V. Systems Evolution: A 21st Century Genesis Synthesis
C. Evoinformatics: A Biosemiotic Quality
Maran, Timo. Dimensions of Zoosemiotics. Semiotica. 198/1, 2014. An Introduction to a special double issue on this approach, a half-century after Thomas Sebeok’s entry of this term, to view creaturely, and human, signifying communication as life’s primary sustaining quality. For content, we note Zoosemiotics is the Study of Animal Forms of Knowing by Kaveli Kull, Zoo-Aesthetics: A Natural Step After Darwin by Katya Mandoki, and especially The Semiome: From Genetic to Semiotic Scaffolding by Jesper Hoffmeyer. Abstract excerpts are included for these insightful readings of nature’s creative dialogue.
Kaveli Kull This article characterizes briefly the central aims of the semiotic study of animal life. Semiotic sciences in general can be defined as approaches to the study of various forms of knowing (as different from physical sciences, which study various things in the world), considering that knowing is possible only due to semiosis. The semiosphere is the sphere of knowing (knowing being always related to learning and acting). The basic types of knowing (as well as semiosis) include the vegetative, the animal, and the cultural. Zoosemiotics is focused on the animal type of knowing. Animal knowing is characterized by its use of iconic and indexical relations, whereas the extensive use of symbols is a prerequisite of specifically human (cultural, language-based) semiosis. However, the human organism also includes animal knowing as an inevitable part of its knowing. Knowledge cannot be credible if it is exclusively symbolic; it requires that iconic and indexical semiosis be involved.
Marcello, Barbieri. The Semantic Theory of Language. Biosystems. January, 2020. The University of Ferrera embryologist has been a veteran contributor (search) to the biosemiotic view that living systems are most distinguished by a series of code-like activities. But this vital perspective still seems to be in a formative phase as it morphs into various interpretations. The paper opens by saying that since Aristotle language has served to link sounds and meaning by way of phonetic and cognitive aspects. As the Abstract cites, recently N. Chomsky added a nuance that Marcello doesn’t approve. In his broader scope, harking back to C. Peirce (1839-1914), the founder of a semiotic philosophy, a further revision is proposed to sort all this out into the 2020s. An emphasis is put on three main genetic, neural and symbolic codes, which are then coordinated with the unique human feature that babies are born in such an immature state that they require a long post period to mature.
Traditional linguistics was based on the idea that language links sounds and meaning. Later on due to Noam Chomsky, this view has been replaced by the idea that children learn a language because of an innate mechanism to do so. But there is still no evidence that such a device exists. Another process is the ability of higher animals to interpret what goes on in the world, which is not based on fixed rules but on a process that Charles Peirce called abduction. This allows us to generalize into the semantic view of language, a theory that language is an activity which gives meaning to sounds. This can give us a new framework for studying the origin of language without resorting to a certain device. Herein, the origin of language is compared with the origin of life and of mind, because those mega-transitions generated the three code families that we find in Nature – organic neural and cultural. (Abstract excerpt)
Marijuan, Pedro, et al.. Fundamental, Quantitative Traits of the “Sociotype. Biosystems. Volume 180, 2019. Veteran researchers Pedro M., Raquel del Moral and Jorge Navarro, Aragon Health Research Institute, Sungchul Ji, Rutgers University, Marta Gil Lacruz and Juan Gomez-Quintero, University of Zaragoza (search names) press consider how such an emergent socio-genetic realm might be conceptually present in some working role akin to genotypes and phenotypes. As a result, it is advised that an optimum human grouping of social bonds seems to actually be 100 people, which is different from (Robin) Dunbar’s number of 150. See also The “Sociotype” Construct: Gauging the Structure and Dynamics of Human Sociality by this group in PLoS One (December 14, 2017).
In whatever domain of life from cells to organisms to societies, communicative exchanges underlie the formation and maintenance of the emerging collective structures. It can be clearly seen in the human social world. In the present work we have investigated the basic metrics of social bonds and communicative exchanges along the development of within our genotype-phenotype-sociotype conceptual triad. The sociotype means the relative constancy of the social world in which each individual life is developed. Other results about gender, age, and use of social Internet media highlight significant differences among the social segments, and particularly the diminished “sociotype” of the elderly. (Abstract excerpt)
Markos, Anton. The Birth and Life of Species-Cultures. Biosemiotics. Online December, 2015. The Charles University, Prague biologist and philosopher continues his endeavor (search) to discern and express a recurrent continuity across evolution and our cultural phase by way of essential semiotic scripts. Life’s development is thus akin to a gestation as well traced by learning and knowledge gains, a growing realization. But a curious issue arises in the second quote – why does a scientist in the 2010s feel it is still necessary to avoid or disown a vitalist view, an innate organic milieu that is now widely affirmed? This is the revolution in our midst that must be brought to fruition.
