> Of course, this mechanistic semiotics does not work well and
> people started amending it. Uexkull recognized that Umwelt requires
> interpretation; it simply does not exist without interpreter.
Yes, that seems absolutly true.
> There is no 'generic' meadow, but there is a meadow for an ant
> and a meadow for a cow, which are entirely different things.
Yes
> Learning means Umwelt-building.
NO ! Learning is creating concepts and rules for representing in our
brain things, relationships, correlations etc. All this is done in our
brain, and represents information received from the environment (through
the senses). Only this information is knowable to us, not the
environment (Umwelt) itself. The Umwelt, or as Kant said, the "Ding an
sich" is unknowable.
> We must see the world as consisting of parts that form wholes
> and wholes that can be analyzed partly in terms of parts; whereas in
> reality they are one thing.
Yes, they are one thing and unknowable. Only the "emanations" from this
one thing can reach us through our senses.
> Even a unit identified as a "forest" is not so easy to define.
Are you talking about "part" of the environment or about a concept in a
brain or our brains?
> Is it a real unit with respect to nature or only with respect to
> human interests?
The CONCEPT "forest" is a unit in human brains and with respect to
human interests.
> Is there such a thing as a forest if no species perceives it as such?
There obviously is no concept of "forest" if there is no species which
can create the concept.
What in the environment creates the sigt and sound waves which we label
with the concept "forest" is quite unknowable.
> By the way, despite the discussion so far, I still think "context" is > the
best english translation for Umwelt.
My native language is German and I agree, BUT the word concept expresses
different things in different contexts and different things to different
persons. In scientific and philosophical texts important words should be
defined, the author should state explicitely what concept his word
refers to. Somewhat like I did in:
http://www.anice.net.ar/intsyst/glossary.htm
Walter Fritz