Biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts : proceedings of the Gathering in Biosemiotics 6, Salzburg 2006 9789525576030, 9525576035

Citation preview

•il

:•

•-

Asifer

mm? Safe*

-

aO-S:

:'■■£&"

Tw^-.^gw^ -^; r«*»

■

r-

Asll

* v.,.. •

mm •IH

im

S;!

li

'1

Gunther Witzany (Ed)

Biosemiotics in Transdisciplinary Contexts Proceedings of the Gathering in Biosemiotics 6, Salzburg 2006

. ;

*

-

i

l-z Biosemiotics in Transdisciplinary Contexts Proceedings of the Gathering in Biosemiotics 6, Salzburg 2006

Published by Umweb Publications www.umweb.org [email protected] Scientific committee: Kristian Bankov Merja Bauters Kaie Kotov Kalevi Kull

Ruben Lopez Cano Dario Martinelli Lina Navickaite

Natalya Sukhova Ano Sirppiniemi Francesco Spampinato

Supported by TECAN Sales Austria GmbH Land Salzburg

All rights reserved

Umweb logo by Dario Martinelli Cover artwork by Wilhelm Hasenauer Coverphoto by Peter Barlow Proof-reading by Lina Navickaite

Printed by UAB „Biznio masimi kompanija“ J. Jasinskio g. 16A, Vilnius - Lithuania [email protected] - http://www.bmk.lt

ISSN 1795-1860 ISBN-13 978-952-5576-03-0 EAN 9789525576030

^2 455 /-•

■=v

rV-'*:A

•f-

:”*J0’’

; L'-.V/:?S.'iAr

BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS

Proceedings of the Gathering in Biosemiotics 6, Salzburg 2006

EDITED BY GUNTHER WITZANY

UMWEB Copyright © 2007 by Gunther Witzany and Umweb Publications

!

I

1

J

} t

i *

' .

3

■

: : . i

Contents Preface

...7

Pre-Programme FrantiSck BaluSka, Peter W. Barlow, Dieter VoLkmann, Stcfano Mancuso Gravity-Related Paradoxes in Plants: Plant Neurobiology Provides the Means for Their Resolution

...9

Peter W. Barlow, Jacqueline Luck Structuralism and Semiosis: Highways for the Symbolic Representation of Morphogenetic Events in Plants

...37

Nikolaus Bresgcn Signal and Context

...51

Donald Favareau Animal Sensing, Acting and Knowing: Bridging the Relations between Brains, Bodies and World

...61

Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski, Hans-Alfred Rosenthal Biosemiotics, Bioinformatics, and Responsibility

...71

Erich Hamberger Signal — Sign - Word: Transdisciplinary Remarks on the Field of Research called (Bio-)semiotdcs

...81

Guenther Witzany The Agents of Genomic Creativity

...95

Programme Marcello Barbieri The Origin and Evolution of Semiosis

...105

Gerard Battail Impact of Information Theory on the Fundamentals of Genetics

...115

Martien Brands, Argyris Arnellos, Thomas Spyrou, John Darzentas A Biosemiodc Analysis of Serotonin’s Complex Functionality

... 125

Sergey Chebanov The Current Situation in Modern Biosemiotics

... 133

Assen I. Dimitrov Causal versus Semiotic Order

... 143

Marcella Faria ell Division, Cell Cycle, Cell Fate - Levels of Organization and Signal Transduction Codes

... 149

Almo Farina, Silvia Scozzafava, Davide Morri, Ilcana Schipani The Eco-Field: An Interdisciplinary Paradigm for Ecological Complexity

... 157

Donald Favareau How to Make Peirce’s Ideas Clear (First in an inexhaustible series)

... 163

Mario Gimona Protein Linguistics - a Grammar for Modular Protein Assembly?

... 175

Peter Harries-Jones Editing ‘Biosemiotics’ in Wikipedia

... 183

Kalevi Kull The Origin and Evolution of Semiosis

... 193

Hellmut Loeckenhoff Integrating Semio-dynamics a Transdisciplinary Systemic

... 203

Robert KL Logan Biosemiosis, Propagating Organization and the Origin and Evolution of Language

... 209

Pierre Madl, Maricela Yip Information, Matter and Energy - a non-linear world-view

... 217

Paolo Manzclli “What Means Life “

... 227

Timo Maran Structural and Semiotic Aspects of Biological Mimicry

...237

Yair Neuman Why Signs are Ploysemous? The View from "in-between”

... 245

Sean O Nuallain Genome and Natural Language: How far Can the Analogy be Extended?

...249

Dietmar Payrhuber, Michael Frass, Pierre Madl Information Alters Matter

... 261

John Pickering Affordances are Signs

... 271

Cornelius Stcckner Another Sop to Cerberus: Peirce and Uexkiill, Experiment and Biosemiotics

... 279

Konrad Talmont-Kaminski Active Externalism and Biosemantics

... 289

Guenther Witzany Applied Biosemiotics: Fungal Communication

... 295

Maricela Yip, Pierre Madl The Light of Life - Biophotonics

... 303

I i /

i: ■

Preface From the 5,h to the 9th of July, the sixth Gathering in Biosemiotics was successfully completed in Salzburg, Austria. It has been planed and organized by Wolfgang Hofkirchner and Gunther Witzanv in Cooperation with Alfred Winter of the Government of Salzburg. A particular feature regarded Wolfgang Hofkirchner’s initiative to launch this Gather­ ing with a pre-programme (“Biosemiotics in Transdisciplinary Contexts”). This one was held at the 1CT & S one day prior to the official opening. This pre-conference day intended to achieve a broader understanding of biosemiotical relationships and at the same time to raise interest in Biosemiotics for potential participants from other scientific disciplines. Altogether, 13 scientists have been invited to give an insight from their field of research and to contribute in the construction of a trans-disciplinary bioscmiotic perspective. The main programm was then held at the venues of the St. Virgil Conference Center and covered 7 sections (with a total of 37 talks): Semantics in Biosemiotics Methods of Biosemiotics Semiotics in Bioscmiotics Applied Bioscmiotics Biosemiotics and Information Theory Involution, Development and Sign-Functions Bioscmiotics and Mind Models Unfortunately, some authors cold not send a summarized transcript of their article for these Proceedings. However, their presentation can be downloaded from the official web Site on: http://wwrw'.biosemiotics2006.org/content.php?id=74 Finally, some words of thanks not only to Wolfgang Hofkirchner for coordinating this event but also our cooperating partner Alfred Winter for both his superb support in organizing the w'hole conference and his invitation to the conference dinner: Furthermore, I want to express my gratitude to the vice-governor of Salzburg Wilfried Haslauer who officially openend the conference. Many thanks also to our organizing committee, Erich Hamberger, Nikolaus Bresgen, Peter Eckel, and the whole organizational staff acting behind the scenes. In addition, I would like to express my great appreciation for those providing all the extra services, thereby contributing to the Conference’s success; here in particular to Maricella Yip for her tireless administrative work, Hiltrud Oman for her excellent on-site logistical support, Pierre Madl for technical support, Doris Kirschofer for her outstanding artistic performance during the con­ ference dinner, Franz Rest from the Nassfeldalm (National Park Hohe Tauern), Susanna Votter-Dankl and Christian Votter from Tauriska/Leopold Kohr Academy in Neukirchen/Grofivenediger for invitation on the last day of the Gatherings, Land Salzburg and Tecan Sales Austria GmbH for their support who made these Proceedings possible. Gunther Witzany, telos - Philosophische Praxis, Buermoos, March 2007

/

•:'

! i

i

I

r :

Gravity-Related Paradoxes in Plants: Plant Neurobiology Provides the Means for Their Resolution Frantisck Baluska,1 Peter W. Barlow,2 Dieter Volkmann,1 Stefano Mancuso3 ’IZMB & L1NV, University of Bonn, Germany, [email protected] :School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, UK 'L1NV, University of Florence, Italy

Abstract: The plant body is shaped by gravity. Shoots grow up and roots grow down. This simple and obvious link between gravity and plant form is still not understood and continues to attract the attention of experimental plant biologists. Nevertheless, it is now generally ac­ cepted that sedimenting amyloplasts act as statoliths in those cells of both root and shoot which arc specialized for gravisensing. Moreover, auxin is also evidently involved in the gravistimulatcd differential growth (gravitropism) of roots and shoots. But what is missing from a full explanation of the plant graviresponse is knowledge of the signal perception and transduc­ tion pathways, from the sedimenting statoliths to the motoric response of organ bending. Recently, the new approach of plant neurobiology was introduced to plant sciences. It focusses on neuronal molecules, vesicle trafficking, integrated signaling and electrophysiology. In conjunction with the concepts developed in biosemiotics, plant neurobiology might bring fresh views to many of the old issues plant growth to environmental signals. It emerges that auxin acts as a neurotransmittcr, being secreted at plant synapses and inducing electrical signals which then induce motoric responses. A hypothesis is proposed whereby the plant synapses themselves arc considered to be gravisensitive; they might also be involved in memory phenomena and signaling integration. The transition zone of the root apex not only initiates the gravitropic bending but also acts as some kind of ‘command centre’ which integrates all sensory inputs into adaptive motoric responses, and may also store information in the form of a plant memory. 'Hus new neurobiological view of plant gravitational biology not only explains the close relationships between the gravity vector and polar auxin transport but also integrates the Nemec-Haberlandt statolith-starch theory’ with the Cholodny-Went auxin transport theory. 1. Introduction All biological organisms are embedded within a physical environment which shapes both their organization and behaviour.1 In order to survive, all biological systems continuously retrieve information from their environment and use it to adapt their mode of growth and, hence, increase their fitness.2 In humans and animals, neurons transform sensory information obtained from the environment into electrical impulses which are then translated into biological signals that induce motoric responses.1 Similarly in plants, gravity, as well as other diverse variables within the physical environment, are continuously monitored via specialized cells such as root cap statocytes and root transition zone cells. Any deviation of a plant organ and its cells from a certain se­ lected, and presumably optimal, angle (the liminal angle) is sensed and leads to mo-

IQ BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS

toric growth responses such as the gravibending of a root apex. Just as the perception of gravity in mammals leads to a continual adjustment of posture so, in plants, graviperception continually helps plant axes to maintain the liminal angle within their living space.2 If adjustments to the predominant direction of growth are not possible, then new forms of the plant are developed to accommodate their new relationship with the gravity vector.3 At the subcellular level, reorientation of plant organs within a gravitational field induces rapid transients of cytoplasmic calcium4 and electric sig­ nals,5-8 both of which precede the gravitropic motoric response. Moreover, auxin trans­ port is closely related to these gravity-induced calcium spikes.4 Auxin emerges as plant neurotransmitter,9'12 and its cell-cell transport is essential for root gravitropism. It is quite obvious that our rudimentary knowledge on the mechanistic and molecular basis of both gravisensing and gravitropism is largely due to our ignorance of the neurobiological aspects of plant life.11’13 This is surprising when we consider the cenury-old tradition of studies on plant neurobiology.11’14-15 Differences between root and shoot gravitropisms All plant organs are able to perceive weak gravity forces and respond to them in a predictable manner, aligning their cells and whole organs according to the gravity vector. Charles Darwin was one of the first who studied plant movements and he characterized the bending of plant organs in relation to gravity as ‘gravitropism’.16 Both gravitropism and phototropism, being adaptive motoric responses, are universal plant responses to the physical environmental parameters of gravity and light, respectively (for the most recent review, see 17). Despite the overall similarity of root and shoot gravi-behaviour, profound differences emerge upon detailed scrutiny. First, root apices grow downwards whereas shoot apices grow upwards in response to the gravity vector. This is generally considered in a simplistic, or teleological way as roots are evidently underground organs and shoots are aboveground organs. However, the case is not so simple when we take into consideration tire rhizoids and protonemata of Cbaracean algae, which also grow downwards and upwards, respectively.18 These two tip-growing cell-types show similar cytoarchitectures,l9i2° and their high gravisensitivity is related to the presence of sedimenting intracellular vesicles filled with barium crystals.18 Interestingly in this respect, tip-growing root hairs and pollen tubes lack any sedimentable structures and are not responsive to gravity. The significant difference between rhizoids and protonemata of the Cbaraceae is that, in the protonemata, the statoliths sediment closer to the tip than they do in the rhizoids. In the first-mentioned cell, the statoliths displace the ‘Spitzenkorper’, a body which acts as a vesicle supply center, but they do not show this feature in rhizoids.19*20 But even armed with this knowledge, the mechanistic link between the sedimentation of statoliths and the downward growth of the rhizoids and the upward movement of the protonemata remains elusive.21 We should also keep in mind that Cbara cells, similarly like most plant cells, are inherently excitable.22 Second, although the sedimenting starch-based amyloplasts are found in most gravisensitive cells of both shoots and roots, recent studies have revealed that their

I

GRAVITY-RELATED PARADOXES IN PLANTS j j

sedimentation is not inherently linked with shoot gravitropism.23"25 Mutants defective in shoot gravitropism, but with normal root gravitropism, show normal sedimentation of starch-based amyloplasts in the shoot24*25 The feature of the gv2 mutant of Arabidopsis tbaliana provides strong genetically based evidence of profound differences between shoot and root gravitropism because GRV2 is single-copy gene.25 Third, studies of the role of filamentous actin (F-actin) in gravitropism through the use of actin-depolymerising drug latrunculin B show that, whereas latrunculin stimu­ lates gravitropism of both roots and shoots, the statoliths in roots sediment normally but in shoots sedimentation is inhibited.26 These findings lead to the surprising conclu­ sion that the stimulating effect of latrunculin B treatments on gravitropism is not related to sedimentation of the amyloplast-based statoliths. Depolymerization of Factin via latrunculin B treatments must target some other processes essential for both gravisensing and gravitropism. Finally, there is a dramatic difference between the speed with which shoots and roots accomplish their gravitropism. Whereas it takes 6 days to complete gravitropism of maize shoots27-28 it takes 2 hours to conclude gravitropism of the roots.29*30 The nature of the extremely rapid graviresponse of roots is currently unknown, though its significance for root biology is clear. It is somehow related to a root-specific organ known as the root cap which covers the whole root apex. The shoot apex lacks such an organ. In contrast to the root apex, the shoot apex lacks clear demarcation of growth zones.31 Growing root apices are actively searching for plant food (nutrients and water) to nourish the whole plant. All this implicates the root apex as the ‘head-like’ anterior pole of the plant body while the shoot apex, being specialized for the development of sexual organs, acts as the posterior pole.13 3. Root cap Growing root apices show several other directed growth responses including hydro­ tropism, oxytropism and electrotropism. Evidently, roots monitor a wide spectrum of physical parameters, and then integrate the signals obtained in order to perform appropriate and often complex growth manoeuvres to cope with the immediate envi­ ronmental circumstances. The more acute sensitivity of root apices to various types of signals already mentioned, when compared to shoot apices, is related to their root caps.32 With few exceptions, these small organelles cover the root apex and are spe­ cialized for sensing and interacting with the physical parameters of root environ­ ment.33 Intriguingly, root cap statocytes, grouped together within a mechanosensitive root cap, resemble in many respects the vestibular organs of lower animal.34 This fits nicely with the above-mentioned plant neurobiological perspective in which the root apex represents the anterior pole of plant body.13 Root apices are always actively seeking nutrients and avoiding dangerous regions of the soil which would jeopardise growth of the whole plant — as does the head of a lower animal. Charles Darwin and his son Francis were well aware of the unique properties of the root apex with respect of its screening of environmental parameters and of initd-

■

! ■

: ;

\ \ UloSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS ating rapid root bendings in order to obtain water and inorganic nutrients.16 More­ over, they realized that root apices not only receive information about the environ­ ment but also integrate this information. In their book, The Power of Movements in Plants’, the Darwins likened the root apex to the brain of a lower animals: “it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip ... acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impres­ sions from the sense organs, and directing the several movements”. 16:573 4. Statoliths Maybe it was the sentence above from the Darwins’ book which stimulated, 20 years later, Bohuslav Nemcc (Figure 1) to postulate that the central part of a root cap acts as a vestibular organ for root apices.35 Ncmec, having been trained as zoologist, real­ ized that the polarized cells of the cap, known as statocytes, are specialized lor sens­ ing of gravity via their sedimenting starch-filled plastids. Almost simultaneously with Bohuslav Nemec, Gottlieb Haberlandt proposed a ‘statolith theory’ for sedimenting starch-based amyloplasts in shoot endodcrmal cells.36 Ever since those early days in which starch grains were postulated to be plant statoliths whose sedimentation underlies the exquisite gravisensitivity ot growing root apices, numerous studies have been published which confirm this concept as one ot the basic tenents of gravitropism. However, as so often happens in science, alter its initial enthusiastic reception, the Nemcc—Haberlandt theory was slowly abandoned, only to be resurrected after more than sixty years when it was shown that surgical removal of the maize root cap did not compromise root growth but that such decappcd roots lost almost completely their gravisensitivity.37 Later, a genetic approach to cap ablation finally confirmed that starch-based statoliths act as plant statoliths for both roots and shoots.24-38-39 In the mean time, the technique of magnetophoresis, which allov/s the manipulation of statolith positions within statocytes, had also provided strong experimental evidence for the status of sedimenting starch-filled amyloplasts as grav­ ity-perceptive statoliths.4042 Still mysterious, nevertheless, is how the signal perceived by and transduced from statolith movement is relayed to the processes of differential cell growth.

i

:

GRAVITY-RELATED PARADOXES IN PLANTS ^3

Figure 1: Bohumil Nemec, at the age of 91, delivering a lecture entitled ‘Georeceptors in plants’ at the 10th International Botanical Congress in Edinburgh, 1964. The theme of his talk was that the primary stimulus of gravitation consists in a heavier or lighter pressure on the external cytoplasmic layer (cf. Fig. 2). Nemec died two years later, having witnessed a modern revival of his statolith theory proposed in 1901.

