DOCSLIB.ORG

A Biosemiotic Framework for Artificial Autonomous Sign Users

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Biosemiotic Framework for Artificial Autonomous Sign Users A Biosemiotic Framework for Artificial Autonomous Sign Users Erich Prem Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence Freyung 6/2/2 A-1010 Vienna, Austria [email protected] Abstract It is all the more surprising that recent publications in this In this paper we critically analyse fundamental assumptions area rarely address foundational is-sues concerning the underlying approaches to symbol anchoring and symbol semantics of system-environment interactions or other grounding. A conceptual framework inspired by problems related to biosemiotics (a notable exception is biosemiotics is developed for the study of signs in (Cangelosi 01)). As we will discuss below, the approaches autonomous artificial sign users. Our theory of reference make little or no reference to specifically life-like or even uses an ethological analysis of animal-environment robotic characteristics such as goal-directedness, interaction. We first discuss semiotics with respect to the purposiveness, or the dynamics of system-environment meaning of signals taken up from the environment of an interaction. These features are, however, central to much autonomous agent. We then show how semantic issues arise of robotics and ALife. It is highly questionable, however, in a similar way in the study of adaptive artificial sign us- ers. Anticipation and adaptation play the important role of whether technical approaches to symbol anchoring should defining purpose which is a neces-sary concept in the be developed devoid of any sound theoretical foundation semiotics of learning robots. The proposed focus on sign for concepts such as “meaning” or “reference”. Until now, acts leads to a se-mantics in which meaning and reference simplistic versions of Fregean or Peircean semiotics seem are based on the anticipated outcome of sign-based in- to have motivated existing technical symbol anchoring and teraction. It is argued that such a novel account of semantics symbol grounding proposals. based on indicative acts of refer-ence is compatible with This is all the more regrettable, since robotics lends itself merely indicative approaches in more conventional semiotic nicely as a tool for the study of se-mantic processes in life- frame-works such as symbol anchoring approaches in like systems. Robot and ALife models offer the potential robotics. for systematic in-depth analysis of complex system- environment interactions where many (or all) parameters are known, simply because these systems have been Introduction constructed by their designers. For this approach to Issues of semantics have a long history in the study of develop its full potential, however, it is necessary to first adaptive and evolving systems. Ever since the seminal get a thorough understanding of the phenomenon under work of Uexküll (1928) in biology researchers were study. This is the aim of the work described here. It is interested in the explanation of how something like performed in the con-text of learning robots in which the “meaning” is created in system-environment interaction. In acquisition of object concepts and learning names for these our days, modern system scientists (e.g. Pattee 86) objects plays a central role. addressed these questions. In the area of Artificial Life In this paper, we investigate the nature of signs and (ALife) it is often robotics researchers who focus on semantics in relation to robotic systems. In particular, we problems related to signs and artificial systems: work in propose a framework for the study of semantic aspects of this field ranges from stigmergic communication (Mataric autonomous (artificial) sign users with the aim of 95) to behaviour-based robots using signs and language clarifying concepts such as “reference” and “meaning”. (Steels & Vogt 97, Steels 01, Billard & Dautenhahn 97, We investigate the role symbols and other signs play in 99). In particular, technical approaches to mapping objects autonomous systems and address biosemantics from an in an autonomous robot’s environment on structures ethological perspective so as to develop a system theoretic internal to the robot (“Symbol Anchoring”) are an active framework which also reconciles symbol anchoring with field of research (Coradeschi & Saffiotti 03). sign-act perspective of meaning in robotic agents. Copyright © 2002, American Association for Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. In both cases – and this is the relationship to symbol Semiotics in ALife grounding – the assumption usually is that there exists an internal mediating representation that captures the Semiotics generally refers to the study of signs. In a “meaning” of symbols (either as words or as program- psychological (and semiotic) context, signs usually are internal constructs). In most examples described in the physical objects that carry meaning for humans. From a literature, symbols refer to static objects or to features of more biology-oriented per-spective, signs are simply these objects. Verbs and other word categories are only signals that carry meaning. In what follows, we will use rarely grounded in practice. both characteri-sations based on the assumption that These approaches often root in a naïve view of language as physical signs also generate “signals” that can carry a means of communicating informa-tion about situations to meaning in this sense. other agents, as if the purpose of language would be to The referent in traditional semiotics is what a sign stands inform about a state-of-affairs. In Alife models the aim for, e.g. “cow” stands for a cow in many contexts and the then is to automate the construction of such a language by same is true for the German word “Kuh”. While syntax an autonomous adaptive agent. In essence, this amounts to studies the relation of signs to other signs, semiotics deals the automated generation of