Evolution and life phenomena can be understood as results of history, i.e., as outcomes of cohabitation and collective memory of populations of autonomous entities (individuals) across many generations and vast extent of time. Hence, evolution of distinct lineages of life can be considered as isomorphic with that of cultures. I argue here that cultures and culture-like systems – human culture, natural languages, and life forms – always draw from history, memory, experience, internal dynamics, etc., transforming themselves creatively into new patterns, never foreseen before. Ontogeny and speciation in various lineages draw from continuous re-interpretation of conservative genetic/generic “texts”, as well as from changes of the interpretative process itself. The result is continuous appearances of new lineages-cultures and/or communities-cultures, in a semiotic process of re-interpretation and inventing new ways of living. (Abstract)
Merrell, Floyd. Entangling Forms: Within Semiosic Processes. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2010. The Purdue University linguist, physicist, expositor of Spanish mythic literature, offers another brilliant engagement with our fantasmagorical reality that appears most of all as a textually prescriptive creation in which we intended readers have a crucial voice. This perennial view is here braced and accomplished by a unique meld of John Archibald Wheeler’s (1911-2008) cosmic physics of a “co-participatory becoming” with Charles Pierce’s (1839-1914) evocation that signification, aka semiotics, touches this deep communicative essence. Indeed its final Chapter 17 is “The Universe: A Book to be Read?” With the “Resemblance” paper above, Merrell touches truth by his rhetorical flourishes and insights from an original Taosphere to our Noosphere as Semiosphere, as phenomenal people more closely evoke the implicate presence of archetypal, gravid gender complements and familia trinities as they initiate, quicken, and move to birth themselves.
Chapter Seven suggests that the semiosic process of becoming carries the implication that everything is mutually co-participating, thus perpetuating that very process of becoming. The watchword in regard to this process is the interconnectedness of signs, worlds, meanings, and sign makers and takers. Interconnectedness call for particular focus on (1) the process of contradictory complementary coalescence, and (2) semiosic entanglement, which lie behind the notion of co-participation. Development of these topics evokes further words on what Pierce alludes to as ‘objective idealism,’ and Bohr’s complementarity. Chapter Eight interrelates semiosic entanglement with Peirce’s ‘objective idealism’ via a couple of Wheeler’s ‘thought experiments’’ that serve further to illustrate the co-participatory, self-organizing nature of signs and the world as we perceive and conceive them though our communicative channels. (xi)
Pattee, Howard. Physical and Functional Conditions for Symbols, Codes and Languages. Biosemiotics. 1/2, 2008. We cite this paper by the emeritus SUNY Binghamton physicist, biologist and logician as an entry to a lifetime of deep insights and theories that are gaining recognition such as in M. Gazzaniga’s 2018 The Consciousness Instinct. A 2012 edited volume, Laws, Language and Life, noted herein, provides a half-century collection of his writings. Their key essence is that natural reality is to be seen as graced by dual modes or phases of an animate materiality and a textual, informative quality. Within this perception, a bicameral, matter/symbol, genotype/phenotype complementary code is in evidential effect at every scale and instance. By this grand synthesis, the genetic and linguistic domains become inherently similar.
All sciences have epistemic assumptions, a language for expressing their theories or models, and symbols that reference observables that can be measured. In most sciences the language in which their models are expressed are not the focus of their attention. On the contrary, biosemiotics, by definition, cannot escape focusing on the symbol–matter relationship. Symbol systems first controlled material construction at the origin of life. At this molecular level it is only in the context of open-ended evolvability that symbol–matter systems and their functions can be objectively defined. While this partial description holds for all symbol systems, cultural languages are much too complex to be adequately described only at the molecular level. Genetic language and cultural languages have common basic requirements, but there are many significant differences in their structures and functions. (Abstract excerpt)
Pattee, Howard and Joanna Raczaszek-Leonardi. Laws, Language and Life. Berlin: Springer, 2012. The book subtitle is Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary. As the lifetime corpus of the emeritus SUNY Binghamton physicist, biologist and logician gains 21st century currency, it became evident to the second author, a Warsaw University psychologist and linguist, that his work should be collected in one place from disparate academic journals. The 17 papers proceed from The Physical Basis of Coding and Reliability in Biological Evolution (1967) to Instabilities and Information in Biological Self-Organization (1987) to The Necessity of Biosemiotics: Matter-Symbol Complementarity (2007, search). A new introduction by HP summarizes and updates so to avow natural reality as linguistic and genetic in kind via common complements of a material basis (words, things) and symbolic content (informed narrative. JR-L concludes with her own chapter whence a third way unity of both archetypal modes is proposed.
Romanini, Vinicius and Eliseo Fernandez, eds. Peirce and Biosemiotics: A Guess at the Riddle of Life. Netherlands: Springer, 2014. Volume 11 in the Springer Biosemiotics series considers roots and relations between a new 21st century emphasis on organism and evolutionary communications and Charles Peirce’s (1839-1914) 19th century logical philosophy of semiotic significance. We note The Intelligible Universe by Nathan Houser, Semeiotic Causation and the Breath of Life by Menno Hulswit and Vinicius Romanini, and The Life of Symbols and Other Legisigns by Winfried Noth. The consensus could be a bio-cosmo-semiotics, an essential textual narrative of an organic genesis uniVerse.