5. Actin cytoskeleton In the 1990’s, a hypothesis was proposed by Andreas Sievers and his co-workers in which sedimented amyloplasts were postulated to push upon actin filaments anchored at the plasma membrane, preferably at stretch-sensitive channels which thereby would be activated.43-44 However, the hypothesis was not supported by later observa­ tions which showed that root cap statocytcs are actually devoid of prominent F-actin elements29-45'46 and, moreover, that depolymerization of F-actin does not compromise gravisensitivity but, in fact, increases it in all plant cells so far tested. These data thus support a converse view, namely that plant statocytes are sensitive to gravity because their actin cytoskeleton is actually less robust and as well as extremely dynamic.29-44'45 Obviously, these features preclude any actomyosin-based control over larger organ­ elles such as amyloplasts. In fact, the plastid surfaces are associated with a unique population of myosins which seem unable to control statolith positioning.45 So, in

24 BIOSEMIOnCS IN transdisciplinary contexts accordance with the finding that depolymerization of F-actin stimulates root gravi­ tropism, there is also stimulation due to the inhibition of myosins.47 Intriguingly, even decapped maize roots regained their ability to perform root gravitropisms if they are caused to become devoid of both F-actin and myosin activities.30 These find­ ings correspond well to previous observations which suggested that, besides the root cap, there are some other tissues of the root apex which are graviresponsive and can initiate root gravitropism. 48 6. Endocytosis, vesicle trafficking, and auxin transport If it is not the actin cytoskeleton, then which cellular structures arc the gravireccptor and gravitransducer? Because gravitropism is very rapid in root apices, the transducer, at least, might be expected to be in close proximity to the growth machinery. Recendy gathered data indicate that the vesicle trafficking apparatus might be the elu­ sive structure, and that it is affected by the sedimenting starch-based amyloplasts in such a way that an asymmetric growth response initiates gravitropism. Moreover, the vesicle trafficking apparatus is closely associated with die actin cytoskeleton since endocy­ tosis, exocytosis, as well as vesicle movements are all processes dependent on F-actin and myosin.49'53 Furthermore, several gravitropism-dcfcctive mutants are deficient in those proteins which are specifically related to vesicle trafficking.24-25-54 The Arabidopsis gene GRV2 encodes a protein similar to die DnaJ-domain protein RME-825 which functions in endocytosis and vesicle trafficking in animal cells;55*56 a similar function is therefore expected of it in plant cells. Interestingly, another plant DnaJ-domain protein, ARG1, is implicated in plant gravisensing as argi mutant plants of Arabidopsis are defective in their response to gravity.54 Moreover, ARG1 localizes to vesicles that recycle the auxin transporter PIN2 which normally drives the basipetal polar auxin transport essential for root gravitropism.57 PIN2 localizes to specific plant endosomes which are characterized by the sorting nexin, AtSNXl. Gravistimulation promotes accumulation of PIN2 in endosomes of cells at the upper part of gravistimulated roots58 whereas PIN2 accumulates at the cell periphery in the lower part of gravistimulated roots.5**’0 Recent localization of auxin within endosomes of root apex cells,12 as well as the rapid and powerful inhibition of polar auxin transport with inhibitors of secretion, such as brefeldin A and monensin, indicate that auxin is secreted from root cells via a vesicle trafficking apparatus.9'12 Possible roles for endocytosis and endosomes in gravisensing and gravitropism are inferred from the latest data obtained from Cbaracean rhizoids using high-pressure freeze fixation and 3D dual-axis electron tomography. Distinct ‘endocytic sites’ with associated clathrin-coated vesicles have been visualized at domains to which statoliths sediment, and another population of clathrin-coated vesicles was found in the Spitzenkorper.21 This vesicular body has been revealed as an endosomal compartment in fungal tip-growing cells using FM4-64 labelling.61 The hypothesis of starch-based amyloplasts acting as statoliths, as well as that proposing a role for auxin in the bending of plant organs — the Cholodny-Went theory — were often criticized, though in recent years they have found renewed support.17 Ad-

GRAVITY-RELATED PARADOXES IN PLANTS } 5

vances in our molecular and cellular understanding of polar auxin transport have identified clearly that endocytosis, endosomes and vesicle trafficking are all crucial players in those process'2*5'-60 that shape the plant body in accordance with sensory information received from light and gravity."*'2'62 A further crucial finding is that lateral transport of auxin across a gravistimulated plant organ63 drives its gravitropism.30*62 Nevertheless, the big question remains as to why auxin transport follows the gravity vector. A possible answer to this question can be provided by invoking putative gravisensitive auxin secretion domains12 which we have termed ‘plant synapses’ - as act­ ing in accordance with the gravity vector (see Fig.l). We shall now discuss evidence for that view. 7. Plant synapses as gravisensing domains secreting auxin Recently, we have proposed that cellular end-poles represent subcellular domains specialized for cell-cell communication via vesicle trafficking. These end-poles are the ‘plant synapses’.’0 Endocytosis and vesicle recycling would be part of an ideal system for gravitransduction, the primary graviperception occurring via the mass of proto­ plasm in which statoliths (if present) augment this mass and, hence, increase the speed (if gravireaction. Endocytosis is inhibited by an increased tension of the plasma membrane.64 This mechanical stress is then relieved by vesicle fusion (exocytosis).64 The next step in this gravisensing scenario is that the cytoplasm, under the influence of gravity, pushes upon the lower plasma membrane (Figure 2) thereby increasing cytoplasmic density.10 This might then have the effect of inhibiting endocytosis and promoting exocytosis. An opposite situation occurs at the upper plasma membrane: here, cytoplasm is pulled away from the membrane which then has a lower tension, and these features then promote endocytosis and inhibit exocytosis (Figure 2). Thus, the plant synapse with its vesicles, cytoplasm and plasma membrane represents an acute ‘flip-flop’ type of gravisensor.10 This is an extremely suitable system within the context of plant gravisensing as the system would now be free to act without the necessity for the participation of sedimentable larger organelles such as amyloplasts.10 This type of direct gravisensing via the cytoplasm is very likely to be evolutionarily older than a type which relies upon sedimenting statoliths.65-66 Gravisensing by utilising membrane and vesicle properties must ultimately be in harmony with the idea that synaptic end-poles are oriented in such a way that the gravity vector can redistribute synaptic cytoplasmic masses at upper and lower end-poles. Often the gravity vector is acting perpendicular to end poles, as when the root is growing vertically downwards and displaying positive orthogravitropism. Any perturbation of the root and, hence, of end-pole orientation also, leads to a disturbance of the usual cytoplasmic and synaptic gravisensing which can be immediately corrected.10 Gravisensing and gravitropism are two autocorrecting processes designed to maintain a specific plant morphology.2 It seems that the active maintenance of plant synapses perpendicular to the gravity vector is the driving force behind the plant gravitropism.

I ft BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS Importantly, the synapse concept also explains how gravity perception can be memo­ rized67'72 for several hours, or even days, as well as how information concerning the grav­ ity vector is integrated with information from other sensory inputs such as light, elec­ tric fields, humidity, touch, oxygen.7’68-73'77 All these processes optimize decision-making about the future behavior and navigation of plant organs. The Darwins already pro­ posed this as occuring within the brain-like plant root apex! ,3-16*u>pl.isi,s‘>'-’ is well as of sis sedimented statoliths (not shown in this simplified scheme) upon both the lower plasma membrane (A) and the plasma membrane-cell wall interface (13). The cytoplasm pushes upon the lower plasma membrane (A) which increases in density, a feature which might interfere with local vesicular and organellar trafficking. Moreover, the settling of the whole protoplast might activate putative sensors at the plasma membrane-cell wall interface (13). The lower plasma membrane, now under high stretch stress (the horizontal arrow in C), shows inhibited endocytosis and a promotion of cxoqiosis (vertical arrow's near the lower plasma membrane). An opposite situation is experienced at the upper plasma membrane which has lower tension (when compared with side portions of tire plasma membrane), and tills will promote endocytosis and inhibit exocytosis (vertical arrow's near the lower plasma membrane). Plant cells in roots and shoots are polarized, having tubular shapes which are maintained by cell wralls and plasma membrane-associated cytoskeleton. A protoplast devoid of these supportive structures would immediately lose this shape and become pear-shaped due to the gravity-dependent settling of the whole protoplasm within the lower portion of the cell.10

Evidently, there are cells within the plant which are gravisensitive but do not contain any sedimentable organelles. To explain this conundrum, some audiors have proposed that the mass of die whole plant protoplast is a sedimenting structure.80 82 When the cell is vertically oriented, die protoplasmic mass is directed upon the lower endpole78'82 and stretched at the upper pole.10 Then, in addition to vesicle trafficking, actomyosin-driven cytoplasmic streaming may be proposed as another candidate for the elusive gravisensing process which is in a position to act also as die necessary motor for the differential growth of gravitropism. The giant internodal cells of die Characeae do not have any obvious sedimentable organelles, whereas the cytoplasmic streaming in these cells is gravity-sensitive.80^2 When in a horizontal orientation, die Characean cytoplasm

GRAVITY-RELATED PARADOXES IN PLANTS yj

streams along each internal side (upper and lower flanks) of the cell at the same rate. Repositioning of die cells into vertical position causes 10 % faster downward streaming than upward streaming, 80.82 Intriguingly, the cytoplasmic streaming in these cells is organized by their end-poles, walls which correspond to the synaptic end-poles of root apical cells.9-12 If intact end-poles (synapses) are essential for the gravity-sensitive streaming,80-82 then maybe it is not the cytoplasmic streaming itself, but the vesicle trafficking activity (synaptic activity or strength) which is of greater importance, though perhaps there is also an influence from the small extra pushing force offered by the stream on cither side (upper and lower root parts) of the end-pole/synapse which can capture and transduce information concerning gravity and its vector.10 Root cap statocytcs are highly polar cells with end-poles which transport auxin via the activities of P1N3 auxin efflux carrier.83 In downward-growing root apices, PIN3 localizes to any lower, apical-most, statocyte synapse. In horizontal, gravistimulated root apices, PIN3 rapidly redistributes to the new lower surface. This is brought about by the continued preferential downward movements of recycling vesicles to what previously was a lateral cell wall but which now creates a new lower cell periphery, becoming perpendicular to the gravity vector. A similar scenario is plausible in order to explain gravity-regulated auxin-secreting synapses in the root meristem as well as in the transition zone. This would then explain reports that cells of the transition zone of growing root apices arc also able to initiate root gravitropism independendy ot the root cap and its statocytes.30-48-84 Relevant here is that plant synapses continuously monitor their positions with respect to the gravity vector and work, by means of their vesicle trafickings, to keep these positions perpendicular to the gravity' vector. 8. Transition zone as ‘command centre’: integration of sensory signals into adaptive motoric responses via polar auxin transport Transition zone cells are not only sensoric but they are also plastic in their behavior. The distal portion of the zone includes cells which are still competent for cell division and which can, if necessary, regenerate a complete new meristem. On the other hand, cells of the proximal part of the transition zone have begun to achieve competence for rapid cell elongation, requiring only an appropriate signal to do so. Such an event occurs at the onset of root gravitropism when cells of the proximal part of the transi­ tion zone starts to elongate rapidly on the upper part of a gravistimulated root apex while the corresponding cells of the lower part postpone their transition to rapid cell elongation.85 A similar delay in the onset of rapid cell elongation, associated with a lengthening of the transition zone, can be induced by an increase of extracellular calcium or by adding root cap mucilage to the external flanks of the transition zone.86 This latter finding indicates that the root cap can directly influence cell fate in the transi­ tion zone via the amount of mucilage synthesized within different time periods. Mu­ cilage production is one factor that can be modulated by the environment of the root cap33 during its exploration of new niches in the soil.

I g BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS Gravitropic bending of the root apex is initiated within the transition zone86-87 and is much more rapid when compared with the slow gravitropic bendings which shoots accomplish via their elongation region. Although gravitropic bending of root apices is initiated within the transition zone,88 touch can induce another bending in the elon­ gation zone,76 making the bending of root apices rather complex. The tight co­ ordination of two bendings accomplished simultaneously in two different root zones provokes serpentine, or S-like, shapes of the growing root apices. It is interesting that electrotropism of roots is accomplished via bending in the more basal elongation region.74

Outer Cortex

V

1 (r\

PIN2

Figure 3: Auxin-secreting synapses in root apex cells. In the stele, acropctal auxin transport is driven by the efflux carrier PIN1, whereas epidermal and outer cortex cells support basipetal auxin transport driven by the efflux carrier PIN2. Both these polar auxin transport processes are dependent on endosomes which recycle both these efflux cariers at the presynaptic areas. PIN1 is recycled via endosomes marked with GNOM ARF-GEF while PIN2 is recycled via endosomes marked with sorting ncxin SNX1. Localization of PIN2 is gravity sensitive. The PIN2-driven basipetal transport is essential for the gravitropism of root apices. 57-59

Active plant synapses secreting auxin can be expected to drive rapid root bendings in the transition zone. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that up to Five efflux carri­ ers of the PIN family (PINs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7) drive auxin transport in root apices89-90 whereas only one PIN protein (PIN1) is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the morphologically more complex shoot apices (Figure 4, for recent review see 91). In­ terestingly, the basipetal auxin flow at the root periphery driven by an epidermisouter cortex-based PIN2 efflux carrier joins, at die basal limit of the transition zone, with the acropetal auxin flow, which is driven preferentially by the PIN1 efflux carier,89,92 located in the root stele. Other efflux carriers, PIN3, PIN4 and PIN7 are re­ sponsible for lateral redistribution of auxin across die root cap (PIN3) and the root apex (PIN4 and PIN7), setting up complex loops of the auxin transport throughout the interior of the root apex (Figures 3 and 4).89,90 As for the morphologically more complex shoot apices, PIN1 is sufficient, as already mentioned (Fig. 4).

GRAVITY-RELATED PARADOXES IN PLANTS } 9

PIN1

vY

PIN4 :?'7

ff>¥PIN3

w f

PIN1 PIN2 PIN3 PIN4 PIN7

Figure 4: At the left, a root apex of Arabidopsis is depicted with a complex looping flow-pattern of auxin driven by five different efflux carriers. Yellow arrow indicates the acropetal flow driven by PINT, the other arrows indicate basipetal auxin flows driven by PIN2, PIN3, PIN4, and PINT. At the right, a highly schematized auxin flow (in red) throughout the whole plant body. Note that a single efflux carrier (PIN1) is sufficient to drive the polar auxin transport within the morphologically more complex shoot apex. Shoot portion is in green, root portion in yellow.