models of the environment with the relation of signs to their “meaning” or, more pre- that happen to be understandable by e.g. humans, cf. (Prem cisely, their referent. Pragmatics then covers all the aspects 00). The semantics of the sign tokens used thus are that relate to the actual use of the sign by its interpreter. In components in such an image-oriented model in which the what follows we will slightly blur this seemingly clear sole pur-pose of signs is to “represent” object-like states in distinction between pragmatics and semantics. This is a a model of the environment. In what follows we propose a natural consequence of focusing on life-like systems that completely different approach to semantics for ex-hibit purposeful behaviour in their environment and autonomous artificial sign users. either actively use or passively “read” signs. In the context of robotic, ALife, and AI systems, the Active Sign Users interest in signs and their meaning arises from at least three In contrast to the image-oriented view described above, we different perspectives. The first originates in the aim of will focus on the semantic action (and thus include aspects creating a system that uses signs for communicative acts of what is usually termed pragmatics) in the analysis of with humans or other artificial systems. The underlying artificial sign users. Following the approach of the motiva-tion here can either be to achieve this desired philosopher Martin Heidegger (“Being and Time”), the communication or to study processes of child-like semiotician Charles W. Morris (“Signs, Language, and language acquisition or even, language evolution. The Behaviour”), and the work of the linguist J.L. Austin second perspective – usually found in ro-botics – is to (“Doing things with words”), we regard signs as tools that connect the meaning of internal structures enable agents to pursue their goals. Consider the following (“representations” or “anchors”) to objects in the world. examples of using signs or “sign acts”: Here, the goal often is to create a model of the robot’s environment for planning purposes. Finally, another Sign Act Behaviour perspective (often alluded to by the two others) focuses on Greeting The agent reacts to a greeting or the more philosophical “Symbol Grounding Problem” that salutation or to another agent arose in discussions following John Searle‘s famous with a specific greeting “Chinese Room” argument. Harnad poses the question as behaviour. to how it is possible for an arti-ficial agent to acquire Set mark The agent marks an interesting symbols that possess intrinsic meaning (Harnad 90, 93) location or object in the which is not “para-sitic” on the meaning of other symbols environment so as to retrieve it in our head. later more easily. In many ALife approaches, all these efforts result in the challenge of how to establish and main-tain a relationship Warn Produce an alarm signal to make of sensory data of objects in the agent’s environment with group members aware of danger symbolic representations. The result of such a process are or make them run away. descriptors for sensory signals that allow the classification Flee React to a warning signal by of a part of the sensory stream as caused by an object in running away. the environment of the agent. In the case of “anchoring” Follow The agent moves in the direction the focus lies on proper technical solutions ranging from arrow to which an arrow points. prototypes, feature-based approaches, to more Find place The agent navigates to a sophisticated dynamical systems solutions (cf. Davidsson designated place. Examples 95). In the case of making an agent use and “understand” include “here”, “there”, “home”, human language, the focus is on the relationship of the etc. agent’s categories and human word use (or “word use” of other robots). Uexküll proposed to analyse living beings following a Table 1. Examples of sign using behaviours (sign acts). close study of the interaction of the system with its environment and of a detailed analysis of their sensors and actuators. This list can be easily extended to include more language- like behaviours, e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biosemiotic Medicine: from an Effect-Based Medicine to a Process-Based Medicine
    Special article Arch Argent Pediatr 2020;118(5):e449-e453 / e449 Biosemiotic medicine: From an effect-based medicine to a process-based medicine Carlos G. Musso, M.D., Ph.D.a,b ABSTRACT Such knowledge evidences the Contemporary medicine is characterized by an existence of a large and intricate increasing subspecialization and the acquisition of a greater knowledge about the interaction among interconnected network among the the different body structures (biosemiotics), different body structures, which both in health and disease. This article proposes accounts for a sort of “communication a new conceptualization of the body based on channel” among its elements, a true considering it as a biological space (cells, tissues, and organs) and a biosemiotic space (exchange of “dialogic or semiotic space” that is signs among them). Its development would lead conceptually abstract but experientially to a new subspecialty focused on the study and real, through which normal and interference of disease biosemiotics (biosemiotic pathological intra- and inter- medicine), which would trigger a process- based medicine centered on early diagnosis and parenchymal dialogs (sign exchange) management of disease. occur. Such dialogs determine a Key words: medicine, biosemiotics, diagnosis, balanced functioning of organ systems therapy. or the onset and establishment of http://dx.doi.org/10.5546/aap.2020.eng.e449 disease, respectively. The investigation and analysis of such phenomenon is the subject of a relative new discipline: To cite: Musso CG. Biosemiotic medicine: From an biosemiotics, which deals with the effect-based medicine to a process-based medicine. 1 Arch Argent Pediatr 2020;118(5):e449-e453. study of the natural world’s language.
