Advertisement

Possible contribution of biosemiotics to the problem of communication among lymphocyts

  • Thure von Uexküll
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 23)

Abstract

The reason for discussing semiotics at this meeting of immunologists is the fact of being faced with a strange situation Immunologists are forced to use unusual expressions in order to describe their observations. Expressions like “memory”, “recognition”, “interpretation”, “individuality”, “reading”, “inner picture”, “self”, “nonself”, “iso-, idio-, allotype” or “killing” — to list only some of them — are unknown in physics and chemistry. Atoms and molecules have no self, memory, individuality, or inner pictures. They are not able to read, to recognise or to interpret anything and cannot be killed either.

Keywords

Conditioned Stimulus Living System Strange Situation Saliva Production Subjective Reality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature references

  1. Anderson, M., J. Deely, M. Krampen, J. Ransdell, T. A. Sebeok, T. v. Uexküll:A semiotic perspective on the sciences: Steps toward a new paradigm. Semiotica 52–1/2 (1984) 7–47.Google Scholar
  2. Eco, U.: Einführung in die Semiotik (1972) München.Google Scholar
  3. Ehrenfels, Ch.v.: ct. Kofka, K.Google Scholar
  4. Köhler, W.: Gestaltprobleme und Anfänge einer Gestalttheorie. Jahrb. ges. Physiolol. (1922)Google Scholar
  5. Kofka, K.: Principles of Gestaltpsychology. (1935,1950) LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Krampen, M.: Phytosemiotics. In: Deely, J., B. Williams, F.E. Kruze (Eds) Frontiers in Semiotics, Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press (1986) 83–95.Google Scholar
  7. Medawar, P.B., J.S. Medawar: The life science. Harper & Row (1977) New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London.Google Scholar
  8. Peirce, C.S.: Collected papers (1931/35) Vol 1–6, Harvard Universtity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Piaget, J.: La construction du reel chez l’enfant (1950) Neuchâtel (Swiss).Google Scholar
  10. Popper, K.R.: Die Theorie der Emergenz und ihre Kritik. In: Popper k. R., J.C. Eccles: Das Ich und sein Gehirn (1982) München.Google Scholar
  11. Prodi, G.: Le basi materiali della signalisatione (1977) Milano.Google Scholar
  12. Schult, J.: Zeichenvermitteltes Verhalten bei Spinnen. Zeitschrift f. Semiotik (1986) 8,3 253–276.Google Scholar
  13. Sebeok, T.A.: The sign and its masters (1978) Austin, London.Google Scholar
  14. Sebeok, T.A.: Animal communication: Techniques of study and results. (1968) Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  15. Tembrock, G.: Biokommunikation, (1975) Reinbeck b.Hamburg.Google Scholar
  16. Todt, D.: Hinweis-Charakter und Mittler-Funktion von Verhalten. Zeitschrift f. Semiotik (1986) 8,3 183–132.Google Scholar
  17. Uexküll, J.v.: Theoretische Biologie (1920) Berlin.Google Scholar
  18. Uexküll, J.v.: A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. In: C. Schiller and K.S. Lashley (Eds) Instinctive behavior, International Universities Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Uexküll, T.v.: Jakob von Uexküll’s The theory of meaning. Semiotica (1982) Vo. 42–1.Google Scholar
  20. Wiener, N.: Cybernetics or control and comminication in the animal and the machine. (1948, 1961) Mass. Inst. Technol.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thure von Uexküll
    • 1
  1. 1.University of UlmGermany

Personalised recommendations