Thus, it is not possible to correlate die complexity of auxin transport with requirements for growth and morphogenesis. However, because the activity of auxin seems to emerge more and more like a plant neurotransmitter secreted via plant synapses,12 it can be expected that the complex pattern of its transport in growing root apices is somehow related to the sensitivity of these apices to dieir diverse environments and to their neuronal-like ability to integrate die diverse signals captured from diese environments." This is what would be expected of some kind of brain-like command centre.13,16,93,94 Recendy, we discovered that growing root apices take up large amounts of gaseous oxygen in the distal poruon of the transition zone (Stefano Mancuso, Sergio Mugnai, Dieter Volkmann, Frantisek Baluska, unpublished data). For both maize and Arabidopsis root apices, the peak oxygen influx is at exaedy coincides with the location of the most active synaptic auxin transport,12’47-95-96 and which is also the location most sensitive to the neuro-toxic element, aluminium.97-98 Importandy, brefeldin A (BFA) exposure blocks this influx completely (Stefano Mancuso, Sergio Mugnai, Dieter Volkmann, Frantisek Baluska, unpublished data). Employing microelectrodes specific to other ions has revealed that the transition zone is the most active part of the whole root apex with respect to ion uptake.99 From the perspective of classical plant cell biology and physiology, these cells are regarded as almost ‘dormant’ on account of having

20 BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS

ceased mitotic divisions and their slow growth.31*86-93 However, as mentioned, they are fully competent to commence rapid cell elongation. Why, then, should the number of these cells be so high? The size of the transition zone matches well the size of the meristem in both maize100 and Arabidopsis31 root apices. Moreover, why should a peak of oxygen uptake be characteristic of these apparently inert cells? As yet, there is no answer for this conundrum by the route of classical plant biolog)'. Plant neurobiolog)', however, can easily accommodate all die above-mentioned aspects of the transition zone by suggesting that it is some kind ‘processor’ or ‘com­ mand center’ which, via synaptic activities, processes sensor)' information, stores memories, and takes existentialist decisions about future exploratory and adaptive root behavior. Central to this neurobiological view of the transition zone are the active plant synapses. It is these which we predict to be processing and storing information as well as taking decisions about motoric responses and growth of the root apices. Synaptic activity needs an enormous amount of ion-channel activity, endocytosisdriven vesicle trafficking, and cytoskeletal rearrangements. All these processes also require a huge ATP consumption as it is energetically very costly (as known from animal biolog)') to keep neurons active.101-102 For example, it has been estimated that it requires 1(P ATP molecules to transmit one bit of information at a chemical synapse.103 In humans, the brain represents 2% of body mass but is responsible for 20% of die body’s total oxygen onsumption.104 In an awake but resting state, about 80% of energy consumption is sodated with vesicular cycling diat is related to glutamate and GABA neurotransmitters,104 id about 80-90% of total cortical glucose consumption is attributable to the energy jquirements of glutamatergic neurotransmission.105 Therefore, from the plant ncurobiologv perspective, it is logical that the transition zone cells should also have die highest oxygen requirement of the whole root apex. The transition zone, similarly like animal brain, is well supplied with bodi oxygen and sucrose. Phloem unloading of sucrose is accomplished at about 250 |im from the root apex.106-107 This is exactly the site of die oxygen-consuming transition zone.31-93-97 Moreover, many roots are liberally equipped with intercellular air channels through which oxygen can rapidly diffuse. The transition zone is very active in nitric oxide (NO) production.97 NO can have a direct impact, on synaptic communication in plants,97 as it has in mammalian brains,108-109 Moreover, NO protects neuronal cells from diverse stress factors such as oxygen deprivation110-111 or neuro-toxic aluminium.112 The peak of oxygen uptake not only coincides with the peak of synaptic auxin transport12-47-95*96 but is also extremely sensitive to gravistimulation. Repositioning a growing root apex from vertical to horizontal position induces extremely rapid changes (within a few seconds!) in oxygen uptake at the upper side of such a gravistimulated roots (Stefano Mancuso, Sergio Mugnai, Dieter Volkmann, Frantisek Baluska, unpublished data). And almost immediate oxygen and NO responses have been recorded during a brief periods of microgravity induced by parabolic flights (Stefano Mancuso, Sergio Mugnai, Boris Voigt, Andrej Hlavacka, Dieter Volkmann, Frantisek Baluska, unpublished data). All this suggests that whatever process lies downstream of the oxygen uptake, it is closely linked to die gravity' sensing and processing which is accomplished within the transition zone.30*48 Our preliminary

ft

GRAVITY-RELATED PARADOXES IN PLANTS 21

data show that BFA, which inhibits vesicle trafficking, also inhibits the peak of oxygen uptake in the transition zone, but oxygen uptake is unaffected in the elongation region (Stefano Mancuso, Sergio Mugnai, Elisa Azzarello, Camilla Pandolfi, Andreas Sadler, Dieter Volkmann, Frantisek Baluska, unpublished data). This implicates synaptic activity, for BFA is an inhibitor of vesicle trafficking, and it is BFA-sensitive auxin transport which lies behind the oxygen uptake peak in the transition zone of growing root apices. A further point of interest is that root apices suffer from acute oxygen deficiency when experiencing the microgravity environment of the low-Earth orbital during spaceflight experiments.113 a4, b4j

a5 b5

Cell transforma­ tions T T T T T T T T T T

a3 a4, a43 aJ2 a43 a4, a3 a5

b4, b3 b42 b4, b4, b4, b5 b3

a4j b5

a5 b4,

Cycle of cell wall labels

Cell wall cycle transformations

(1 (6 (1 (6 (1 (6 (1 (6 (1 (6

(1 (6 (1 (6 (1 (6 (1 (6 (1 (6

2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7

3) 8) 3 4) 8 9) 3 4) 8 9) 3 4) 8 9) 3 4 5) 8 9 0)

2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7

3) 8) 3 4) 8 9) 3 4) 8 9) 3 4) 8 9) 3 4 5) 8 9 0)

T T T T T T T T T T

(9/|2 (8/,2 (9/,2 (9/,2 (9/|2 (9/,2 (0/[2 (8/j2 (0/,2 (942

3/67 8) 3 4/67) 3 447 8) 3 447 8) 3 447 8) 3 447 8) 347 8 9) 3 4 547) 3 447 8 9) 3 4 547 8)

Each cell type is specified by its cycle of wall states, here given as a sequence of numeric labels (.v, y, v> •••)• Accordingly, cell division can be formulated in the context of a transformation rule whereby the wall cycle of a mother cell is transformed (T) to the common wall cycle of the two daughter cells. To give an example of these rules: in the cell wall cycle transformation for cell a3, (1 2 3) T (9/i2 3/&7 8), wall of state 1 transforms to a bipartite wall, 9/\2 (in clockwise se­ quence within the cell); wall of state 2 transforms to a bipartite wall, 3/67, and wall of state 3 produces a wall of state 8. The slashes / indicate the insertion points of each newly added division wall - between wall segments 9 and 2 in one case, and 3 and 7 in the other case - the state label of each new wall being denoted by a subscript numeral (1 or 6). By our convention, for 9/12 the new division wall would be labelled 1 in the daughter cell in which wall 2 is in­ cluded; in the other case, the division wall labelled 6 would be in the daughter cell with wall 7.

1

i

•: ;

46 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts

Figure 1: Three pathways, PI, P3 and P4, of cell system development from a 3-sidcd initial a ceD. A. Pathway PI. The division system has produced, during five timesteps, a simstrorsc succession of four merophytes with 1, 2, 4 and 8 cells, respectively. At this stage, all 10 cell types have been produced, includ ing a second type of 3-sidcd cell, b3. All cells divide once during each time-step. No off setting of wall junedons is modelled here, so only 4-way junctions arc shown. B. Pathway P3. In this scheme, after six umesteps, only the First division (with respect to pathway PI) has been completed in each merophyte. .Ml other divisions of pathway PI arc supressed. No secondary 3-sidcd b' cells have been produced. One extra division of cell a3 might now permit production of a pair of guard cells (which would correspond to the anomocydc stomatal pathway found in Psilotnw nuduni)\ otherwise, the a' cell becomes indistinguishable from its neighbours. C. Pathway P4. Only die 3-sidcd cell, a3, divides. The mcrophytic b cells remain undi vided. The stage shown illustrates the pathway to anisocydc stoma development completed after six umesteps. At the next step, division of a3 will be with a reversed orientauon and precede guard cell forma don. B. Determinate cellular development Pathway PI: According to the pathway PI, many 3-sided cells would theoretically be pro­ duced by the continual activity of cell a3. The system is autoreproductive:13 there is no natural limitation to cell production, and so 3-sided cell types would accumulate in excess of the re­ quirements for the development of new apices with which this pathway is associated. Two alternative pathways, P3 and P4, show that it is possible to limit the production of 3-sided cells and to bring about new types of cellular development (see below). Whereas pathway PI is associated with development of an area which becomes an organogenetic centre that grows up as an apical dome, the other two pathways, P3 and P4, are not associated with organ formation. To be resolved as an urgent question in biosemiosis is how the three cellular pathways relate to the respective contexts of their locations. It is likely, for example, that the 3-sided cells engaged with pathway PI in the epidermis (and analogous division pathways in the underlying cells which are directly related to PI and run in parallel with it) inevitably favour the topology characteristic of apical domes.

STRUCTURALISM AND SEMIOSIS 47 Pathway P3: In this pathway (Fig. lB), the merophytes do not include all the cell productions that are developed via pathway PI. In P3, there is only one division in each merophyte, and this occurs soon after the merophyte (cell b4i) has formed. The resulting system is reduced to 6 cell types and only 2 cell divisions. The absence of secondary b3 cells also limits the potentiality of the cellular array for shoot branching. Divisions of a3 continue up to a limit of X = 5 divisions. We suppose that, in most cases, any 3-sided cell a3 then merges with the rest of the epidermal cell population upon the flanks of the shoot. The fate of 3-sided b3 cells would be the same. Pathway P4: The simplification of the basic system, already seen in pathway P3, can proceed one step more (Fig. lc), so that only one division rule persists. It is associated with pathway P4. The development of this division system is shown in its entirety in Fig. 2. In this totally reduced division pathway, P4 (Figs, lc and 2), only four cells, including a3, comprise the cellular alphabet (Table 2). At the first division, the autoreproductive cell, a3, is joined by a 4-sided sister cell, b4. This 4-sided b cell then transforms progressively into a 6sided final b cell state, where b6 T b6. Cell a3 remains 3-sided throughout.

Table 2 Alphabet

Cell transforma­ tions

Cycle of cell wall labels

Cell wall cycle transformations

a’

T

a5 b4

(1 2 3)

(1 2 3)

T (7/,2 3/45 6)

b4

T

b5

(4 5 6 7)

(4 5 6 7)

T (45 6 7 8)

b5

T

b6

(4 5 6 7 8)

(4 5 6 7 8)

T (45 6 7 8 9)

b6

T

b6

(4 5 6 7 8 9)

(4 5 6 7 8 9) T (4 5 6 7 8 9)

of

lour cells

C. Cell pathways and cell differentiation By system reduction, from pathway PI to P3 to P4, we arrive at a model which describes the anisocytic stomata development found in Sempervivum giganteum, and illustrated by Ziegenspeck.26 The former division rules of PI are reduced to one rule, and the number of divisions of the mother cell, a3, is limited to X = 6. At this step, the cell wall cycle transformation rule changes to (1 2 3) T (7/j2 3/45 6), and cell production finally reverses direction, from dextrorse to sinistrorse (see Fig 2). The resulting two sister cells, a3 and b4, become a pair of guard cells. The change in production rule prior to this final division means that the newly produced a3 cell is immediately determined (or is self-determined) as a guard mother cell. With respect to pathway P3 (Fig. lB), the theoretical model does not easily accord with observations made by Pant and Khare27 and Sen and De28 on the anomocytotic stomatal de­ velopment found in Psi ol t uni nudum. These authors were unable to identify any particular cellu­ lar antecedent of the guard mother cell of Psilotum, except for a small daughter of an earlier cell division which retained an ‘active’ and densely staining cytoplasm, features characteristic of an

'

48 biosemiotics in transdiscipunary contexts idioblastic meristemoid. There is no evidence that such cells are derived from a3 or b3 cells. That the guard mother cells were surrounded by up to six other epidermal cells29 suggests that anomocydc stomata could arise from cells of the pavement zone which is interposed between generative centres originally located at the shoot apex.17 Where the stomata originate from the pavement cells, their development may be further regulated by some anatomical feature of the stem.

Figure 2: Development of an anisocytic stoma from a 3-sided initial cell. The cellular states follow pathway P4 (Fig.IQ, but arc limited to A = 6 division steps. One more round of cell division (A = 7) pro duces a guard mother cell, and thence a stoma with two guard cells, a3 and b4. Up to cell state 3, wall states arc indicated by numerals. Thereafter, cells arc denoted according to type. The pathway P4 leading to anisocytic stomatal development is associated with an increase in the value of A. from A = 5 (pathway P3) to A = 6 (pathway P4) (Fig. 2). In the case where the anomocytic pathway of Psilotum lies upon pathway P3, an analogous increase in the number of cell divisions from A = 4 to A = 5 may occur. Pant and Khare27 remark that stomata of Psilotum develop within grooves along the stem. These locations, if associated with vascular tissue, may enable an endogenous mitogen emanating from this tissue to induce the extra division (A = 6) in some small daughter cell, converting it to a meristemoidal anomocytic guard mother cell. The three pathways (PI, P3, P4) which have been represented here, together with their different developmental outcomes, suggest a relationship with the relative lengths of the re­ spective intcrdivisional periods (a sequence of timesteps of arbitrary duration). These timesteps, in turn, are likely to be regulated by the relative extension rates of the respective portions of shoot surface. Thus, when wall extension is slovr and more timesteps are required for the completion of a cycle of wall productions (i.e., the interdivisional period is long), a condition for stoma development is fulfilled (Fig. 1c). When many cell productions are ac­ complished in the space of few timesteps due to rapid cell expansion, unlimited autoreproduc­ tion and organogenesis occur. With intermediate cell production rates, pathway P3, and the loss of organogenetic potential of the 3-sided cells, is likely. The situation involves feedback between cell expansion and the cell division apparatus. This in turn may relate to the physio­ logical state of the 3-sided cells and their ability to initiate growth and cell division.

STRUCTURALISM AND SEMIOSIS 49 From a biosemiotic point of view, the situations described above point to cellular context as being important not only for the interpretation of the signals for cell production (due to mito­ gens) but also for the final identity adopted by a 3-sided cell. References 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

Miller JL, Miller JG. (1995). Greater than the sum of its parts III. Information processing subsystems. Behav Sci 40:171—269. Jackson MB, Barlow PW. (1981). Root geotropism and the role of growth regu­ lators from the cap: a re-examination. Plant Cell Environm 4:107—123. Mohr H, Schopfer P. (1995). Plant physiology. Springer, Berlin. Barlow PW. (2006). Charles Darwin and the plant root apex: closing a gap in living systems theory as applied to plants. In: Communication in plants (Baluska F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D, eds), pp. 37-51. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Baluska F, Volkmann D, Hlavacka A, Mancuso S, Barlow PW. (2006). Neurobiological view of plants and their body plan. In: Communication in plants (Baluska F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D, eds), pp. 19-35. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Porterfield DM. (2002). Environmental sensing and directional growth of plant roots. In: Plant roots. The hidden half (Y Waisel, A Eshel, U Kafkafi, eds), pp. 471—487. Marcel Dekker, New York, Basel. Hader DP, Hemmersbach R, Lcbcrt M. (2005). Gravity and the behaviour of unicellular organisms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chiatantc D, Scippa SG, Di Iorio A, Sarnataro M. (2003). The influence of steep slopes on root system development. J Plant Growth Regul 21: 247—260. Barlow PW, Powers SJ. (2005). Predicting the environmental thresholds for cambia! and secondary vascular tissue development in stems of hybrid aspen. Ann Forest Sci 62: 565—573. Darwin C, assisted by Darwin F. (1880). The power of movement in plants. Murray, London. Slack J MW, Holland PWH, Graham CF. (1993). The zootype and the polytypic stage. Nature 361: 490-493. Barlow PW, Volkmann D, Baluska F. (2004). Polarity in roots. In: Polarity in plants (K Lindsey, ed.), pp. 192-241. Blackwells, Oxford. Barlow PW, Liick MB, Luck J. (2001). The natural philosophy of plant form: cellular autoreproduction as a component of a structural explanation of plant form. Ann Bot 88: 1141-1152. Varela FJ. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. North Holland, New York, Oxford. Baluska F, Barlow PW, Volkmann D, Mancuso S. (2007). Gravity-related para­ doxes in plants: Plant neurobiology provides the means for their resolution. In: Biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts (G.Witzany, ed), pp. 9-34. Umweb, Helsinki.