    [Show full text]
  • Review: Marcello Barbieri (Ed) (2007) Introduction to Biosemiotics. the New Biological Synthesis
    tripleC 5(3): 104-109, 2007 ISSN 1726-670X http://tripleC.uti.at Review: Marcello Barbieri (Ed) (2007) Introduction to Biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis. Dordrecht: Springer Günther Witzany telos – Philosophische Praxis Vogelsangstr. 18c A-5111-Buermoos/Salzburg Austria E-mail: [email protected] 1 Thematic background without utterances we act as non-uttering indi- viduals being dependent on the discourse de- Maybe it is no chance that the discovery of the rived meaning processes of a linguistic (e.g. sci- genetic code occurred during the hot phase of entific) community. philosophy of science discourse about the role of This position marks the primary difference to language in generating models of scientific ex- the subject of knowledge of Kantian knowledge planation. The code-metaphor was introduced theories wherein one subject alone in principle parallel to other linguistic terms to denote lan- could be able to generate sentences in which it guage like features of the nucleic acid sequence generates knowledge. This abstractive fallacy molecules such as “code without commas” was ruled out in the early 50s of the last century (Francis Crick). At the same time the 30 years of being replaced by the “community of investiga- trying to establish an exact scientific language to tors” (Peirce) represented by the scientific com- delimit objective sentences from non-objective munity in which every single scientist is able the ones derived one of his peaks in the linguistic place his utterance looking for being integrated turn. in the discourse community in which his utter- ances will be proven whether they are good ar- 1.1 Changing subjects of knowledge guments or not.
    [Show full text]
  • The Semiosphere, Between Informational Modernity and Ecological Postmodernity Pierre-Louis Patoine and Jonathan Hope
    Document generated on 09/29/2021 12:07 a.m. Recherches sémiotiques Semiotic Inquiry The Semiosphere, Between Informational Modernity and Ecological Postmodernity Pierre-Louis Patoine and Jonathan Hope J. M. Lotman Article abstract Volume 35, Number 1, 2015 The notion of semiosphere is certainly one of Lotman’s most discussed ideas. In this essay, we propose to investigate its ecological and biological dimensions, URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1050984ar tracing them back to Vernadsky’s concept of biosphere and to Lotman’s DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1050984ar environmental vision of art articulated in his early work, The Structure of the Artistic Text. Our investigation reveals how the biosemiotic undercurrents in See table of contents Lotmanian thought enable the emergence of a cyclical, homeostatic model of culture that counterbalances a Modernist vision of art as a force working for unquestioned linear progress. Publisher(s) Association canadienne de sémiotique / Canadian Semiotic Association ISSN 0229-8651 (print) 1923-9920 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Patoine, P.-L. & Hope, J. (2015). The Semiosphere, Between Informational Modernity and Ecological Postmodernity. Recherches sémiotiques / Semiotic Inquiry, 35(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.7202/1050984ar Tous droits réservés © Association canadienne de sémiotique / Canadian This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit Semiotic Association, 2018 (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Semiosphere, Revisited
    Yorgos Marinakis On the Semiosphere, Revisited Abstract The semiosphere is frequently described as a topos of complexification, namely discontinuous or heterogeneous, recursive or self-reflexive, stochastic, radically subjective, and capable of simultaneous multiple perspectives. While the topos of complexification describes the gross morphology of a model, it is not a model adequate for explaining phenomena or making predictions. The ecological theory of dual hierarchies is proposed as a framework for developing models of the semiosphere that are appropriately limited in scope and scale. In particular the semiosphere is modeled as a dual hierarchy of semiotic spaces, the dual hierarchies corresponding to the semiosis that is occurring within the dual hierarchies of ecological organization. This framework immediately solves several theoretical problems, such as clearing up conceptual inconsistencies in Lotman's concept of semiosphere. Keywords: semiotics, semiosphere, ecosystem, hierarchy theory, category theory, semiotic triad Introduction Juri Lotman's (2005) On the semiosphere, first published in 1984, introduced the concept of the semiosphere and attempted to describe its gross structural features in broad terms. The semiosphere is defined as the semiotic space outside of which semiosis cannot exist, where semiosis is any form of activity, conduct, or process that involves signs. On its face, the structure of Lotman's concept of semiosphere has difficulties, but by focusing on these difficulties one loses sight of the value of the concept. Lotman's conceives of the semiosphere as a space that carries an abstract character and possessing signs, which space he asserts is not metaphorical (therefore not abstract?) but specific (therefore material and not abstract?).
