Now - can the same infrastructure be found within societal systems -
which must include all three categorical modes and therefore, must
include zones of stability and openness - and how much of each?
I'm sure many on this list may not want to move into these areas but
- I consider that Peircean semiosis provides a powerful tool to
analyze what is going on in the 'real world'.
Edwina
On Fri 14/09/18 10:12 AM , Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca sent:
For example - here's an outline of some research. I'm not suggesting
that we are experts in molecular biology, but I AM suggesting that it
might be possible to both explain and explore more possibilities,
using a Peircean semiosis infrastructure - of what is going on in
this realm.
"Researchers from the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute (BDI),
have identified what they have termed 'Structural Capacitance
Elements' in mutated proteins that are associated with many different
types of human diseases, in particular a range of cancers.
Structural Capacitance Elements are localised regions of disorder
within proteins, which retain the potential to coalesce into
'micro-structures' following the introduction of a mutation. They act
as nucleating seeds, or 'feedstock' for evolution to proceed,
providing the basis of an accelerated mechanism of Darwinian
evolution by natural selection, supplementing the slow and
incremental process of classic Darwinian evolution.
This discovery has recently been published in the Journal of
Molecular Biology. Lead researcher on this paper, Associate Professor
Ashley Buckle, explained the significance of this discovery.
"Up until now, the prevailing belief amongst structural biologists
has been that mutations that are implicated in disease act by
disrupting protein structures -- typically referred to as the
'loss-of-structure-function' paradigm. However it has recently been
uncovered that more than 40 per cent of proteins have no well-defined
structure at all," Associate Professor Buckle said.
"This prompted us to ask a very different question, and to turn the
prevailing belief on its head," he said.
Chen Li, Liah V.T. Clark, Rory Zhang, Benjamin T. Porebski, Julia M.
McCoey, Natalie A. Borg, Geoffrey I. Webb, Itamar Kass, Malcolm
Buckle, Jiangning Song, Adrian Woolfson, Ashley M. Buckle. Structural
Capacitance in Protein Evolution and Human Diseases. Journal of
Molecular Biology, 2018; 430 (18): 3200 DOI:
10.1016/j.jmb.2018.06.051 [1] "
On Fri 14/09/18 9:11 AM , Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca sent:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Agreed - and Pierce was quite specific that you don't need a
conscious and separate Mind to be involved in semiosis.
My point, again, is that I don't see the function of this list's
focus on classification and terminology. How does that, for example,
help us in examining the semiosic processes in a bacterium or in a
meadow, filled with diverse species, or in a hurricane, or in a
societal ideological movement or in artificial intelligence?
And even more deeply - do we want to move out of the seminar room
and into examining the semiosic processes of the outside world?
Edwina
On Fri 14/09/18 8:38 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 9/13/2018 11:27 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
> How do you classify biosemiotic using your scheme?
Very simply. Every living thing, from a bacterium on up, has
a quasi-mind with a phaneron that contains the kinds of signs
it recognizes and responds to.
When Peirce said "present to the mind in any way", he did not rule
out the unconscious. In fact, there are 51 instances of the word
'unconscious' in CP. Following is one of them:
> I am prepared to maintain, operations of the mind which are
logically
> exactly analogous to inferences excepting only that they are
unconscious
> and therefore uncontrollable and therefore not subject to
criticism.
> But that makes all the difference in the world; for inference is
> essentially deliberate, and self controlled. (CP 5.108)
The phrase "logically exactly analogous" implies that the
unconscious
(or at least an important component) involves signs of the same kind
as conscious thought, except for the option of awareness. Dreams,
for example, involve processes similar to conscious thought, but we
have no control over the sequences.
Higher animals may have something similar to human consciousness.
But the phaneron of lower animals, plants, and bacteria is probably
completely unconscious. A continuum rather than a sharp dividing
line is likely.
Re biosemiotic: Peirce mentioned parrots, dogs, and bees. And he
talked about the origin of life as the first non-degenerate
Thirdness.
He also mentioned crystals as a step along the way toward life. So
far, his guesses are consistent with modern views.
Deely and others talked about Jakob von Uexküll as another
important
influence. Uexküll used the term 'Umwelt' for the world that a
living organism perceives and acts in and on. The phaneron of any
living thing would be an essential component of its Umwelt.
John
Links:
------
[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2018.06.051
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