. 50 BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS 16. Barlow PW. (1993). The response of roots and root systems to their environ­ ment—An interpretation derived from an analysis of the hierarchical organization of plant life. Env Exp Bot 33:1-10. 17. Barlow PW, Liick J. (2004). Deterministic cellular descendance and its relation­ ship to the branching of plant organ axes. Protoplasma 224: 129-143. 18. Hawkes T. (1989). Structuralism and semiotics. Routledge, London. 19. Piaget J. (1971). Structuralism. Roudedge and Kegan Paul, London. 20. Lindenmayer A. (1971). Developmental systems without cellular interactions, their languages and grammars. J Theoret Biol 30: 455—484. 21. Luck J, Liick HB. (1987). From OL and IL map systems to indeterminate and determinate growth in plant morphogenesis. Lect Notes Comput Sci 291: 393— 410. 22. Barlow PW, Liick J. (2004). Cell division systems that account for the various arrangements and types of differentiated cells within the secondary phloem of conifers. Plant Biosystems 138: 179-202. 23. Barlow PW, Liick J. (2005). Repetitive cellular patterns in the secondary phloem of conifer and dicot trees, and a hypothesis for their development. Plant Biosys­ tems 139: 164-179. 24. Kirby S. (2001). Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure — An iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5:102-110. >. Walsingham Lord John. (2006). On the origins of speaking. Trafford Publis­ hing, Oxford. 6. Ziegenspeck H. (1941). Der Bau der Spaltoffnungen. Tcil III. Line phyletischphyiologische Studie. Repert Spec Nov Regn Veget 123: 1-56. 27. Pant DD, Kharc PK. (1971). Epidermal structure of Psilotalcs and stomatal on­ togeny of Tmesipteris tannensis Bernh. Ann Bot 35: 151-157. 28. Sen U, De B. (1992). Structure and ontogeny of stomata in ferns. Blumea 37: 239-261. 29. Pant DD, Mehra B. (1963). Development of stomata in Psilotum nudum (L.) Beauv. Curr Sci 32: 420-422.

Signal and Context - a “comment" from cell biology Nikolaus Bresgen Department of Cell Biology, University of Salzburg; [email protected]

Abstract: Practically all cellular functions are related to specific contexts, either generated in the cell itself or addressed by extracellular events - extrinsic contexts - which are essential to cell-cell interaction. Context by itself is brought about by distinct signalling, which defines a specific “molecular” language, resembling a “biosemantic/biosemiotic tool” for molecular and cellular communciation. This brief comment is intended to figure out the fundamental impor­ tance of context dependent signalling as a general “operative motive” in biological systems. In addition the concept is proposed, that signal and context - in biolog)' - are interchangable terms, since context is mediated by signalling and signalling represents context by itself. Keywords: interaction, molecular networks, signalling cascades, cell communication. 1. Cells are dynamic, molecular networks In a generalized view, a cell can be defined as an entity of dynamic molecular interac­ tions. This entity is characterized by the serial and parallel coupling of primary mo­ lecular events (e.g. distinct protein/protein or protein/DNA interactions) assembled in a highly complex molecular network. On an intermediate organization level, a se­ ries of primary molecular interactions are coupled in distinct event cascades (de­ scribed as “molecular pathway”), which establishes a functional “context”. Cellula energy' metabolism serves as a good example for this, where a series of successiv interdependent enzymatic reactions (glycolysis, KREBS-cycle and respirator)' chair provides the generation of “cellular energy” — i.e. production of ATP (adneosinetriphosphate). In metabolsism, interaction means specific chemical modification of intermediate molecules in the context of cellular “energy charge”. However, beyond this, molecular interaction is also the basis of intra- and intercellular signalling, stimu­ lated by, as well as defining a specific context. For example, signalling of this kind is essential to elementary cellular processes such as (i) the cell cycle, (ii) cell differentiation or (iii) the stimulation of programmed cell death (apoptosis), scenarios where distinct intracellular signals are generated in response to specific extracellular contexts. In these cases, context mediated signalling may results in (i) either the onset of cell division or - as defined by a different context — the maintainance of a ’’resting state”, (ii) the differential expression of cell type spe­ cific genes in the course of cell differentiation (i.e. expression of a set of certain genes, whereas others are selectively “silenced”), or (iii) cellular j^fdesintegration (apoptosis) executed by specific cellular compounds (e.g. specific proteolytic enzymes such as caspases). It is evident, that a “common molecular language (i.e. specific chemical modifi­ cations of signalling molecules) is a necessity for this “molecular interplay”. More­ over, the diversity of signalling in the celluar network needs to be coordinated by par-

52 BlUbEMlU ncs IN TRANSDISCIPIJNARY CONTEXTS ticular signalling mechanisms which “crosslink” molecular contexts and by this pro­ foundly control cellular event patterning. With respect to this, it should not be over­ seen, that in the cellular context, signals per se represent contexts by itself as will be dis­ cussed below. 2. Organisation, hierarchy and context: cells and tissues Obviously, a cell never acts as an isolate (except under certain experimental condi­ tions), but exists in context with a very specific environment. In multicellular organisms, cells at different states of specialisation (differentiation) "cooperate" inside a certain tissue and differ­ ent tissues define specific contexts inside the whole organism. Today it is very clear, that the mechanisms invovled in this higher order “context-signal relationship” arc marked by an exceptional complexity. One reason for this is the diversity of different tissues, which constitutes a great diversity of specific contexts and signals. In addition, contexts may also change with respect to ontogensis - i.e with time. Notably, the first context of ontogenesis is fertilisation, which provides a “starting signal” for embryogencsis. Em­ bryonic development then is marked by an increasing number of different contexts emerging with time and place as organ development proceeds. This ontogenetic “context evolution” substantially directs the differentiation of cells, tissues and organs, a process vhich is marked by profound context readjustments. Cell proliferation (cell growth) •presents a “master context’ during early development, however, cell and tissue difterltiation will become the master context at subsequent developmental stages which so includes a close spatiotemporal regulation of programmed cell death. Finally, a cell type specific, stringent control of cell proliferation and differentiation is established in the adult, which is reflected by very specific cellular and tissue function profiles, rep­ resenting the “master context” acting on the differentiated cells inside as well as among distinct tissues and organs. For this, liver development is a quite interesting example, where specific growth signals (e.g. TGF a - transforming growth factor alpha) stimulate cell prolif­ eration in the growing liver to generate the “original” cell mass. This, however, is ac­ companied by additional signalling which controls cell differentiation inside the de­ veloping liver. Upon completion of liver development, cell proliferation becomes completely downregulated and the proliferation program can be “restarted” only in a specific stimulator}' context - i.e. during liver regeneration. Notably, in the “regenera­ tion context” liver cells are responsive to different “valid” growth signals (HGF hepatocyte growth factor and EGF - epidermal growth factor) beyond TGF a. Intriguingly, to replenish the original cell mass by “compensator}' growth”, the stimu­ lated cells undergo not more than 2-3 subsequent rounds of cell division until the damage has been repaired and a terminal context is needed which signals the cells, that proliferation has to cease. Thus, the programm of liver regeneration is under the stringent control of at least two opposite contexts: “compensatory growth” and “prolifera­ tive quiescenci’, however, a further prominent context may address “programmed cell death (apoptosis)" at later stages of organ remodelling.

SIGNAL AND CONTEXT 53 Another good example for “context diversity' can be found in the immune system, where context inside the organism may rapidly change in response to the “outer” world, for example during infection. In an immune reaction, context dependent re­ cognition of self and non-self is of central importance for adequate cell signalling among the different cell types involved. Similar to liver regeneration, a primary con­ text (recognition of non-self) activates immune cell proliferation and maturation. Once the immune response has been “successful” (the resulting context), immune cell proliferation abrogates. During this terminal phase of an immune response, an excess of activated immune cells has to be removed, a context which specifies distinct cellular signalling (such as Fas — see below) leading to the onset of active, apoptotic cell death. As already mentioned, not only “time” but also die kind of tissue — “place {topos)" - generates context diversity. With respect to this, the same signal may mediate different responses in locally different contexts — i.e. the meaning of a given signal changes context dependent. For example, the cytokine TGFPi (Transforming growth factor pi) stimulates the growth of bone precursor cells, but inhibits proliferation and induces cell death (apoptosis) in liver cells (parenchymal hepatocytes). Thus, during embryogenesis tissue divergence (i.e. germ layer determination) has laid the funda­ ments for substantially different context patterns among the resulting tissues, based on which each signalling molecule may trigger different responses depending on th “emerged” tissue specific context. 3. Context loss and disease Since “context and signal” fundamentally affect tissue and organ homeostasis, it plausible that inaproppriate context changes will disturb the “physiological balance”, a motive which is central to numerous disease states, among which cancer represents one of the most prominent. Here, cell transformation (e.g. due to mutations) causes context alteration (such as misspelled sentences in a text) which may lead to neoplas­ tic growth and favour tumor growth. In cancer, proliferation of the malignant cells is “out of context ” for the surrounding non malignant cells and regulatory “defense” sig­ nals sent by the “healthy“ cells may not longer be understood by the tumor cells. Moreover, cell transformation also means a profound change of intracellular contexts: the context dependent “competence to undergo apoptosis (cell death) is lost and prolif­ eration becomes independent of external signals. In addition, loss of “context crosslinking signal/' is also central to many types of tumor cells as exemplified in p53 deficient tumors (e.g. retinoblastoma). p53 is a typical signalling molecule which - beyond other functions — is “intended” for coupling changes of cellular integrity to apoptosis. Once this regulatory context/signal is lost (e.g. due to mutation of the gene for p53), potentially “hazardous” cells will not be removed, but may become “uncontrollable founders” of tumorigenic cell clones. Interestingly, tumor growth and in particular tumor invasion (metastasis forma­ tion), is marked by “conflicting contexts of equal quality'', for the tumor, surrounding tissue

I

54- W'UMuvllOTlCb IN TRANSDISC1PLINARY CONTEXTS needs to be removed since it otherwise would hinder invasion, whereas for the cells surrounding the tumor, the tumor tissue “needs to be removed’ in order to maintain tissue integrity. Hence, a complex series of conflicting signals and signal rearrange­ ments may arise from a primary context change (transformadon) and will finally de­ fine the contexts of tumor growth, tumor defense and metastasis develop. 4. How is context transformed into signal? From the above it is quite obvious, that the intracellular network must be able to react in relation to intercellular contexts and this responsiveness represents a key-prerequisite for proper participation in higher ordered structures. In other words, an individual cell gains specificity by revealing a specific set of inherent response patterns which are continously addressed by external contexts. Here, cell communication becomes sub­ stantial, where context itself is brought about by extrinsic molecular signals (immune system, nervous system, hormones etc.). In many cases, cell communication is medi­ ated by distinct ligands (membrane bound or soluble molecules) which are able to stimulate highly specified receptors (located in the cell membrane). In other words, ligand / receptor interactions represent “molecular dialogues”, where one partner (the receptor), who “speaks” the same language as the other (the corre sponding ligand) is ible to participate. On the contrary, no communication will be possible if a ligand ddresses a cell which lacks the corresponding receptor, and thus will not “undertand” the extrinsic (environmental) context. Importandy, the extrinsic context becomes .ransformed into an intrinsic (i.e. intracellular) one, once a receptor is addresed by an adequate external signal/context. Notably, receptor activation by itself is both, signal as well as context for a series of subsequent intracellular signalling events. Thus, re­ ceptor activation has to be seen as the primary intrinsic context responding to the extrinsic one by starting a “downstream” cascade of signalling events which finally trigger the execution of distinct terminal step - for example inducing the expression of certain genes (i.e. generation of the according proteins). 5. The “basics” of signalling Enzyme reactions

: -

In an elementary view, molecular interactions (as part of such cascades) follow par­ ticular rules of “unit - unit interactions”, such as (i) causality, (ii) probabilty and (iii) quality. Obviously, a certain cause drives Unit A to interact with Unit B and this interaction takes place with a given probabilty, both - cause and probability - being defined by the Equality” ofA and B (quality, however, could also mean, that an interaction is definitely excluded !). Hence, the quality (orproperty) directly defines the "degree of responsiveness” of Unit A and Unit B to interact, whereas (i) the sole existence ofA may serve as inducing event of the interaction with B (thus to be considered as immediate interactions, e.g. enzyme reactions — see below) or (ii) the interaction among A and B may be stimulated by an external source.

SIGNAL AND CONTEXT 55 For this, enzyme reactions represent a very good example as shown in Fig.l. Each enzyme (E) has a specific substrate (S) which is enzymatically (chemically) modified. This process involves formation of an enzyme/substrate complex (ES) which yields the generation of a product (P), and follows distinct kinetics k [Fig.la]. Hence, sub­ strate specifity as well as the way “how the enzyme modifies the substrate” (defining the kinetics) are qualities of E and S which are cause and determinants of the probability, that an enzyme reaction will take place and it is the “local avail­ ability” of both, enzyme and substrate which defines a specific context. At a basal level, the probability of an enzyme to react with its substrate is a function of (i) the affinity of the enzyme for its substrate (the quality) and (ii) availabilty (the concentra­ tion) of both, the enzyme and the substrate (i.e. the context). However, the kinetics of the enzyme reaction may be regulated by additional factors. Here, die simplest case would be product inhibition, i.e. termination of the enzyme reaction by the formed product. In this case, a feedback loop will be established which lowers (negatively regu­ lates) the probability of the enzyme reaction [Fig.lb] - the kinetics £’of product inhi­ bition directly affecting the kinetics k of the enzyme reaction.

ES

C\

(a) E + S —j-—*P

(b) E + S -=—• P k*

(c) A + S B + S2

k, k"

Pi [P*1=S2 ]

*P2

(d) A + B—* C + D-^ E

♦i rD

(e) wtz

GENED

Figure 1: ENZYME KINETICS (a-d) AND Gene EXPRESSION (e) as example for molecular interactions. Explanation is given in the text. Notably, in vivo we do not talk about a single reaction proceeding “in isolation”, as it could happen in an in-vitro experiment, but rather enzymatic reations are embedded in a complex cellular context, where a high chance exists, that the newly formed product will become substrate for another enzyme as depicted in Fig.lc,d. In Fig.ld, the amount of product C generated in the first enzyme reaction will be crucial - by its availabilty - for the subsequent enzyme reactions (generating the end-product E). If both reactions are balanced (at least for a certain period of time), the concentration of C will be kept low due to product consumption by the second reaction, thus inhibi­ tion of the first reaction will not become substantial, and the second reaction may continue. In other words, adequate coupling maintainsprobability and generates context.

i

56 BlUbbMlOTlCS IN TRANSD1SCIPLINARY CONTEXTS

Signalling cascades By changing die term “product” for “signal”, the same motives hold true for signal­ ling cascades where activation of one component (signal) in a given context sen es as context for further signalling. In the example shown in Fig. ld-e, a context defined by protein C promotes the production (gene expression) of molecule D which in turn exerts further signalling. Obviously, as oudined above, product or “signal consump­ tion” could become a critical factor in this cascade. If the concentration of product D is lowered, or if signal D becomes turned OFF, the signalling cascade will be inter­ rupted. Consequendy, here absence of the signal essentially would mean “loss of con­

text'. The "intrinsic" proapoptotic Fas pathway (Fig. 2) represents a good example tor such signalling cascades. Fas signalling mediates active or programmed cell death adressed by external stimuli in a huge number of specific physiological contexts. As primary event (both, context and signal) the Fas receptor (located in the cell mem­ brane) is activated upon binding of its specific lignand FasL (extrinsic signalling). Once this communication has been successful, further intermediate steps/signals will be triggered based on the receptor mediated activation of the central signalling caspase 8 (a protease) at the intracellular domain of the Fas receptor (which also rcuires die activity of furdier molecules such as FADD). Subsequently, activation ot ie furdier intermediate signal Bid (a molecule which is activated upon proteolytic ieavage by active caspasc 8) occurs in certain cell types, transt'ering the primary cor. text to the mitochondria where a further context is generated upon the release ot downstream acitivators (such as cytochrome C) from the mitochondria. This "intrin­ sic" mitochondrial signal serves as prerequisite for the formation of a multiprotein complex - the apoptosomc - triggering caspase 9 proteolvtic activity, which intern activates the terminal executioner caspases (caspasc 3, 6) attacking other cellular tar­ gets. Notably, the "signal/context Bid" is cell type specific and does not exist in all cases of fas mediated apoptosis. Therefore, to “guarantee” proper function, different contexts have to be linked by a number of “coupling signals” (such as CytoC in the Fas pathway, linking mitochondrial signalling to apoptosome formation), directing (synchronizing) the molecular cascade in time and place (cellular localization). However, complexity be­ comes exceptionally high with respect to the fact, that other “cascades” may occur in parallel, such as metabolic pathways supplying energy (which certainly will cease dur­ ing late apoptosis) or — an interesting concept - cell division, which will be inter­ rupted if a death signal is received or generated within the cell, concomittant to a con­ text which otherwise would favour mitosis (i.e. cell division) - a scenario also known as “mitotic catastrophe".

