Citations of work:

Kalevi Kull, Claus Emmeche & Donald Favareau (2008). Biosemiotic Questions.

6 found
Order:
Are we missing citations?

PhilPapers citations & references are currently in beta testing. We expect to add many more in the future.

Meanwhile, you can use our bibliography tool to import references for this or another work.

Or you can directly add citations for the above work:

  1.  4
    The First Decade of Biosemiotics.Timo Maran, Alexei Sharov & Morten Tønnessen - 2017 - Biosemiotics 10 (3):315-318.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  30
    Epistemic, Evolutionary, and Physical Conditions for Biological Information.H. H. Pattee - 2013 - Biosemiotics 6 (1):9-31.
    The necessary but not sufficient conditions for biological informational concepts like signs, symbols, memories, instructions, and messages are (1) an object or referent that the information is about, (2) a physical embodiment or vehicle that stands for what the information is about (the object), and (3) an interpreter or agent that separates the referent information from the vehicle’s material structure, and that establishes the stands-for relation. This separation is named the epistemic cut, and explaining clearly how the stands-for relation is (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  3.  8
    Taking the Relational Turn: Biosemiotics and Some New Trends in Biology. [REVIEW]Eliseo Fernández - 2010 - Biosemiotics 3 (2):147-156.
    A cluster of similar trends emerging in separate fields of science and philosophy points to new opportunities to apply biosemiotic ideas as tools for conceptual integration in theoretical biology. I characterize these developments as the outcome of a “relational turn” in these disciplines. They signal a shift of attention away from objects and things and towards relational structures and processes. Increasingly sophisticated research technologies of molecular biology have generated an enormous quantity of experimental data, sparking a need for relational approaches (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4.  7
    Steps to a Semiotics of Being.Morten Tønnessen - 2010 - Biosemiotics 3 (3):375-392.
    The following points, which represent a path to a semiotics of being, are pertinent to various sub-fields at the conjunction of semiotics of nature (biosemiotics, ecosemiotics, zoosemiotics) and semiotics of culture—semioethics and existential semiotics included. 1) Semiotics of being entails inquiry at all levels of biological organization, albeit, wherever there are individuals, with emphasis on the living qua individuals (integrated biological individualism). 2) An Umwelt is the public aspect (cf. the Innenwelt, the private aspect) of a phenomenal/experienced world that is (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  5.  54
    Theses on Biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a Theoretical Biology.Kalevi Kull, Terrence Deacon, Claus Emmeche, Jesper Hoffmeyer & Frederik Stjernfelt - 2009 - Biological Theory 4 (2):167-173.
    Theses on the semiotic study of life as presented here provide a collectively formulated set of statements on what biology needs to be focused on in order to describe life as a process based on semiosis, or sign action. An aim of the biosemiotic approach is to explain how life evolves through all varieties of forms of communication and signification (including cellular adaptive behavior, animal communication, and human intellect) and to provide tools for grounding sign theories. We introduce the concept (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  6.  12
    Response by H. H. Pattee to Jon Umerez's Paper: “Where Does Pattee's “How Does a Molecule Become a Message?” Belong in the History of Biosemiotics?”. [REVIEW]H. H. Pattee - 2009 - Biosemiotics 2 (3):291-302.
    Umerez’s analysis made me aware of the fundamental differences in the culture of physics and molecular biology and the culture of semiotics from which the new field of biosemiotics arose. These cultures also view histories differently. Considering the evolutionary span and the many hierarchical levels of organization that their models must cover, models at different levels will require different observables and different meanings for common words, like symbol, interpretation, and language. These models as well as their histories should be viewed (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations