This paper examines the biosemiotic approach to the study of life processes by fashioning a series of questions that any worthwhile semiotic study of life should ask. These questions can be understood simultaneously as: (1) questions that distinguish a semiotic biology from a non-semiotic (i.e., reductionist–physicalist) one; (2) questions that any student in biosemiotics should ask when doing a case study; and (3) still currently unanswered questions of biosemiotics. In addition, some examples of previously undertaken biosemiotic case studies are examined (...) so as to suggest a broad picture of how such a biosemiotic approach to biology might be done. (shrink)

With the publication of this inaugural issue of the internationally peer-reviewed journal Biosemiotics, our still-developing young interdiscipline marks yet another milestone in its journey towards adulthood. For this occasion, the editors of Biosemiotics have asked me to provide for those readers who may be newcomers to our field a very brief overview of the history of biosemiotics, contextualizing it within and against the larger currents of philosophical and scientific thinking from which it has emerged. To explain the origins of this (...) most twenty-first century endeavour effectively, however, will require tracing—at least to the level of a thumbnail sketch—how the ‘sign’ concept appeared, was lost, and now must be painstakingly rediscovered and refined in science. To relate this long history, this article will appear in Biosemiotics in three instalments, examining, respectively: (1) The History of the Sign Concept in Pre-Modernist Science, (2) The History of the Sign Concept in Modernist Science, and (3) The Biosemiotic Attempt to Develop a More Useful Sign Concept for Contemporary Science. In this instalment, we begin our introductory ‘stroll through the woods of sciences and signs’ by following the development of the sign concept within the context of scientific inquiry, in necessarily broad outline, from the beginnings of such inquiry in sixth century BCE, through its long development in the Middle Ages, and up unto the onset of modernity. For only within this larger historical context can our contemporary attempt to develop a naturalistic understanding of sign relations be understood. (shrink)

Face aux difficultés soulevées par le rapport de l'intellect à la chose intelligée — question qui suscite de nombreux débats aux confins des XIIIe et XIVe siècles —, Guillaume d'Ockham adopte une solution radicale: elle consiste à supprimer tout intermédiate entre l'acte d'intellection et la chose réelle, donnée dans sa présence singulière, ultime cause efficiente du procès d'émergence et d'élaboration de la connaissance. De ce fait, Guillaume d'Ockham rejette tout corrélat de la connaissance qui serait distinct de la chose même. (...) Cela revient à invalider aussi bien l'idée d'intentio in concreto que celle d'esse obiectivum. Sans faire l'unanimité, loin de là, la solution ockhamiste trouve des echos aussi bien chez des anglais tels que Gauthier Chatton ou Robert Holkot, que dans la pensée parisienne à partir de Jean Buridan. L'essentiel, de ce point de vue, est l'exigence de présence de la chose même dans le renvoi sémantique et dans le rapport de connaissance, par conséquent la détermination de l'objet — entendu comme ce qui fait face à l'intellect — à partir de la présence et de l'être donné, l'instauration d'une relation de causalité efficiente entre la chose et la connaissance. (shrink)