1

SIGN AL AND CONTEXT 57 Ligand (FasL)

Receptor (Fas)-

1 Caspase 8 (active)

+

€ Bid (inactive)

Procaspase 8 (inactive)

1 Bid (active)

Apaf-1

&£ ♦ Nucleus (Chromatin)

Effector Caspases Cytosol (Protein)

3

' Procaspase 9 (inactive) Caspase 9 (active)

Figure 2: Ti III AS (CD95) PAT! I WAY. Shown is a simplified overview of "intrinsic" signal­ ling ofter Fas stimulation (see text), the main contexts (1,3 - caspase activation, 2 - mitochon­ drial signalling and 3 - apoptosomc formation are inscribed)

Context /signal dynamics Regarding the “dynamics” of such signalling cascades, further aspects of sig­ nal/context modulation have to be taken into consideration, in particular, threshold dependent signalling. Although certain signals may follow a “binary” mode of ac­ tion, the signal being either active or not (e.g. a receptor is stimulated or not), thresh­ old dependent signalling which comprises an element of continous action represents a motive often found in cellular regulation. In this case, signalling molecules may be­ come activated in different contexts by different concentrations of an appropriate stimulus, but also generate different contexts by themselfes (we have learned above, that signal may represent context and vice versa) depending on the lisignal strength” (i.e. the “local” concentradon of the signalling molecule). Here again, signal and context quality is defined by “time and place”, an aspect which for example is central to “sig­ nals and contexts in development”. In the early Drosophila (the fruit fly) embryo, mo­ lecular “signal gradients” are essential to the correct determination of the body plan, each point within the gradient defining a different context (signal concentration)

-^owiavJPLINARY CONTEXTS

which is mediated by and stimulator)' to selective signalling. Along these “morphogenic gradients, different local concentrations of specifc morphogens address a dis­ tinct threshold dependent “pattern of gene expression”. For example, high concentra­ tions of the protein bicoid (bed) may determine the anterior pole of the embryo, whereas posterior determination occurs in response to an increased local concentra­ tion of the protein, nanos (nos), establishing another “morphogenic gradient”. Hence, the regional concentrations of different proteins define a “geographical map” of spe­ cific contexts, which triggers the “fine adjustment” of developmental signalling and by this organizes the embryonic body plan. 7. What have we learned? — an abstract example In a final example let us consider the following “series of events”, which may happen in everyday live: due to a certain reason, person A is told to contact person B. which - as consequence of communication with A — contacts ojjice C by placing an order regarding jet engines. After checking the matter, (i.e. the orderplaced by agent B), ojjice C gives a work order to department X to produce a further amount of 200 jet-engines. Production of the engines of type X is supervised ly person Y, which also bandies the transfer of the engines to an aircraft company building aircraft /■Person A is a production manager of the aircraft company and stays in contact with person B, an employee of the engine supplier who is responsible for order processing as member oj the production department C. Production supervisor Y (also an employee of the engine company) informs C about the production and transferprocess and by this inte/feres with the dispositions made by office (.. How this scenario could be described in terms of a signalling cascade is depicted in Pe figure below, (including the “exotic” existence of a gene X - i.e. the engines): External Contexts

// \ A —■ B y^t. C-—* Other Targets

.*** /

-Y-©

& czzm

GENEX

Primarily, we suspect, that aircraft company Z needs more engines. This primary ex­ ternal context activates an upstream signalling cascade (A-C) in the engine company. At C, a decision is made (which also depends on additional contexts such as production capacity) — a motive (“making decisions'), which could be interpreted as threshold de­ pendent signalling. Upon a positive decision (the context “quality” passing the

SIGNAL AND CONTEXT

threshold) the production order is placed — a distinct stimulatory signal — and the engines are produced. In biological terms, this could mean expression of gene X. En­ gine production in turn represents a downstream context for Y, which is central to the cascade. Since Y by itself becomes context it may (i) either direcdy affect the produc­ tion process X, but also (ii) interfere with the decisions made by C and (iii) interact with Z - by this Y establishes and controls a feedback loop in this pathway. In a biological system, Y would represent a “context crosslinker” which acts as an “pleitotropic" element in a signalling cascade by performing different tasks, addressing targets “in- and outside” of the cascade. Pleotropic effects play a pivotal role in biology since they are central operative components, in particular controlling cellular responses (such as gene transactivation) and by this are critical to tissue integ­ rity and “systemic” communication inside the whole organisms (e.g. pleotropic effects of hormones). One example for a “typical intracellular pleiotropic” element has al­ ready been introduced above: p53, which profoundly affects cell proliferation. 8. Conclusion Summarizing, signals are of fundamental meaning for molecular “dialogues” in biol­ og)' (or, with respect to the complexity of biological systems, molecular “polylognef*), establishing a highly sophisticated molecular language, the semantics being strictly context dependent. In a “top to bottom view” (e.g. from organisms to organ to tissue to cell to cell compartment to molecule), this molecular language acts in distinct hierar­ chical contexts which are mediated by cellular (cell to cell) and humoral (systemic — e.g. via the blood stream) signalling, as well as by direct molecular interaction inside the cell itself. Moreover, signal specifity is not only context dependent, directing spe­ cific (cellular) responses, but also represents specific context by itself — a fundamental motive of “language dependent” interaction which is not only relevant to biology.

References / Further reading Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th Ed. (2002). Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K., Walter, P. Garland Science. Developmental Biolog)'. 6th Ed. (2000). Gilbert, Scott F. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates, Inc. Lehninger - Principles of Biochemistry. 4,h Ed. (2004). Nelson, Dl., Cox MM (eds.). Freeman.

.

:

'

Animal Sensing, Acting and Knowing: Bridging the Relations between Brains, Bodies and World * Donald Favareau University Scholars Programme, National University of Singapore, [email protected]

Abstract: If “semiosis” is thought to be essentially the mind-dependant, human achievement accomplished through the act of “thought,” then certainly an undertaking calling itself “bio­ semiotics” will not be able to tell us anything scientifically verifiable whatsoever about animals, cells, brains, or biological systems per se. This, then, is one of the first possible misconceptions that one has to clear away when beginning to speak about biosemiotics to an audience unfamil­ iar with its premises: semiosis, in its first instance and definitional essence, is not about thought, but about relations - and, in particular, about those relations that must obtain between an organism and its sensations of, and actions upon, the world in which it is embedded and in which it must survive. In this talk, I will introduce the Peircean hierarchy of iconic, indexical and symbolic relations underlying the abilities of animals to detect, categorize, and act appropriately upon the world - and, in at least one possibly unique case (which is our own), to reason about such phenomena itself through the publicly shared semiotic prosthesis that is language.

On November 12-14, 2004 an eight-member panel of biologists, linguists, anthro­ pologists and neuroscientists was convened at the University of California, Los Ange­ les to discuss the appropriate data on which to base an evolutionary and neurobiological account of language. Convened under the directorship of Professor John Schumann of the UCLA Department of Applied Linguistics, the theme of the threeday panel discussion was “Language Evolution: What Evolved?” and one of the questions that the panel was asked to consider was: Does the search to discover the origins of human language start by searching for the earliest instances of what we can already recognize as human language activity (e.g., written words or symbols) — or is this al­ ready a “too late” starting point for understanding language as part of an evolutionary continuum? I was invited to participate in this panel so as to offer a “biosemiotic” perspective to this question. And at that time, as today, I found myself amongst scholars, for many of whom the idea of “biosemiotics” was still terra incognita. So as a way of introducing

A version of this article appears in the May 2006 issue of the journal Marges Lingnistiques. It is reprinted here with kind permission of the publishers.

62 B1°SEM10T1CS in transdisciplinary contexts

'

some of the fundamentals of biosemiotics into this transdisciplinary context, thought that I would take this opportunity to present, in just a kind of elemental__ way, some basic principles of biosemiotics as they might apply to this question abou language and its origins. My hope, of course, is that many non-linguist here will al see the potential for application of this perspective to their own fields of inquiry, 2-— well. So, then, to proceed: What I would like to do here today is to expound a upon the notion that human language was not the birth of publicly shared semiotics systems — but rather, is itself the product of more primitive semiotic relations that have evolved throughout the natural world. To do this, I would like to briefly sketch out here a general picture suggesting a continuity between the epistemological re­ source of human language use and its evolutionarily precedents in the experiential and enacted “knowing” of the world by animals, fish, insects, and plants. I will then end on a few words about some of the epistemological novelty introduced by this later system, and reiterate the need for an explanatory account that takes both the continuities and the discontinuities between animal knowing and human knowing into a single, principled schema. I want to argue, in short, that at a time when strictly materialist reductionist :xplanations of life and its evolution have become increasingly incompatible with ivhat biologists are now conceding is the complex, adaptive and non-linear nature ot organization and interaction in the natural world — the conceptual work now taking place under the aegis of the biosemioticsXA1 may help us better understand the principles whereby not only our social world and its linguistic systems, but also the very bio­ logical world with its species-specific semiotic systems came into being not as 2 given” in the furniture of die universe, but as a locally organized, massively co­ constructed, context-creating and context-sustaining interactional achievement in that universe instead. The study of sign processes as they appear variously across the biological spectrum, the interdisciplinary project of biosemiotics is grounded in the convicuon that the living organism must be understood not only in its material organization, but also in the organization of its interactions (both internal and external). Biosemiotics holds that these two sets of organizing relations are, in fact, interdependendy bicausal, and that sign relations (understood in the broadest sense, as below) mediate such activ­ ity as gives rise to behavior in the world. How exaedy this is accomplished is still a point of ongoing debate and investi­ gation within the community of biosemioticians, so I should clarify here at the outset that the school of biosemiotics that I will be drawing upon here is the CopenhagenTartu school, which is informed primarily by philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce’s (1839-1914) semiotic logic of relations, animal ethologist Jakob von Uexkull’s (1864-

1

ANIMAL SENSING, ACTING AND KNOWING ^3

1944) constructivist biology of perception, and physicist and chemist Ilya Prigogine’s (1917-2003) explication of self-organizing systems as decentralized accomplishments. It is also highly influenced by, and overlaps to some extent, with the work of American bioanthropologist Terrence Deacon13 in its attempt to articulate a scientific understanding of the disparate ways that sign processes permeate the relations of living things. This is no small undertaking, as on the most obvious level, one sees that sign processes are ineliminably implicated in the phenomena of human spoken language and written texts; in a variety of primate, canine and reptilian display behavior; in birdsong; in pheromone trails; as well as in the deceptive scents, textures, movements and coloration of a wide variety of symbiotically interacting insects, animals and plants. Less obviously, perhaps, there are the chemotaxic sign-relations by which single celled animals negotiate the world of alien “externality;” the intercellular sign exchanges upon which the human body’s internal networks operate and self-regulate; the chemical and electrical events that constitute the signals and messages of the brain and central nervous system; and the nucleotide sequences that, when read by cellular mechanisms, give rise to life from the genetic code. All of these phenomena are examples of true sign processes — i.e., substitution relations whereby something is “represented” to an organism by something other than itself - and yet each of these instantiations differ from each other in a number of fundamentally important ways. Until recently, however, no one discipline has attempted to provide a synthetic explanation of how the cultural processes of sign use and the biological processes of sign use do and do not relate. Copenhagen-Tartu biosemiotics employs the semiotic logic of relations developed by philosopher and scientist Charles S. Peirce in order to distinguish the various orders of sign processes ubiquitous to the world of living be­ ings. An architectonic well beyond the scope of this presentation (and this paper), it will suffice for now to explicate just two of the Peircean categories relevant to the discussion of language evolution. These are: (1) the fundamental triadic relationship of sign-object-interpretant which alone makes sign use possible, and (2) the nested hierar­ chy of sign types icon-index-symbol which, as Terrence Deacon13 has very thoroughly and convincingly argued, both underlies the ability of human language use as well as establishes its continuity (and singular point of discontinuity) with the sign processes of the rest of the animal kingdom. Taking these two ideas in order, then: A sign, for Peirce,14 is “something which stands to somebody for something ... not in all respects, but [only] in reference to...[its] ground” (2.228).* Simplifying con­ siderably: Peirce’s definition reveals that: (1) there are no such independently existing things as “signs” per se - instead, there are only independently existing things that are

Following convention, the citations regarding Peirce’s scholarship refer to the notation sys­ tem employed in the Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce, which is the standard reference work.

I 1

64 BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPUNARY CONTEXTS

i

—

1

used as signs by the agents that act upon them as such. (2) Such triadic action (the taking of thing x to “stand for”y by agent alone brings the “sign relation” into being, thus (3) such action requires a living agent in each and ever)' instance of sign-use to actively joining the sign vehicle (that thing *• in the world which it will use as a sign fory) to its object (which is not_y “in itself’ but only those aspects ofj' relevant to the experiential world of agent % [cf. Peirce 2.229, 5.401]). This using of one discrete part of the world (x) as the means by which to orient oneself epistemologically towards some other more general part of the world (y) allows for the creation of an effective interpretant — or “proper significate effect” (5.475) through which an agent comes to feel, act upon and ultimately reason about that set of relations joining both their own internal biology with the physical organization of the world external to it. Evolution thus presents evidence of increasingly complex biologies for “per­ ceiving” the world through signs ofpresence, “interacting with” the world through signs of association, and “reasoning about” the world through the self-reflexive manipulation of signs of signs. Peirce characterized these experiential phenomena as the nested rela­ tions offirstness, secondness and tbirdness, respectively - with the characteristic sign types -orresponding to these hierarchical categories being icons, indexes, and symbols. Thus, to he extent that a sign “partakes in the character of its object,” it is an icon; to the extent lat a sign is “really and in its individual existence connected with its individual object,” £ is an index; and to the extent that a sign “will be interpreted as denoting the object, in consequence of a habit? convention or law, it is a symbol — for the agent to whom the object is being used as a sign of something other than itself at all (4.531). Now, this all may seem quite abstract — and perhaps even incomprehensible — as presented in this condensed fashion so far. But at the heart of this schema lies the absolutely mundane (and therefore radically under-examined) phenomenon of ammals reliably going about their survival business in the world, without the need for any kind of explanatory anthropomorphism. Rather, and given this understanding of “sign relations” as primarily not some­ thing psychological, linguistic or even human-specific but rather, as simply those rela­ tions that any living organism may stand in towards the objects in its world, biosemi­ otics makes relevant for our understanding of language evolution animal ethologist Jakob von Uexkull’s (1864-1944) constructivist notions of species-specific percep­ tion-action cycles (Funktionkreis), along with the subjective experiential worlds (Umrnlten) that such perception-action cycles give rise to in animals over evolutionary time (cycles that, in turn, drive action initiation in ontogenetic time). Looking at some everyday examples of this may make such seemingly “abstract” articulations clear: Von Uexkiill15 noted that the world inhabited jointly by all species is per­ ceived in radically differently fashions by each species (e.g., as a world of pure sonar, or of pure olfaction, or of ultraviolet radiation — or, as with us, as a world of complex visual and aural experience, yet one wherein the ultrasonic and UV reality that per-

ANIMAL SENSING, ACTING AND KNOWING ^5

ceptible to one’s neighboring creatures fails to show up as experiential “reality” at all) — and that it is only from among the “objects” of this experiental world that the organ­ ism has the ability to choose its inescapably consequential actions in the world. Von Uexkiill’s most famous example of such highly limited but perfectly speciespreservingfunktionkreis-&nd- iwnvelt dynamic is that of the tick. The tick, noted von Uexkull15 lives in a perceptual world consisting only of the presence or absence of butyric acid, some elementary tactile sensation and a crude sensitivity to heat — yet from this emerges a tighdy conjoint action-response schema towards the subjective experience of these three phenomena alone. Thus, the tick hangs deaf, blind and motionless on its branch until the presence of butyric acid (a component of animal sweat) appears in its world of subjective experience, at which point it releases its grip. Falling on to the source of the butyric acid — i.e., the body of the warm-blooded animal that was passing below the deaf and sightless tick — tactile contact in the upright position initiates running activity in the search for heat (skin). Upon registering the presence of heat, the tick begins burrowing into the animal’s skin to feed.1*10'12 Given that the tick has no visual or aural apparatus, and gives no evidence of having even the ability of detecting anything other than the three specific aspects of the world above, it would make no sense to say that the tick “knows” that the blood it feasts on is carried by such unfathomable phenomena as horses, cows and pigs, and that it is the sweat of these animals that carries the butyric acid that alone sets the tick’s “function cycle” in action, feeding it and allowing it to survive. And yet: there are such things as horses, cows and pigs actually existing in the world and it is the sweat of these animals that carries the butyric acid that alone sets the tick’s “function cycle” in action, feeding it and allowing it to survive. What this reveals to us about sign-processes thus is crucial: Sign processes are not, foundationally and in their firstness, linguaform codes corresponding to psycho­ logical conceptual categories — but are rather, just as we have described them above, “substitution relations whereby something is “represented” to an organism by some­ thing other than itself’.16’17 In Peircean terms, the tick’s Unnve/t or experiential world “carves” out of the plenum of possible perceptual experience just the three perceptual phenomena made available to it by its evolutionary heritage (i.e., the heritage of its species’ perceptionaction cycle success over time). Brute, immediate perception or registration of these phenomena in whatever way they are experienced (i.e., not as “butyric acid” but sim­ ply as that feeling or registration as opposed to not that feeling or as opposed to some other feeling) constitute the icons of that sign relation for the tick — the feeling or im­ mediate registration of butyric acid, tactile pressure or temperature detection, how­ ever those things may be experienced by the tick.

