Thought?

plz

Anyone ever read "Psychological Variables in Human Cancer?" It astounds me that the case of Mr. Wright hasn't garnered more attention

Options:
1. Use the settings of your display.
2. f.lux: justgetflux.com/
3. Redshift: jonls.dk/redshift/

I'm using 1 and 3. Also, I don't work in complete darkness.

seems like a worse, more developed version of this
>This book presents an interpretation of pharmaceutical, surgical and psychotherapeutic interventions based on a univalent metalanguage: biosemiotics. It proposes that a metalanguage for the physical, mental, social, and cultural aspects of health and medicine could bring all parts and aspects of human life together and thus shape a picture of the human being as a whole, made up from the heterogeneous images of the vast variety of sciences and technologies in medicine discourse. The book adopts a biosemiotics clinical model of thinking because, similar to the ancient principle of alchemy, tam ethice quam physice, everything in this model is physical as much as it is mental. Signs in the forms of vibrations, molecules, cells, words, images, reflections and rites conform cultural, mental, physical, and social phenomena. The book decodes healing, dealing with health, illness and therapy by emphasizing the first-person experience as well as objective events. It allows readers to follow the energy-information flows through and between embodied minds and to see how they form physiological functions such as our emotions and narratives.

for those not familiar with the field of biosemiotics that might sound esoteric. the concept of a mind in biosemiotics is much broader than in layspeak and traditional biology
if this is true for you read this
e-edu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/319303/mod_resource/content/0/Texts_for_the_READER/Lesson_13_Favareau_History_biosemiotics.pdf

Biosemiotics is a renaissance in the life sciences

Kek, biosemiotics is not directly related to the biopsychosocial model.

On the other hand; you never learned that biosemiotics is just an anthropomorphised, overfitted case of variational free energy minimisation?
Top kek, get rid of your book.

FOOL!
>biosemiotics is not directly related to the biopsychosocial model.
Never did I make such a claim.
>biosemiotics is just an anthropomorphised
How is it anthropomorphised? meaning is what has been anthropomorphized.
>overfitted case of variational free energy minimisation
To the contrary The FEP explains the emergence of biological sign vehicles that can carry meaning from external states(objects). And biosemiotics explains how living systems reproduce and evolve. Triadic semiotics explains how the once 'hidden state' is given meaning of capable of being interpreted and used to minimize free energy.
>overfitted
If by overfitted you mean generally applicable. It is the logic of signification and interpretation applied to biological systems.

Semiosis is a construct of the social sciences. Biosemiosis is just the same as the outdated cumbersome use of computer cpu analogies in cognition.

FEP is a mathematical theory of least action acting as a gauge theory in biology and a basis of bayesian updates in speciation and natural selection. Free energy doesnt just explain the vehicles. Through mean field factorization, free energy minimization explains the emergence of "semiotic" interactions from intractable non-linear dynamical systems. Moreover it explains the necessity for this dynamic coupling through the tool of markov blanktets in the same vein as the good regulator theorem in a sense that is complementary to synergetics and coordination dynamics a la haken and kelso. Furthermore, friston has proved that all model learning and bayesian inference are special cases of variational bayes.

>semiotics is a product of the social sciences
Semiotics sensu peirce is the science of meaning-making firmly rooted in logic. To call it a social science is to declare yourself an ignoramus.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/
> Through mean field factorization, free energy minimization explains the emergence of "semiotic" interactions from intractable non-linear dynamical systems. Moreover it explains the necessity for this dynamic coupling through the tool of markov blanktets in the same vein as the good regulator theorem in a sense that is complementary to synergetics and coordination dynamics a la haken and kelso. Furthermore, friston has proved that all model learning and bayesian inference are special cases of variational bayes.
Like I said, it is complementary to the emergence, and functioning of biosemiotics. As are Haken sense synergetics and coordination dynamics.
>Furthermore, friston has proved that all model learning and bayesian inference are special cases of variational bayes.
I am a philosopher and life scientist, I don't understand this conceptually. explain to me how model learning is related to the signification and interpretation of what is learned.

Mutual information does not explain meaning, inference and all that jazz depends on "codes" and "signals" yet treats them in a metaphorical sense. It's just fucking silly. Information must be signified and interpreted to do work. It's seems there has been a lot of theoretical gymnastics to get around that fact to describe the same process in a way that isn't empirically observable and offers less explanatory utility.
trying to explain the relationship between internal and external states is an unnecessary obfuscation of meaning-making and the result of ghostly Cartesian dualist dogma.
Recognizing biological systems as the concrete mainifestation of abstract biosemiotic systems clarifies what life does as a perduring process in a way you will never get from trying to model the physical entities life functions in.

Please watch this lecture, it will clear up a lot of where bio semiotics fits into all of this, and hopefully some of your toxic arrogance.
“The Emergence of Biosemiotics from Physiochemical Dynamics” — Terrence Deacon
media.uoregon.edu/channel/archives/5936

Also read the first link afterwards.

Incase you get board, this might activate some almonds about variational bayes, model learning Bayesian inference and the emergence of biosemiotics from such

>Biosemiosis is just the same as the outdated cumbersome use of computer cpu analogies in cognition.
Yes it does imply something like computational functionalism, except the recognition of the mind as a higher order system nested in a living system realized by biosemiotic systems capable of meaning-making, resolves the "china" problems. At least as far as I can tell, I don't think too much about that. Though I'm pretty sure I'm on to something cuz I'm one smart cookie.
The analogy would go like
Biosemiotics are the programmers
Biological systems are the hardware
The mind is the software
Or something like that.