    [Show full text]
  • University of Copenhagen, Solvgade 83, DK 1307 Copenhagen, Denmark; E-Mail: [email protected] 488 Kalevi Kull, Jesper Hoffmeyer from Medical Science
    Thure von Uexküll 1908-2004 Kull, Kalevi; Hoffmeyer, Jesper Published in: Sign Systems Studies Publication date: 2005 Document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (APA): Kull, K., & Hoffmeyer, J. (2005). Thure von Uexküll 1908-2004. Sign Systems Studies, 33(2), 487-494. Download date: 29. sep.. 2021 Sign Systems Studies 33.2, 2005 Thure von Uexküll 1908–2004 Kalevi Kull,1 Jesper Hoffmeyer2 Looking back in 2001, Thomas Sebeok (1920– 2001) emphasized how important for the forma- tion of contemporary biosemiotics had been the discussions that he, Giorgio Prodi (1929–1988) and Thure von Uexküll conducted in Freiburg in the 1970s (Sebeok 2001: 63–65). As one of these three main figures, Thure von Uexküll signifi- cantly contributed to the realignment of the se- miotic threshold (i.e., the threshold below which genuine sign action cannot properly be said to take place) from the borderline between nature and culture to the borderline separating life from non-life — thus effectively making the study of living systems a study of semiosis (Anderson et al. 1984; 1990). His writings on the development of the main concepts of biosemiotics and on the interpretation of Jakob von Uexküll’s work in relation to thereof certainly qualify as biosemiotic classics. As a physician and philosopher, he developed a semiotic approach to medicine in general and to psychosomatic medicine in parti- Fig. 1. Dr. honoris causa, cular. As a semiotician, he renewed ties with the University of Tartu, old roots of semiotics deriving (since Antiquity) Dec. 1, 1994. 1 Author’s address: Kalevi Kull, Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu, Tiigi Str.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas A. Sebeok and Biology: Building Biosemiotics
    Cybernetics And Human Knowing. Vol. 10, no. 1, pp. xx-xx Thomas A. Sebeok and biology: Building biosemiotics Kalevi Kull1 Abstract: The paper attempts to review the impact of Thomas A. Sebeok (1920–2001) on biosemiotics, or semiotic biology, including both his work as a theoretician in the field and his activity in organising, publishing, and communicating. The major points of his work in the field of biosemiotics concern the establishing of zoosemiotics, interpretation and development of Jakob v. Uexküll’s and Heini Hediger’s ideas, typological and comparative study of semiotic phenomena in living organisms, evolution of semiosis, the coincidence of semiosphere and biosphere, research on the history of biosemiotics. Keywords: semiotic biology, zoosemiotics, endosemiotics, biosemiotic paradigm, semiosphere, biocommunication, theoretical biology “Culture,” so-called, is implanted in nature; the environment, or Umwelt, is a model generated by the organism. Semiosis links them. T. A. Sebeok (2001c, p. vii) When an organic body is dead, it does not carry images any more. This is a general feature that distinguishes complex forms of life from non-life. The images of the organism and of its images, however, can be carried then by other, living bodies. The images are singular categories, which means that they are individual in principle. The identity of organic images cannot be of mathematical type, because it is based on the recognition of similar forms and not on the sameness. The organic identity is, therefore, again categorical, i.e., singular. Thus, in order to understand the nature of images, we need to know what life is, we need biology — a biology that can deal with phenomena of representation, recognition, categorisation, communication, and meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy, Semiosis and Emergence — the Place of Biosemiotics in an Evolutionary Conception of Nature
    1 Eleventh Annual International Gatherings in Biosemiotics Dactyl Foundation, New York City, USA, June 21 - 26, 2011 Energy, Semiosis and Emergence — the place of biosemiotics in an evolutionary conception of nature Eliseo Fernández Linda Hall Library of Science and Technology 5109 Cherry St. Kansas City, MO 64110, USA [email protected] Abstract Autonomy, i.e., self-ruling or self-regulation, is a distinctive mark of organisms and living systems in general. Organisms are parts of the world that segregate themselves from the rest of it (their environment) through structures (membranes) that allow selective passage of various forms of matter, energy and information in and out of their constituted interior. Processes within such interiors obey the same laws of physics that govern events in the environment, but are additionally constrained by further restrictions arising from the conjunction of those laws and the peculiar boundary conditions that characterize the internal dynamics of autonomous systems. Among the different orientations in biosemiotics, those moved by Peircean ideas tend to agree that this organization of inert parts into autonomous agents cannot be made intelligible without supplementing the traditional resources of the physical sciences with novel kinds of causation. This is true in particular with regard to that form which Peirce called semiosis—the influence by which signs mediate the determination of interpretants by their objects. In this view the promise of biosemiotics far exceeds its role as a biological sub-discipline
    [Show full text]