66 BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISC1PL1NARY CONTEXTS What is not critical for the survival of the tick is for the tick to have internal “labels” for these percepts nor for the tick to have the psychological understanding that these percepts operate as the indexical signs for the objects that they represent (i.e., co­ present animals, those animals’ flesh and the blood meal underneath that flesh, re­ spectively). What is critical is that the tick act upon the butyric acid, tactile sensations, and temperature changes as the signs for animal presence, covering flesh and underly­ ing blood meal. And it is the evolution of its species perception-action cycle that guarantees the veridical conjoining of these agentivc actions, objects and signs. Biosemiotics argues that what is true of the tick is true of all other living or­ ganisms, all of whom have to somehow come to “know” the world and to act in it successfully using only those signs made available to it by way of the perceptual appa­ ratus with which it has become evolutionarily endowed.18 Primitive sea creatures, as Llinas19 has pointed out, could survive using only the most grossly discriminating photoreceptive patches to distinguish extremes of dark and light. Yet armed with these just these two iconic distinctions, these animals could successfully exploit the corollary indexical relations that were “really and in their individual existence connected lth these icons. Food - but also increased exposure and its attendant dangers - were both lysically (and thus indexically) connected with the ocean surface represented to the limal through the photoreception of its iconic light. Shelter and relative safety from predators - but also radically diminished feeding opportunities - were both physically (and thus indexically) connected with the ocean bottom represented by its iconic dark. And here again we see that what constitute successful sign relations in the iirst instance does not have as its fundament human minds or language-mediated think­ ing, speaking, or writing practices - but, rather, the triadic joining of objects by the agents of the world through substitution relations grounded and vetted in successful action, or use. As evolution endows animals of increasing complexity with correspondingly fine-grained perceptual apparatuses, such apparatuses, in turn, allow the animal to engage in more complex and fine-grained interactions with the world - a world not only of objects, but of other agents also. Yet before we see the kind of classic “ani­ mal communication behavior” of mating calls, dominance displays, territory marking or even pheromone trailmaking, sign use for survival crosses not only individual, but also species, umwelten in the mindless, brainless morphology of animal camouflage and in the multisensory mimicry of plants. In both these latter cases, successful sur­ vival for organism A is predicated on its exploitation of the icons and the indexes integral to sign processes employed for survival by organism B. An elegant example of this is the morphology of a thermogenic Mediterra­ nean lily called He/icodiceros muscivorus or, more commonly, the Dead Horse Arum.20

1

i

ANIMAL SENSING, ACTING AND KNOWING (fj Found on gull colonies where rotting bird corpses and their attendant carrion blow­ flies are abundant, these gruesome smelling arums precisely mimic the smell, sight, texture and even temperature of a rotting corpse in order to attract the blowflies into its prison-like chambers, deposit its pollen on them, and then finally release them to carry its seed and thus reproduce.21*22 Examples of such fine-grained mimicry abound in nature, but what is most relevant to our present discussion is the acknowledgement that the Dead Horse Arum cannot in any psychological or conceptual way “know” what a rotting gull corpse looks like, smells like, feels like, or what its body temperature is upon recent expiration - an important “sign” that the arum uses in exploiting the carrion fly.20 Nor can it subjectively experience, “see” or in any self-reflectively cognitive sense, “know” even of the existence of the carrion flies - much less “understand” their role in the process of disseminating pollen. Yet because (non-psychological, nonconceptual) sign relations are integral to the blowflies’ successful negotiation of the world - the success of the plant's survival is predicated not on its (non-existent) endoscmiotic “psycholog)'” — but on the exosemiotic action in the world that results as its evolved biology interacts with the subjective sign experience of the fly. Biosemiotics argues for the ubiquity of sign processes in nature as evidenced across a wide spectrum of semiotically interacting animals, fish, insects and plants. It maintains, as per Hoffmeyer,5 Stjernfelt23 and Kull,24 that all organisms are born into an unlabeled world of things and must use some of those things in the world as signs by which to know how to live and to survive in that world. “Knowledge” is builtfron the successful setting up of sign-relations under this explanatory schema, and “com munication” is the way that agents use signs to build knowledge together. For by carving up the unlabeled world of time and space into iconic relation and in setting up indexical relations across entities, organisms begin effecting the material world causally based on the immaterial mediating relationship of using things as signs. Indexes can be chained to other indexes so as to result in incredibly complex long chains of purposively adaptive behavior - and internal states such as hunger and exhaustion come to manifest in the organism’s phenomenology as icons which can be bought into indexical relations with other icons. Such acts of semiotic mediation take place recursively not just at the locus of the individual, however, but perhaps most generatively on the level of aggregate, in­ teracting agents. There, such relations can themselves be embedded in even highorder systems of substitution relations — and the history of human culture, it has been argued13*2*25*26 consists in just this recursive representative strategy wherein “each subsequent representation in the semiotic chain represents the prior object-sign rela­ tion, taken itselfas a higher-level semiotic object”.27:5 Deacon’s13 discussion of the culture of symbolic reference underlying human language use makes it clear that the primary phenomenon to be accounted for in an

'

68 BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS evolutionary account of language is not so much the faculty of a human brain or the linguistic facility of a species (much less of an individual), but rather, the develop­ ment of a multiply-embedded semiotic way-of-being in the world. Characterized by a Peircean notion of thirdness, this way of being is predicated on a network of sign rela­ tions that are being held for use in perpetuity outside the agent — i.e., in a public do­ main of interactively-constituted sign-exchange whereby meanings can be created, negotiated and co-operatively sustained. Participation in this system alone enacts and enables “meaning” — both here and in the animal world - and in this sense, it is the natural history of agents and their actions in the world that is the proper starting point for undertaking a natural history of signs.

References

2.

3.

4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

,. I

Barbieri M. (2001). The organic codes: An introduction to semantic biology. Ancona: Pequod. Deely J. (2001). Four ages of understanding : The first postmodern survey of philosophy from ancient times to the turn of the twenty-first century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Emmeche C. (1999). The biosemiotics of emergent properties in a pluralist on­ tology. In E. Taborsky (Ed.), Semiosis, evolution, energy: Towards a rcconceptualization of the sign (pp. 89-108). Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Emmeche C. (2000). Closure, function, emergence, semiosis, and life: The same idea? Reflections on the concrete and the abstract in theoretical biology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901, 11. Hoffmeyer J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hoffmeyer J. (2000). The biology of signification. Perspectives in Biolog)' and Medicine, 43 (2), 252-268. Kull K. (1998). Organism as a self-reading text: Anticipation and semiosis. In­ ternational Journal of Computing Anticipator)' Systems, 1, 93—104. Markos A. (2002). Readers of the book of life : Contextualizing developmental evolutionary biolog)'. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Sebeok T. (1990). Sign science and life science. In J. Deely (Ed.), Semiotics 1990 (pp. 243-252). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Sebeok T. (2001). Biosemiotics: Its roots, proliferation, and prospects. Semiotica, 134 (1), 18. Turovski A. (2000). The semiotics of animal freedom. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 380-387.

ANIMAL SENSING, ACTING AND KNOWING 59 12. Witzany G. (2006). The Logos of the Bios 1. Helsinki: Umweb. 13. Deacon TW. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. 14. Peirce CS. (1931-1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 1-6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 7-8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 15. Uexkull J. von (1934 / [1957]). A stroll through the world of animals and men (C. Schiller, Trans.). In C. Schiller (Ed.), Instinctive behavior: The development of a modern concept (pp. 5—80). New York: International Universities Press. 16. Favareau D. (2002). — Constructing representema: On the neurosemiotics of self and vision. Semiotics, Evolution, Energy and Development Journal, 2 (4), p. 3— 24. 17. Favareau D. (2006). — Collapsing the wave function of meaning: The semiotic resource of talk-in-interaction. Journal of Biosemiotics, Vol. 3. (forthcoming) 18. (cf,Sebeok, 1977). 19. Llinas R. (2001). I of the vortex: From neurons to self. Cambridge: MIT Press. 20. Angiov A, Stensmyr M, Urru I, Puliafito M, Collu I, Hansson B. (2003). Func­ tion of the heater: The dead horse arum revisited. Proceedings of_the Royal So­ ciety of London (Suppl). 21. Kite GC. (2000). Inflorescence odour of the foul-smelling aroid Helicodiceros muscivorus. Kew Bulletin 55, pp. 237-240. 22. Stensmyr MC, Urru I, Collu I, Celander M, Hansson BS, Angioy AM. (2002). Rotting smell of dead-horse arum florets. Nature 420, pp. 625—626. 23. Stjernfelt F. (2002). Tractatus Hoffmeyerensis: Biosemiotics expressed in 22 basic hypotheses. Sign Systems Studies 30.1, pp. 337—345. 24. Kull K. (2000). Active motion, communicative aggregations, and the spatial clo­ sure of Umwelt. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901, 272—279. 25. Donald M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind : Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 26. Tomasello M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 27. Parmentier RJ. (1996). Signs in society: studies in semiotic anthropology. Bloom­ ington: Indiana University Press.

■

■

■HI

] : | ■

Biosemiotics, Bioinformatics and Responsibility Ambivalent Consequences of the Deciphering of the Human Ge­ nome for Society and Science Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski University of Applied Sciences OstcndstraBc 25, 12459 Berlin; [email protected] Hans-Alfred Rosenthal

Abstract: Deciphering the Human Genome is one of the greatest achievements of modern science. The genetic code shows the importance of semiotics in our understanding of evolution. Biosemiotics as the study of signs, communication and information in living organisms has very much in common with Bioinformatics. Biology, Bioinformatics, and Biosemiotics meet, but with ambivalent effects on science and society'. In the paper we discuss the scientific and social implications, as well as a number of ethical problems. For instance, what are the genetically engineered interventions that make sense from the few point of medicine, and what are those that should be fundamentally rejected? Furthermore, the possibility is being discussed that the human genome project and the considerations accompanying it may eventually initiate new varieties of eugenics and racism.' Keywords: Human genome, genetic code, genetical determinism, information generation, Bioscmiotics, Bioinformatics, human dignity, eugenics, racism. 1. Synergy effect: Biology, Bioinformatics, and Biosemiotics meet — an interdisciplinary research field Clearly, Bioinformatics and Biosemiotics meet and create an interdisciplinary researci field in accordance with the definition of “interdisciplinary”.2 The possibilities of the young interdisciplinary science of bioinformatics/biosemiotics have to be activated, risks have to be removed, and the human rights have to be protected while respecting human dignity. The recent scientific development requires an assessment of the am­ bivalent effects and ethical consequences of all of this. The deciphering of the Human Genome is one of the greatest achievements of modern science in our days. Efficient research teams in the USA, Great Britain, France, Japan and Germany were involved in it. One result of the “Human Genome Project”, namely that humans do not possess much more genes than the earthworm is placed into one line with the so-called “great insults of humans” by modern science. Indeed, as the other great discoveries, this shows nothing else than that humas are a part of nature. And as such they are social beings. Finding out that the number of human genes is about 30.000 and not, as assumed so far, about 150.000, was commu­ nicated by Andre Rosenthal.3 By the first two theses of the mentioned joint paper we do approach important epistemological and methodological problems of modern biology. I will add here my

72 biosemiotics IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY contexts view of the importance of a biosemiotic view to solve some of the epistemological and methodological problems in this field. This position is aimed at a new understanding of information through a theory of complex, evolutionary systems4 and a specific un­ derstanding of information as a triad: of form (syntax), content (semantics), and effect (pragmatics).5 In the living realm, in the process of information generation these are process stages that are mutually conditioning one another. 2. The Limits of Laplace's Demon The point is that even the socalled “Demon of Laplace” is not able, to explain the life of a single cell or a multicellular organism by means of molecular processes alone. This is due to an uncertainty relation in the molecular processes, so that they are not in accordance with mechanistic conceptions. Essentially, the replication of the DNA is exact as well as imperfect. In fact, this dualism, this complementarity of constancy and variability, is what brings life forward, what triggers evolution. It is imperfectness or inexactness what is relevant after all, a kind of uncertainty in the molecular field of enzymatic processes. It is here where the DNA polymerase for instance makes errors. The frequency of mistakes depends on particular mutations in the polymerase gene. In ;eneral, it may be said: There is no polymerase without errors. There is no evolution Without errors in die replication of the DNA - no life without this molecular uncer­ tainty. According to this, a deep dialectics of chance and necessity as well as a comple­ mentarity of constancy and variability resuldng there from, arc crucial. According to our viewpoint, the principle of “generalized complementarity” in the sense of Niels Bohr,6 understood as a description of dialectical events, may be fertile for developing models and theories in other fields of science, in situations that are similar to that of quantum physics. So first of all, the principle of information gen­ eration proves as fundamental in model and theory development in the border region among physics, chemistry, and biology, in order to understand the origin of life (M. Eigen).7 This principle of information generation proves just as fundamental in model and theory development in the border region between information transformation and generation in the ontogenesis,8 of living organisms. But this principle of information generation proves just as fundamental to understand the common features and quali­ tative differences between computer (software) and human mind as well as informa­ tion systems and social organization.9 Therefore it is important that semiotics investigate the signs and the processes in which these aspects are involved. Semiotics recognizes that in complex systems these processes give rise to meanings. This rise of meanings has to be regarded as central for the emergence of information. It is thatfunction can be implemented only on the basis of a special structure which is organised by information, while information acquires its meaning via its effect (function or behaviour). Structure is only created and preserved by the specialfunction. This connection between structure andfunction is mediated by meanings which are fortned only in this interaction process. Hence information emerges only ifan evaluation has taken place by implementing thefunction — by the effect.

'

BIOSEMIOTICS, BIOINFORMATICS AND RESPONSIBILITY 73

3. Is there a genetical determinism? Other epistemological and methodological statements concern the socalled “genetical determinism”. Is there a genetical determinism? Yes and No! The correct answer is: There is a genetical determinism only insofar as structure and function of all proteins are determined by the genes. But how proteins and cell organelles, how cells and tissue interact in ontogenesis, is brought about by further (secondary) information systems, for instance messenger substances, cell contacts.10 Consequently, there is not only the DNA as information source — in the process of ontogenesis the sources of cellular information join it. We clearly refute a genetic determinism that considers the genetic information, the DNA or the genes as the only source for information and control of all processes of life. We stress here (see H.-A. Rosenthal)11 that even an experienced molecular biologist cannot recognize a chicken from its DNA. He will not be able to recognize it from the DNA, because, as we have said, further information sources control the development of the organism and its life processes, even the DNA in its functioning exists only by feedbacks with specific proteins.12*13 But there is a hierarchy of the DNA, for the proteins, otherwise the network would be a chaos.14 In an unre­ flected view of ontogenesis the ontogenetic process is seen as fully determined by the genome. There is only an information transformation from the genome to the adult organism. “From a semiotic view of ontogenesis”, J. Hoffmeyer wrote, “the genome is seen as a set of signs”,15 to be interpreted by the different, interacting structures. Genetic Information is not identical with the DNA-structure, its syntactic carrier. A semiotic view of information is a prerequisite for an understanding of the process of information generation in the process of self-organization of living systems.16,17

;

4. New medicine - Tailored medications, high costs, increase of life expectancy

; We turn to the concrete results of the human genome deciphering and their possible ambivalent consequences as well as to the chances and risks. By knowing the most important human genes and by the further elucidation of the function of the proteins coded by them, a rational approach to new and more effective therapeutical means will be possible. All medications utilized now are actually based on approximately 400 different targets. In the proceeding of further research this number will increase by an order of magnitude. It is possible to eliminate farreaching sideeffects. On the founda­ tions of this innovative knowledge about the genesis of cancer and of degenerative diseases as well as about aging processes, there will be highly effective and safe diag­ nostics and therapeutics up to methods of (somatic) gene therapy. The semiotic and ethical aspects of therapeutic genetic engineering - “as editing a text of a disease”, were discussed by E. Baer18 at the conference on Biosemiotics in 1992 already. Newly developed individualized or group-specific medications will be possible. Whereby the mass production in the pharmacological industry decreases. By that, a significant increasing of life expectancy, with higher quality of life is to be expected for

.

