{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04260355029585799, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035502958579881655, 'mean_word_length': 4.565789473684211, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[The model of the non-trivial machine or the semiotic alternative. Remarks to Th. v. Uexkülls and W. Weisiacks regarding the theoretical basis of human medicine].

The authors discuss the attempt by v. Uexküll and Wesiack to formulate the basics of human medicine within the framework of a sign theory. They criticize this attempt mainly in three points: 1. Central concepts of their model--i.e. "meaning", "sign" or "signcoupling"--are only used as general concepts and not in the differentiated manner they are conventionally used in semiotics. 2. Human behavior is reduced to conditioned reflex systems which are merely described in a different, semiotic way. 3. Problems evolving from the epistemology of a radical constructivism on which their model of a "bio-psycho-social medicine" is based, remain not only unsolved but also undiscussed.