  • “THE FLUKISHNESS of BEING RELATED”: BIOSEMIOTICS, NATURECULTURES, and IRONY in the ART of NINA KATCHADOURIAN by LISA BETH
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Oregon Scholars' Bank “THE FLUKISHNESS OF BEING RELATED”: BIOSEMIOTICS, NATURECULTURES, AND IRONY IN THE ART OF NINA KATCHADOURIAN by LISA BETH LOMBARDO A THESIS Presented to the Environmental Studies Program and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science June 2014 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Lisa Beth Lombardo Title: “The Flukishness of Being Related”: Biosemiotics, Naturecultures, and Irony in the Art of Nina Katchadourian This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in the Environmental Studies Program by: Molly Westling Chairperson Carla Bengtson Member and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research and Innovation; Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2014 ii © 2014 Lisa Beth Lombardo This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial -ShareAlike (United States) License. iii THESIS ABSTRACT Lisa Beth Lombardo Master of Science Environmental Studies Program June 2014 Title: “The Flukishness of Being Related”: Biosemiotics, Naturecultures, and Irony in the Art of Nina Katchadourian This thesis contends that Nina Katchadourian’s oeuvre can be read as subtly breaking down problematic assumptions about nature in Western thought. The second chapter draws on biosemiotics, which redefines life as semiosis, and trans-corporeality, which reconceptualizes the human body as inseparable from the environment, to show how Katchadourian’s art routinely calls attention to non-human animal and material agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Umwelten in a Changing World
    Tartu Semiotics Library 18 Tartu Tartu Semiotics Library 18 Animal umwelten in a changing world: Zoosemiotic perspectives represents a clear and concise review of zoosemiotics, present- ing theories, models and methods, and providing interesting examples of human–animal interactions. The reader is invited to explore the umwelten of animals in a successful attempt to retrieve the relationship of people with animals: a cornerstone of the past common evolutionary processes. The twelve chapters, which cover recent developments in zoosemiotics and much more, inspire the reader to think about the human condition and about ways to recover our lost contact with the animal world. Written in a clear, concise style, this collection of articles creates a wonderful bridge between Timo Maran, Morten Tønnessen, human and animal worlds. It represents a holistic approach Kristin Armstrong Oma, rich with suggestions for how to educate people to face the dynamic relationships with nature within the conceptual Laura Kiiroja, Riin Magnus, framework of the umwelt, providing stimulus and opportuni- Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp, ties to develop new studies in zoosemiotics. Professor Almo Farina, CHANGING WORLD A IN UMWELTEN ANIMAL Paul Thibault, Kadri Tüür University of Urbino “Carlo Bo” This important book offers the first coherent gathering of perspectives on the way animals are communicating with each ANIMAL UMWELTEN other and with us as environmental change requires increasing adaptation. Produced by a young generation of zoosemiotics scholars engaged in international research programs at Tartu, IN A CHANGING this work introduces an exciting research field linking the biological sciences with the humanities. Its key premises are that all animals participate in a dynamic web of meanings WORLD: and signs in their own distinctive styles, and all animal spe- cies have distinctive cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Tartu Paper Chang
    1 Is Language a Primary Modeling System?--On Jurj Lotman's Semiosphere Professor Han-liang Chang National Taiwan University Paper presented at the International Conference on Cultural Semiotics: Cultural Mechanisms, Boundaries, Identities, in observance of Jurj Lotman’s 80s Anniversary, University of Tartu Tartu, Estonia, 26 February - 2 March 2002 The well-known distinction of primary modeling system versus secondary modeling system suggested by Lotman and others (Lotman 1977) is a lasting legacy of the Ta rtu School's that has been adhered to, modified, and refuted by semioticians of culture and nature (Sebeok 1991, 1994, Sebeok and Danesi 2000).1 Adherence aside, modifications and refutations have focused on the issue whether or not language is a primary modeling system (hereinafter PMS) and, if not, what alternative can be made available to replace it. For both biosemiosis and anthroposemiosis, language can only be a secondary modeling system (hereinafter SMS) on top of the biological experience of Unwelt. As Sebeok and Danesi have recently observed: [L]anguage is, by definition, a secondary cohesive modeling system providing humans with the resources for extending primary forms ad infinitum. From a biosemiotic perspective, the language code can be defined as the cohesive system providing the modeling resources for converting what von Uexküll (1909) called 'concrete living existence' into 'active plans.' (2000: 108) Here our co-authors are reiterating Sebeok's entrenched position over the decades. He had observed in 1989, "Solely in the genus Homo have verbal signs emerged. To put it in another way, only hominids possess two mutually sustaining repertoires of signs, the zoosemiotic nonverbal, plus, superimposed, the anthroposemiotic verbal."(1991: 55).