II

I

I ; :

74 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts those who owing to their material situation or a solidaric society can benefit from this new medicine . How will the society react to this? Because of the costs of the new medicine that will also increase the question of funding and insuring will be of enormous importance. Up to now this problem has been hardly discussed. 5. Concerning the handling of genetical data - How do we handle our own genetical structure? Problems are arising then, which, until now, are rarely mirrored in data protection law: How is medical confidentiality of non-medical persons reflected in DNA analysis and evaluation laid down by law? Any man, if he wishes, should have the right to look at his genetic factors. This looking into dispositions or predispositions can be restricted to one or a few genes and thereby remain local. But up to date gene chips will allow to include the individual factors completely. The question is: Is a data protection in the field of medical genetics achievable at all today, and if yes, who shall have access to the data? On the one hand, be utilization of results from molecular genetics provides the possibility to see poten[ dangers for individuals (cancer risks, risk of degenerative diseases and other risks), t, as actual examples connected with becoming a civil servant e.g., show, one is not •wed to urge people to a gene test. In Germany, who wants to become a civil ser.it has perhaps to undergo a gene test.19 Even if the person concerned docs not /ish to know the result directly, he/she can recognize it from the reaction of the of­ fice in charge, and in particular cases gather it as a kind of death sentence. Hopefully, the European recommendations will soon become a law in force.20 The example shows that die problematic point is of highest actuality, if personal data become acces­ sible to unauthorized persons, if information on genetical dispositions are passed on to employers and insurances. Hence, in terms of the Biomedicine Convention ot the European Council a “Right not to know” the own genetic determination was actually formulated. How do we cope with our new insight into our own body? The resolution of the European Parliament regarding the ethical and juridicial problems of gene ma­ nipulation starts from the right to complete knowledge, but also non-knowledge of the information about the person concerned. 6. Education to anti - racism There are genetical differences among ethnical groups which, however, have nothing to do with the essence of being human - with the “Menschsein”. Furthermore, there are no “cultural genes”, in fact. But in particular genes and groups of genes we will find mutations and combinations of polymorphisms which are at the roots of physio­ logical-chemical differences in the metabolism of individuals and ethical groups. Fre­ quently, particular diseases appear in particular groups only. Moreover, there are many examples which prove that in particular ethnical groups, because of gene mutations, particular enzymes (for instance the alcoholhydrogenase) function better or worse so

BIOSEMIOTICS, BIOINFORMATICS AND RESPONSIBILITY 75

that as a consequence a better or worse digestion of alcohol e.g. is the result. That many people react by order of magnitudes differendy to medications is mainly due to mutations in Cytochrom-P450-genes which in turn interact with most medications in a different way, not only in individuals, but also in whole ethnical groups. In any case education towards humanity is advisable. Human races and racism shall be our concern. In the past we and other authors pointed out that there are no scientific foundations for racism. But without leaving this position, it must be said, as we have done previously, that the more exact investigation of the human genome will show specific differences between the DNA sequences of ethnical groups which are connected with their environment and the physiological particularities of the group. It is to be feared that proponents of racism will abuse such facts as “proofs” for the inferiority of single races asserted by them.21 Because of that we consider it a decisive task, especially of national education, to make clear the unscientific intentions of ra­ cism. Hence, it follows that to be of humankind is a quality that concerns an expres­ sion of character marks and value concepts which are not actually controlled by genes, and that the genetic particularities of ethnical groups do not concern mind and charac­ ter. Also in connection with moral behaviour and cultural achievements, for instance concerning the talents for such achievements, biological foundations should also be taken into consideration. But it is impossible to consider moral behaviour or cultural achievements as caused by genetic constellations of humans. To the apologetics of such considerations we have to reply that they either do not know what ethics is or lack the knowledge of what genes are - perhaps they do not know enough about both.22 7. Genetic engineering and Eugenics 7.1 Eugenics must not become easy! An eugenic “program” which aims at improving human traits, such as intelligence, creativity, or beauty”,23 was apposed by E. Baer, referring to the terrible misuse of eugenic in Nazi Germany, at the conference “Biosemiotic — The Semiotic Web 1991”. Today there is the danger that parents want to condition their descendents just as they like and in accordance to fashion, that they do not want to accept harmless hereditary handicaps (for instance short-sightedness) or black hair instead of fair one. Indeed, if the society does not install effective controls from the beginning on, such an inhuman, easygoing selection could spread which is not wholesome to the gene pool of human­ kind. 7.2 Research on embryonic stem cells It is possible, without danger, to take out a cell from a two- or four cell embryo. In principle, one could breed all varieties of stem cells. This is a huge potential for the

7 6 tilQSEM1QTICS 1N trANSD1SCIPUNARY contexts_________________________ _ treatment of degenerative diseases e.g. (as for Parkin-son). In principle, after the first cell division, one of both cells can be used up therefore. The other cell forms easily a complete human being, as it were the twin. 7.3 Reproductive and therapeutic cloning Reproductive cloning is to be rejected. Therapeutic cloning is to be developed. In ap­ proximately half of all (theoretically thinkable) cases this may be equally easy as a self­ donation of blood. But today, tomorrow and in future, because of fundamental con­ siderations, we are opposed to the generation of genetically identical copies of human beings by reproductive cloning. The danger would be too great that society would be split into biological classes, in valuable and less valuable life. On the other hand, the therapeutic cloning up to the fewcell stage, in order to obtain embryonic stem cells, which are not being repelled in terms of immunology will have a future. 8. Gentherapy As result of the Human genome project the locus, sequence and structure of nearly all luman genes are exacdy known. In the case of monogenically transmitted diseases the nolecular defects (mutations) in approximately thousand genes have been identified, it is to be expected that in the next years predispositioncd genes in the case of com­ plex diseases, as for instance the different kinds: Alzheimer, Diabetes, rheumatoid Arthritis, Asthma and heart and circulation will become identified increasingly. Thi* provides us with new perspectives towards any kind of gene therapy. It has to be dif­ ferentiated between somatic genetic therapy and genetic manipulation of the germ celL Somatic genetic therapy should, if it is therapeutically beneficial for the patient,-4 be­ come promoted without reservations. In any case we are opposed however to a ma­ nipulation of germ cells, because it may have unpredictable consequences for the gene pool of humankind. Already 35 years ago,25 at the start of genetic-engineering, the problem of genetical manipulation of germ cells was intensively discussed. At the beginning it was partially welcomed that in future it would be possible to eliminate step by step genes which are responsible for strongest hereditary diseases or cancer. The proponents of this view do not consider that it is impossible to remove cancer genes ore other genes which are the source of hereditary diseases or other serious diseases, because in the healthy state they are necessary for life. The opponents to germ cell therapy recog­ nized the danger that it might be possible that the elimination of such genes will have disadvantageous consequences for the gene pool of humankind. The Sickle cell anae­ mia is a classical example, because the Sickle cell anaemia has advantages in regions which are contaminated with malaria. Because of this we are opponents to a manipula­ tion of germ cells.

1

BIOSEMIOTICS, BIOINFORMATICS AND RESPONSIBILITY 77

We are and will be, unlike James Watson, who sees in the change of human genes in order to avoid diseases a meaningful therapy option and welcomed it even for cos­ metic purposes,26 still of the strong opinion, that this genetic manipulation of human nuclei should not be carried out and should be forbidden if necessary, because of the not easily comprehensible risks. The possibilities of the genetic correction of somatic cells, the results of the stem cell research, and the new diagnostic methods and highly effective medicine (without or with poor side-effects), will lead in most cases to satisfying results.

References 1.

Fuchs-Kittowski K, Rosenthal HA, Rosenthal A. (2005). Die Entschliisselung des Humangenoms: ambivalente Auswirkungen auf Gesellschaft und Wissenschaft. Erwiigen - Wissen - Ethik (Deliberation Knowledge Ethics) 16: 149-162. 2. Parthey H. (1983). Forschungssituation interdisziplinarer Arbeit in Forschungsgruppen. Parthey H, Schreiber K (Eds.). Interdisziplinaritat in der Forschung: Analy-sen und Fallstudien, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin: 13—46. 3. The International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2001). Nature 409: 860. 4. Fuchs C, Hofkirchner W. (2002). Ein einheitlicher Informationsbegriff fur eine einheitliche Informationswissenschaft. Floyd C, Fuchs C, Hofkirchner W. (Eds.). Srufen zur Informationsgesellschaft: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski, Peter Lang, Frankfurt: 241-281. 5. Fuchs-Kittowski K. (1998). Information und Biologie: Informationsentstehungeine neue Kategorie fur eine Theorie der Biologie. Biochemie: ein Katalysator de Biowissenschaften, Kolloquium der Leibniz-Sozietat am 20. November 1997 an laB-lich des 85. Geburtstages von Samuel Mija Rapoport, 22: 5-17. 6. Bohr N. (1933). Light and Life. Nature 131: 421—457. 7. Eigen M. (1971). Selforganization of Matter and the Evolution of Biological Mac­ romolecules. Naturwissenschaften 58: 465—523. 8. Fuchs-Kittowski K, Rosenthal HA. (1998). Eine moderne Biologie bedarf der Kategorie Information. Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften: Streitforum fur Erwagungskultur 9: 200-203. 9. Fuchs-Kittowski K, Heinrich LJ, Rolf A. (1999). Information entsteht in Ortganisationen in kreativen Unternehmen: wissenschaftstheoretische und methodologische Konsequenzen fur die Wirtschaftsinformatik. Becker, Konig, Schutte, Wendt, Zellewski. (Eds.). Wirtschaftsinformatik und Wissenschaftstheorie, Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden: 330-361. 10. Ellersdorfer G. (1998). Epigenetische Netzwerke: Die Emergenz „zellularer Information“ durch Selbstorganisation. Fenzl N, Hofkirchner W, Stockinger G. (Eds.). Information und Selbstorganisation: Annaherung an eine vereinheitlichte Theorie der Information, Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck: 189-210.

7g

biosemiotics IN TRANSDISCIPUNARY contexts

11. Rosenthal HA. (2002). Zu einem Aspekt der genetischen Information: Geist und Matcrie in der friihen biologischen Evolution. Floyd C, Fuchs C, Hofkirchner W. (Eds.). Stufen zur Informationsgesellschaft: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt: 233-240. 12. Fuchs-Kittowski K, Rosenthal HA. (1998). Eine moderne Biologie bedarf der Ka-tegorie Information. Ethik und Soziahvissenschaften: Streitforum fur Erwagungskultur 92: 200-203. 13. Fuchs-Kittowski K, Rosenthal HA. (1998). Selbstorganisadon, Information und Evolution: Zur Kreativitat der belebten Natur. Frenzel n, Hofkirchner W, Stockinger G. (Eds.). Information und Selbstorganisadon: Annaherung an eine vereinheitlichte Theorie der Information. Studien Verlag, Insbruck: 141—188. 14. Fuchs-Kittowski K. (1976). Probleme des Determinismus und der Kybernetik in der molekularen Biologie, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 15. Hoffmeyer J. (1992). Some Semiotic Aspects of the Psychophysical Relation: The Endo-Exosemiotic Boudary. Sebeok T, Umiker-Sbeok J. (Eds.). Biosemiotics: The Semiotic Web 1991. Mouton dc Gruyter, New York: 101-123. 16. Hofkirchner W. (1998). Information und Selbstorganisadon: Zwei Seitcn emer Medaille. Fcnzl N, Hofkirchner W, Stockinger G. (Eds.). Information und Selbstorganisadon: Annaherung an eine vereinheitlichte Theorie fer Information, Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck: 69-95. . Jahn R. (1998). Information und selbstreferenticllc Systcme in der Ethologie. Fenzl N, Hofkirchner W, Stockinger G. (Eds.). Information und Selbstorganisation: Annaherung an eine vereinheitlichte Theorie der Information, StudienVerlag, Innsbruck: 211—252. 18. Baer E. (1992). Edeting the Text of a Disease: Semiotic and Ethical Aspects of Therapeutic Genetic Engineering. Sebeok T, Umiker-Sbeok J. (Eds.). Biosemiot­ ics: The Semiotic Web 1991. Mouton de Gruyter, New York: 15-25. 19. Trautfetter G. (2003). Geisel der eigenen Gene. Der Spiegel 43: 216. 20. BR-Drs. (Bundesrepublik Drucksache) 217/89: 4. 21. Miiller-Hill B. (2001). Die Gefahr der Eugenik. Was wissen wir, wenn wir das menschliche Genom kennen?. Honnefelder L, Propping P. (Eds.). DuMont Buchverlag, Koln: 218-219. 22. Fuchs-Kittowski K, Fuchs-Kittowski M, Rosenthal HA. (1983). Biologisches und Soziales im menschlichen Verhalten. Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Philosophic 31: 812-824. 23. Baer E. (1992). Edeting the Text of a Disease: Semiotic and Ethical Aspects of Therapeutic Genetic Engineering. Sebeok T, Umiker-Sbeok J. (Eds.). Biosemiot­ ics: The Semiotic Web 1991. Mouton de Gruyter, New York: 15-25. 24. N.N. (2003). Blutkrebsfalle nach Gentherapie aufgeklart. Berliner Zeitung, Nr. 242, 17.10.2003: 13. 25. Fuchs-Kittowski K, Rosenthal HA, Rosenthal S. (1981). Zu den modernen gene­ tischen Technologien und dem Verhaltnis von Wissenschaft und Ethik: Wahrheit und Wert, Rationalitat und Humanismus. GeiBler E, Scheler W. (Eds.): VII. Kiih-

BIOSEMIOTICS, BIOINFORMATICS AND RESPONSIBILITY 79

lungsborner Kolioquium: Genetic Engineering und der Mensch. AkademieVerlag, Berlin: 107-129. 26. Stuttgarter Zeitung online vom 8. November 2003. http://\vww.stuttgarterzeitung.destz/page/detail.php/391066

I .1

M ■!

Signal - Sign - Word Transdisciplinary Remarks on the Field of Research called [Bio-] Semiotics Erich Hamberger Department of communication research, University of Salzburg; [email protected]

Abstract: Cognition is always cognition of relation(s). Against this background, I focus on semiotics — especially /vosemiotics — from a relational point of view. The initial point of the considerations are the related terms signal, sign and word. All three items stand - similarly - as “word-J/jy//’, verbal expressions for communication-/information process phenomena, de­ scribed as transduction, transmission, signaling, the special meaning depends on the different con­ text, in which they are used. According to this fact Zvosemiotics - as a specific cognition con­ cept in life sciences — should be shown by relating it to a mechanistic impact of signal trans­ duction on the one hand and human communication — as a high complex form of (word-) interaction, which is based not only on the ability to speak, to use symbols and to tell messages but to bare the word - on the other hand. The transdisciplinary remarks should help to look for the range as well as the limits of the field of research called bio-semiotics. Keywords: Cognition, Human Communication, Signal, Sign, Word, Biosemiotics, Epigenetics, Transdisciplinarity.

