Abstract
Deacon’s target article is a welcome contribution not only on “biological information” but, more generally, on representation in cognitive science. Some kind of explanation and justification for use of the terms “representation” and “interpretant” for primordial autogen system would be helpful. A connection between the notions of “information” and “representation” can be elaborated more in this respect.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Derived, apparently, from Duns Scotus and its later development by John of St. Thomas (John Poinsot).
References
Burch, R. (2021). Charles Sanders Peirce. In: E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), forthcoming URL https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/peirce/.
Deacon, T. W. (2021). How molecules became signs. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9
Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, thought and other biological categories. The MIT Press.
Millikan, R. G. (2020). Neuroscience and teleosemantics. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02893-9.
Ramsey, W. M. (2007). Representation reconsidered. Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
I declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Millikan, R.G. Comment on the Relation between Representation and Information. Biosemiotics 14, 581–582 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09468-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09468-2