This volume discusses the importance of Peirce´s philosophy and theory of signs to the development of Biosemiotics, the science that studies the deep interrelation between meaning and life. Peirce considered semeiotic as a general logic part of a complex architectonic philosophy that includes mathematics, phenomenology and a theory of reality. The authors are Peirce scholars, biologists, philosophers and semioticians united by an interdisciplinary endeavor to understand the mysteries of the origin of life and its related phenomena such as consciousness, perception, representation and communication.
Sharov, Alexei. Evolutionary Biosemiotics and Multilevel Construction Networks. Biosemiotics. Online August, 2016. The Russian-American, National Institute of Aging (NIA/NIH), research theorist (see third quote) continues his natural philosophy of a creative, lively cosmos which seems to be evolving, developing, and organizing itself by way of communicative qualities. Life’s emergence is seen to proceed by a series of major metasystem transitions (V. Turchin) from coenzyme biomolecules to civilizations. On the author’s website can be found a steady flow of essays since 1977, along with his scenic watercolor paintings.
The analysis of sign dynamics requires constructivism (in a broad sense) to explain how new components such as subagents, sensors, effectors, and interpretation networks are produced by developing and evolving organisms. Semiotic networks that include signs, tools, and subagents are multilevel, and this feature supports the plasticity, robustness, and evolvability of organisms. The origin of life is described here as the emergence of simple self-constructing semiotic networks that progressively increased the diversity of their components and relations. Semiotic networks are based on sequential and recursive construction, where each step produces components (i.e., agents, scaffolds, signs, and resources) that are needed for the following steps of construction. Multilevel semiotic networks reshape the phenotype of organisms by combining a mosaic of features developed via learning and evolution of cooperating and/or conflicting subagents. (Abstract)
Swan, Liz Stillwaggon and Louis Goldberg. Introduction: Mentis Naturalis. Biosemiotics. Online March, 2013. Noted more in Intrinsic Consciousness and Intelligence, this special Origins of Mind issue follows a book with the same title edited by LS (search), to explore how the emergence of knowing sentience in entities and nature need be grounded in, indeed requires, a creative mind-suffused cosmos to arise from.
Tournebize, Remi and Cedric Gaucherel. Language: A Fresh Concept to Integrate Syntactic and Semantic Information in Life Sciences. Biosystems. 160/1, 2017. CNRS (French National Center for Scientific Research) ecologists propose novel insights and clarifications for organisms and environments by the presence of an intrinsic linguistic activity. This additional quality then need be seen as composed of two complementary aspects. As the quotes cite, a syntactic mode tends more to “what” entities, while semantics allows a “where/why” capacity. And we further note that these tendencies well match cerebral left/right, ventral/dorsal reciprocities (Grossberg, et al). See also, e.g. Towards a Landscape Language by C. Gaucherel in PLoS One (7/9. 2012).
Several fields in biology tend to view the concept of information from one or the other of two extreme positions. Exclusionists base their stance of total rejection on gene-centrism and gene-determinism, typified by the recently-established endo-Darwinist school of life sciences. At the other end of the spectrum, there is total acceptance, as in the newly developed information-centered paradigms that populate biosemiotics. We propose in this paper to split the informational concepts into two irreducible (but linked) poles: the syntactic (concerned with the quantification of the information structure or complexity in a system), and the semantic (concerned with the organization rules and causality weights of interactions in a system). We claim that the past and present uses of the concept could then be classified as various degrees of oscillation between the two poles. The concept of language presents itself as a good tool with which to bridge the syntactic and the semantic poles, combining as it does the form-related and the meaning-related aspects of information, while methodologically supporting formal grammatical models in life sciences.. (Abstract)
Velmezova, Ekaterina, et al, eds. Biosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. International: Springer, 2015. With coeditors Kalevi Kull and Stephen Cowley, a collection to join this growing sense of natural origins for life’s communicative qualities with our human propensities to speak and write. Among chapters are Language and Biosphere by Anton Markus, Deep Congruence between Linguistic and Biotic Growth by Jamin Lelkey, Before Babel: The Evolutionary Roots of Human Language by Piera Filippi, and Language as Primary Modeling and Natural languages by Susan Petrilli.
Without biosemiosis, there could be no human language. The volume presents international perspectives that have been inspired by this simple idea. The contributors open up new methods, directions and perspectives on both language in general and specific human languages. Many commonplace notions (language, dialect, syntax, sign, text, dialogue, discourse, etc.) have to be rethought once due attention is given to the living roots of languages. Accordingly, the contributors unite “eternal” problems of the humanities (such as language and thought, origin of language, prelinguistic meaning-making, borders of human language and “marginal” linguistic phenomena) with new inspirations drawing from natural science. Biosemiotics connects the sciences with the humanities while offering a new challenge to autonomous linguistics by pointing towards new kinds of interdisciplinary fusion.