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of Biosemiotics
    Biosemiotics (2009) 2:221–245 DOI 10.1007/s12304-009-9042-8 ORIGINAL PAPER A Short History of Biosemiotics Marcello Barbieri Received: 20 March 2009 /Accepted: 14 April 2009 / Published online: 6 May 2009 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009 Abstract Biosemiotics is the synthesis of biology and semiotics, and its main purpose is to show that semiosis is a fundamental component of life, i.e., that signs and meaning exist in all living systems. This idea started circulating in the 1960s and was proposed independently from enquires taking place at both ends of the Scala Naturae. At the molecular end it was expressed by Howard Pattee’s analysis of the genetic code, whereas at the human end it took the form of Thomas Sebeok’s investigation into the biological roots of culture. Other proposals appeared in the years that followed and gave origin to different theoretical frameworks, or different schools, of biosemiotics. They are: (1) the physical biosemiotics of Howard Pattee and its extension in Darwinian biosemiotics by Howard Pattee and by Terrence Deacon, (2) the zoosemiotics proposed by Thomas Sebeok and its extension in sign biosemiotics developed by Thomas Sebeok and by Jesper Hoffmeyer, (3) the code biosemiotics of Marcello Barbieri and (4) the hermeneutic biosemiotics of Anton Markoš. The differences that exist between the schools are a consequence of their different models of semiosis, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. In reality they go much deeper and concern the very nature of the new discipline. Is biosemiotics only a new way of looking at the known facts of biology or does it predict new facts? Does biosemiotics consist of testable hypotheses? Does it add anything to the history of life and to our understanding of evolution? These are the major issues of the young discipline, and the purpose of the present paper is to illustrate them by describing the origin and the historical development of its main schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction: an Evolutionary History of Biosemiotics
    Chapter 1 Introduction: An Evolutionary History of Biosemiotics Donald Favareau Abstract1 The present chapter is intended to provide an introductory overview to the history of biosemiotics, contextualizing that history within and against the larger currents of philosophical and scientific thinking from which it has emerged. Accordingly, to explain the origins of this most 21st century endeavour requires effectively tracing – at least to the level of a thumbnail sketch – how the “sign” con- cept appeared, was lost, and now must be painstakingly rediscovered and refined in science. In the course of recounting this history, this chapter also introduces much of the conceptual theory underlying the project of biosemiotics, and is therefore intended to serve also as a kind of primer to the readings that appear in the rest of the volume. With this purpose in mind, the chapter consists of the successive examination of: (1) the history of the sign concept in pre-modernist science, (2) the history of the sign concept in modernist science, and (3) the biosemiotic attempt to develop a more useful sign concept for contemporary science. The newcomer to biosemiotics is encouraged to read through this chapter (though lengthy and of necessity still incomplete) before proceeding to the rest of the volume. For only by doing so will the disparate selections appearing herein reveal their common unity of purpose, and only within this larger historical context can the contemporary attempt to develop a naturalistic understanding of sign relations be properly evaluated and understood. 1 Pages 1–20 of this chapter originally appeared as The Biosemiotic Turn, Part I in the journal Biosemiotics (Favareau 2008).
    [Show full text]