Models are relevant because it is proved all organisms are models of their environment. They therefore prescribe the sensory input they expect to encounter and act to fulfil these expectations. Because of intractability, approximate posteriors are used to predict this input. These posteriors are what create meaning because they give a tractability to input and the inputs significance for the organisms and its milieu. The signal cannot have meaning either way without organisms or systems being models of their environment.

I.e. meaning only becomes reasonable in terms of "belief" states.

A disease is caused by the thing that causes the disease. Sure many factors can make you more susceptible to it but without the thing you will never get it. Now that's obvious but I guess to some people (ie physicians) it isn't--just look at how long it took for them to realize stomach ulcers were indeed caused by a bacterium for fucks sake.

Meaning is an unexplained term in semiotics for me. To me semiotics just seems to add an extra word "signs" to nature without making much of a difference. And signs is suh a loaded term. As semiotics is a tradition from social science, it seems to me biosemiosis is just an attempt to bring certain social features into the biologica world to bring about some kind of resonancw between them

The thing is, models and inference and prediction has everything to do with meaning or interpreting signs *sensory input*.

Whats your point? And i think many diseases have many many causes built up over time and develop gradually. Thats accurate of mental illness as well as thinhs like heart or lung disease. As opposed to strokes or viruses with specific causes.

>not expanding it to count in the environmental and the molecular implications on the patient

Astroecobiopsychosocialchemicalnuclear model ftw.

>Peirce held that science achieves statistical probabilities, not certainties, and that spontaneity (absolute chance) is real (see Tychism on his view). Most of his statistical writings promote the frequency interpretation of probability (objective ratios of cases), and many of his writings express skepticism about (and criticize the use of) probability when such models are not based on objective randomization.[98] Though Peirce was largely a frequentist, his possible world semantics introduced the "propensity" theory of probability before Karl Popper.[99][100] Peirce (sometimes with Joseph Jastrow) investigated the probability judgments of experimental subjects, "perhaps the very first" elicitation and estimation of subjective probabilities in experimental psychology and (what came to be called) Bayesian statistics.[2]
>Peirce was one of the founders of statistics. He formulated modern statistics in "Illustrations of the Logic of Science" (1877–8) and "A Theory of Probable Inference" (1883). With a repeated measures design, Charles Sanders Peirce and Joseph Jastrow introduced blinded, controlled randomized experiments in 1884[101] (Hacking 1990:205)[1] (before Ronald A. Fisher).[2] He invented optimal design for experiments on gravity, in which he "corrected the means". He used correlation and smoothing. Peirce extended the work on outliers by Benjamin Peirce, his father.[2] He introduced terms "confidence" and "likelihood" (before Jerzy Neyman and Fisher). (See Stephen Stigler's historical books and Ian Hacking
do you know who Charles Sanders Peirce is?
the founder of semiotics. the greatest logician to ever
. here is a quote.
> "it has never been in my power to study anything,—mathematics, ethics, metaphysics, gravitation, thermodynamics, optics, chemistry, comparative anatomy, astronomy, psychology, phonetics, economics, the history of science, whist, men and women, wine, metrology, except as a study of semiotic”

>Meaning is an unexplained term in semiotics for me

>As semiotics is a tradition from social science, it seems to me biosemiosis is just an attempt to bring certain social features into the biologica world to bring about some kind of resonancw between them
semiotics is not a social science.
it is the study of semiotic, it can be applied to any science
like i said, you have no idea what you are talking about
just read this ffs
e-edu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/319303/mod_resource/content/0/Texts_for_the_READER/Lesson_13_Favareau_History_biosemiotics.pdf
i see no point in debating someone who hasn't made any effort to understand the context of the argument. (assuming you haven't tried)

see the triadic model of semiosis

In medschool the literally who classes always push this shit. Obviously you won't get the flu if the virus isn't there, that bring said, there are a lot of very real psicological factors that affect the development of a patient sickness, like stress for example.

>he doesn't use solarized

Lol bayesian theories of life have nothing to do with hypothesis testing in scientific method.

And for the quote... he would say that wouldnt he...

I actually have read some. I read earloer on a paper. And even in that paper by a guy in biosemiotics... kull or krull or somin... it talks about the origins of semiotics in linguistics and structuralism. Ot may apply to biology but im write when i say it originated in social sciences.

Ive seen the triad, does nothing for me.

All i see in biosemiotics is importing signals and messages into biology as a means of enactivism in order to help them survive. I think bringing signs into it is unnecessary and purely semantic and in any case, semiotics doesnt seem to have a systematic reasoning of how or why signs come into existence.

The organism as an inferential machine with predictions and expectations to furnish homeostasis is actually better at explaining this. It explains why a signal should even mean something to another organism, how it should percieve it and why an organism would send a signal in the first place. As an inferential process this also brings the terminology of "belief" into it which compliments the idea of the sign.

Now the fact that free energy doesnt even need to bring signals into its explanations but can be used to furnish semiotics shows how redundant semiotics really is. Its a red herring.

I should also add that bayesian perspectives can even explain meaning of something like a sign.. or anything.. in terms of inferring latent causes that produce the observable information which is to be interpreted. Then you can make predictions from the context. Surely thats what meaning is. Semiotics just looks at meaning in this weird mysterious way.

Dumb frogposter

Give it ~10-20 years and we will know most heart attacks, cancers etc are probably infectious disease

What makes you think that? Funny how people here are happy to blurt shit without evidencr. Will we say the same about depression?

I think the most obvious example is obesity, which is a sickness which extends to or from the patient's own psychological problems.