I start with a picture. A verbal picture. That means the description of an event, whiclj illustrates the fascination and the central problem of scientific cognition of life in tht tradition of modernity. Bert Keizer - a philosopher and doctor of medicine from the Netherlands — described in his book That's the last. Experiences of a doctor with Dieing and Death the first autopsy he experienced during his studies. Keizer literal: “It was about a body of professor P., in his lifetime a sensitive clinician and sharp-witted scientist. A combination which does actually not really exist in this guild anymore. ... I don’t know which motives induced him to the release of his body. I think there are only few people who want to be dissected after they have once been present at a dissection. Maybe it was a gesture of humility. He couldn’t have thought seriously that the autopsy would bring us just one step closer to the secret of his unique work. Seven university collegues have assembled in the autopsy room. It at­ tacked attention, that everyone was present at the first cut and not, as it used to be at routine work, had to be persuaded with lots of phone rings to look at the taken and cleaned organs. Professor Wagenaar personally lead across the taking-out. He worked elegantly and fast, from time to time he refused help from an assistant. Everyone spoke silently. Nobody stared and the seven scholars in their white clothes gave the scenario, supported by the golden October sun, a touch of something sacral. To that time I became easily impressed by our science. After chest and midrift have been emptied we concentrated on the brain, Let it be, I thought, please let it be. Because it is an awful view, when the skin and the hair of somebody are moved from the skull and are hanging over the face. And then the sawing. The assistant operated with the

82 biosemiotics in transdiscipunary contexts saw a worse because ofSth„CUttmg, "°lse 1)16 sacral atmosphere was gone. It was mad= even opening of the skull [Prof“ and ** b'Ue Sm°ke’ wh'ch r°Se °Ut °f enaar overcame all with big calmness and he re movements. Holding the braii eventuallv anv A WCm l° tlle ^aIance- Meanwhile the assistant ran by his side to catchy around the U I °j P1CCeS °f 1116 tissue with a white c,oth- Everyone assembled

sitsr

csitssagiS!? - * —•- *- * -Die

seems Reinhard Low is right, when he writes in his booJcr *• ***• -

jcontext> I understand bio-semiotics as the effort to establish a new unn ^c,ence concerning all phenomena of living. The subtitle of the pre, 5 - ,° 6 3thenng ,n Bl°semiotics 6, held in Salzburg from 4-9 July 2006.), Biosemiotics in Unary contexts encourages me to think about bio-semiotics in a broader context as usual. At this point two questions seems to me very important: long timS? 6 Sei™°^C coSmt^on concept (Peirce etc.) ignored for such a 2 Why do bio-semiotics become presently more and more popular? So I oded the first - general - part of my contribudon Cognition and context or relational ouvcrturc , m ^ Qi-|C Wan!t0 S^°W a t^lou8*lt* which will strech through the following exx ,i*u .u°nS, e a re thread. Cognition is always (also) cognition of relation(s). Beginning is ey sentence I will tell some of my transdisciplinary considerations to the in T8 sclenQ ,c bio-semiotics. Concrete I try to bring the central term sign In TtCXt °n the °ne hand in a digger term-relation. On the other hand I ° S °W the term SIS° ,n the context of the scientific-/ cultural history. As every' 1 S fOV^S ,tS actua^ meaning only in the context of a sentence, the comprehensive terms ° * ^ ^ S®1 *S mar“^ested in the way to set it in relation to analogous This should happen, when I try to mark off the term sign opposed to the term signal on the one and the term word on the other hand. To illustrate this I take a loan from Viktor Emil von Gebsattel, a decisive medical man and psychotherapist of the post second world war period. In his work Christentum and Hiunanismus. IV'egc des nienschlicben Selbstverstandnisses he tells: “Can we realise the nature of the world of stones and rocks by practicing petrology, mineralogy or cristallography? Certainly not. ”3:7 Of course these sciences helps us to recognise the orders and structures of the inorganic world, but the specific nature of this area can only be made accesible through the plant.

!

SIGNAL-SIGN-WORD 33 Through the plant — meaning through the living and their differences — the actual and specific nature of the world of stones and rocks can be shown. And the same is valid concerning the area of plants. All sciences concerning plants are not able to make clear the nature of the plant. Only the demarcation of the world of stones and rocks helps to understand the true nature of plants. The demarcation facing the world of stones and rocks below and the world of animals above. That means: Seen from the plant the spontanic mobility of the animal is a wonder. The science of the animal for itself is also blind for the actual nature of the animal. The cognition of the own nature is needed besides the demarcation facing the world of plants on the one and facing the sphere against of the human on the other side. Last but not least: The science of man, anthropology, is also blind to character­ ize nature of human for itself. To understand the nature of human being it is necessary to face a demarcation to the world of living entities without self-consciousness below and the sphere of the whole reality above.3 9'11 The thesis of Gebsattel can be noted in short as following: all different areas of being are only definable by their boundaries. In this sense Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799), physicist and literate, claimed — while commenting on the increas­ ing trend towards specialisation and differentiation in the 18th century - that, one who is only able to understand physics and chemistry is also not able to understand them truly. Scientific research, also natural scientific research, is, pardon me, should be, research for the human being, research to more humanity. But: What is, what means humanity? 1.1. The problem „humanity“ Maybe you personally are of the opinion that this could be prescribed - at least » main features: but I’m not that sure about it. What we can rather prescribe are struc­ tures or forms of ///humanity. What we have to keep in mind: humanity is also a con­ text-term. The meaning of humanity depends on the way how a culture defines the role of man inside the whole reality. The same can be seen in connection with the term „ethics“. Franz Vonessen, a famous philosopher from Freiburg, writes laconically in his work Krisis derpraktiseben Vemunft “We don’t know what is ethics. ”4:32 The doctor Joachim Bodamer writes in the mid 1960s a book with the title Sind ndr iiberbaupt noch Menscben? 5 And Ludwig Bertalanffy published at the same time a book titled: Aber vom Menscben m'ssen ndr nichts.6 Actual the technical progress in medicine leads to the problem, that the therapy is no longer in one hand, but because of the splitting system concerning medical spe­ cialists; single symptoms are dealt with but the entirely man gets lost. Man should be treated and not single valences of laboratories.

84 BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS

These examples show very clearly that since it is no more clear what is meant by human being, especially humanity. Knowing, that it ha s never been strictly clear what human being means. As it is well known summarizes Immanuel Kant his popular questions with the 4th: What is man? However: The sciences can’t get along without humanity. That means: Without a model of man, without a definition of a positive aim/-figure, without a model of humanity, at least of a direction in which the scien­ tific research progress should develop. So the thesis of Gebsattel, that all different areas of being are only definable by their boundaries, should be now transferred to the phenomenon sign, as the key-term of bio-semiotics. 2. SIGN and CONTEXT According to Gebsattel I try first to illustrate the “horizontal” context of sign. That means to figure out the “termanent neighbours” of sign: 2.1. The horizontal context of sign:

Signal -

Sign -

Word

Signal (or impulse) stands here for the basic term to characterize information- and communication-processes in non-living (that means physico-chemical) entities, based n physical laws. gn stands for semiotic processes (semiosis), which happens in all living systems, alevi Kull noticed this central difference in his essay The semiotic turn in biologj. Following the Sebeok’s approach,” — he said — “we notice that there are no univer­ sal laws in biology or in any other field that describe the phenomena of life and liv­ ing. As different from the physical laws, biological rules do not hold always, they include exepdons. Because these are codes.”7'-31 Walter Elsasser expresses the same in a more poetic way in one short sentence ot his text/I critique on reductionist)i as following: “The key-word of physics is the MUST, that of the Life Sciences is the CAN.”8:225 * Word, the third term of the shown „horizontal” context of “sign”, stands for seltconsciousness-interactions, which are based on speech, word-communication. That means: Human beings are not only able to speak, they have the word; and that’s the possibility to create wor(l)d.9 According to Gebsattels thesis it can be noted: On the cognition-level of “sig­ nal/impulse” one is not able to realize the phenomenon of sign, on the cognitionlevel of “sign” one is able to differentiate between signal and sign, but one cannot reach the “word”-level. Just on this “top-level” one is able to differentiate between signal, sign and word. But there is also a vertical context of “sign”.

and I want to add: The key-word of “Humanities” is the SHOULD.

SIGNAL-SIGN-WORD 35

2.2. The vertical context of SIGN ‘Vertical” context stands for the different meaning of the phenomenon/or term sign in human cultures or epochs. Here I suggest the differentiation of the following four types-* Myth-based cultures Logos-based cultures Scientific-based cultures “SIGNtific”-based cultures Before I start with the detail description of the named cultures, I want to add immediady, that these unifications are — because of its shortness — on the one hand con­ cisely but on the other hand not very differentiated. Each culture will be character­ ized by specific cognition elements (the main “tool” is each time added after the co­ lon). In general it is important to keep in mind, that cross over all cultures man is not only able to the cognition of symbols, but also to symbolic cognition. 2.2.1. M>-//>bascd cultures: SYMBOLIC (“Sign”-) SPEECH Myth-based cultures (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism) are characterized by the fact, that cognition is here seen primarily as symbolic (“sign”-) speech, especially against the sphere of the Absolute; based on the belief, that the real ground of everything is uncxpressible in words, but it can be realized in individual experience. The great greco philosopher Heraklit writes according to this cultural context in fragment number three: “The God, who is the owner of the oracle in Delphi, doesn’t say anything and doesn’t hide anything, but he gives signs.”10118 So it can be said: in myth-based cultures the central cognition element is the symbol (the symbolic speech)/ the sign, against the background of a not expressable “principle of reason”. 11-13

A fifth type of cultures, the “Trans-Modernity” I want to differentiate will be described in the final chap­ ter. For more details sec Hamberger 2007 fin print). As I prepared this text for the 6,h gathering in bio­ semiotics (July 2006), I didn’t know, that John Deely differentiates also between four cultural types in his book Four Ages of Understanding, Toronto 2001. It was Kalevi Kull who advised me after my presentation to Declys book. In short: I agree with Dcelys estimadon of the modem and post modem culture, but I am not able to follow his conception concerning the ancient philosophy and the Latin Age. But its not the place here, to go in further details.

!

86 BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS

2.2.2. Logor-based cultures: (word-to-word) SPEECH Logos-based cultures means the so called monotheistic (or Abrahamitic) religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.They are connected with the idea, that the real ground of being had manifested itself not only in the way of symbols and signs, or in symbolic speech (like in the myth-based cultures) but also and primarily in (word-) speech from I to I. Especially in Christianity with the belief that God — as the eternal word {logos) has became man. So the early western Christian culture is connected with the idea, that everything, which exists, had a logos-structure, because it is created from the eternal word. So the basic cognition element is here the word (logos).9,14'16 2.2.3. Scientific-based Cultures: (wordless) NUMBER 'Jot later than with Newtons Principia Mathematica the concept of cognition changed d a wordless-mechanistic interpretation of the reality; not only concerning the Inor­ ganic but also the Living. The scientific-based culture of the western modernity be­ came more and more reality. A suitable model for the funktion of living was now the clockwork. Concerning the human being we know that La Metrie (1709-1751) devel­ oped the vision of the “L’homme machine”. In this context the (wordless) number became the central cognition element. This fundamental cognition turn from word (logos) to number illustrates Fcrdjnand Ebner (1882-1931), a widely forgotten austrian philosopher and inspirator of Martin Bubers I and Thou (1923) with his central opus Das Wort und die geistigen Re­ a/itaten17 as following: “Die Icheinsamkeit alles wissenschaftlich-mathematischen Denkens bringt es mit sich, daB das Wort im diametralen Gegensatz zur mathematischen Formcl steht. Mathematik zu werden, ist bekanntlich das Ziel aller Naturwissenschaft, alles Wissens um das Geschehen in der auBeren Welt; und die allerletzte physikalische Erkenntms wird vielleicht einmal in einer mathematischen Formel zum Ausdruck gcbracht wer­ den, die sich nicht mehr in Worten ausdrucken laBt.“9223 That these tendency is still present nowadays shows Gerhard Ulrich in his book Biomedi^in.Diefolgenschweren Wandlungen des Biologiebegrijfs with the following remark: “The permanent occupation with the world of the lifeless [in the cultural context of modernity] has formed kinds of view and thinking, which are similar to it.“i9 So researchers like Jakob von Uexkiill, philosophers like Charles Peirce and others couldn’t influence the development of biological sciences in a relevant way. The problem of the actual biological thinking is, in my opinion, that — as Ulrich re­ marks — the fundamental difference between the sentences: “ ‘Life-processes are physico-chemical proceedings’ and ‘Life processes are nothing but physico-chemical proceedings’ is still not accepted. ”2:11

SIGNAL-SIGN-WORD gy As a result of that, the (wordless) number can be seen as the basic cognition element in the western scientific modernity. 2.2.4. „SIGNtific“-based cultures: (wordless) SIGN Equal to the increasingly crisis of the modernity and its concept and vision of “total cognition” during the 20th century a new cognition culture began to grow up: the so called /wZ-modemity. The characteristic basic cognition element is here also — as in the myth-based cultures - the sign.™ But in opposite to the myth-based cultures where “sign” is visualized, in this cultural context it occures as a “wordless” sign.19-15 After these short views over four specific cultural cognition contexts in myth-, logos-, scientific- and “r/^/mfic”-based cultures I want to illustrate the defintive result of my considerations in the following chapter(s): The entanglement of the horizontal and the vertical context of the word-field “sign” in the presented cultural contexts. I wall point out it in five figures (four in the following chapter, and one in the conclu­ sion chapter) . 3. The Entanglement of the horizontal and vertical context of the word-field „sign“ illustrated in four specific cultural settings With the following figures I’d like to illustrate on the one hand the general impossi­ bility to escape from the entanglement of the horizontal and vertical context of the wordfield “sign”; on the other hand I want visualize special cultural meanings of this entanglement, according to the differentiated cultures. 3.1. Entanglement of the horizontal and vertical context of the word-field „sign“ in myth-based cultures Myth- (based) Cultures: E.g. Buddism, Taoism, Hinduism. S I G Signal so too other forms of life in communicative contexts (2) just as natural forms of communication (smell, rhythm, taste) —>. So too, us (3) the pattern of difference between (1) and(2) These contextual reminders enter into his definition of information as “the difference that makes a difference.” For him, analogical implication explains how it is possible to have an ecological relationship with the differentiated species of life of our planet. Diversity permits difference, and the flow of difference is a flow that travels along the lines of analogical reasoning, and invites comparisons through a variety of ana­ logical extensions This is why analogical reasoning, derived from the approach both of “family resemblances,” and of “difference” seems to me to be a useful interface between biology, metaphysics and language in a “Biosemiotics” entry. 3. Habit The notion of ‘habit’ is another hopeful means of marking the interface between biology and culture. Hoffmeyer’s Signs of Meaning in the Universe* points out that all organisms belong not only to ecological niches in the energy-biomass sense, but are The quotation given is typical of Bateson’s arguments but is examined explicitly in BendikKeymer563*80

■

!

EDITING BIOSEMIOTICS IN WIKIPEDIA 137

: * ;

i : ;

always bound to semiotic niches as well. He shows that habits of one species are in­ terpreted as signs releasing other habits in individuals from another, or the same, species and calls this “sen/etic interaction.” ‘Habit’ is evidendy another key to the inter­ face between biology and culture which needs to be strongly joined in Wikipedia presentations. The reference to ‘habit’ is derived from C. S. Peirce, but often missing in dis­ cussion drawn from Peirce notion of ‘habit’ is the counterpart of habit - namely, learning. Clearly, if organisms and humans, nature and culture, were bound by habit alone they would soon get into incredible difficulties of survival in a changing envi­ ronment. The ecosystems in which we all live are always a dynamic phenomenon, whether that ecosystem is counted as predominandy external or predominandy inter­ nal.* Here Bateson’s approach remedies the apparent stasis evoked by the term ‘habit’ and ‘habituation’ by bringing ‘habit’ into relationship with ‘learning.’ In addition, unlike Peirce, Bateson treats ‘habit’ not only in terms of first order, empirical refer­ ences, but also in terms of the second-order patterning of habit. He accomplishes this second-order analysis by taking into account the misadventures in learning making mistakes in habit formation. One of the most striking examples is his study of alcoholism. In his essay “The Cybernetics of Self’ he shows how the alcoholi gets involved in a sort of arms race with the next botde of drink in the false assumf tion that he, the alcoholic is the ‘captain of his soul’ and, therefore has the will tv control the situation. Of course, the alcoholic cannot control his drinking or stop the habit of taking the next drink whenever he wants. The fault, Bateson points out, lies in the alcoholic’s belief - his epistemology- that he is capable of being in control with regard to drink. Bateson’s ‘cybernetics of self’8'-309*337 is a study of the habit of addic­ tion to habit, which indicates that while habit is vitally important in either natural or human bonding, those habituated bonds appropriate at one time may be quite inap­ propriate as conditions change over time. In effect, habits are not only a first order cybernetic phenomenon, but a sec­ ond order phenomenon as well. At a second order level, habits can just as easily be­ come a source of addiction as being appropriate adaptation. This is especially true A recent Biosemiotics article attempts to transform Peirce’s version of “habit” into an ex­ perimental theory within molecular biology but shows the danger of considering “habit” in the absence of “learning.” This article argues that the notion of “ habit” can become a substitute for unresolved processes of development at molecular level of DNA. Thus ‘habits’ are defined as forms of experience that can be regarded as , fossilized signs [...] or quasi-stable forms of movement that organize the system’s past forms of movement in such a way as to have significant consequences for the system’s future movement.” Similarly, DNA sequences can be regarded as ‘fossilized’ signs that represent within the system past interactions with its surroundings in such a way as to have significant, i.e., adaptive consequences for the system’s future movement.”7'-60-90 The only validity I see in this version of adaptation is a look at past evidence, a retrospective, and not of present evolutionary development.

188 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts when human beings, individually or collectively, or animals individual or collectively, are unable to learn from their experiences. In the case of human beings, Bateson shows that only a move from individual selfhood to incorporation of self within an­ other system of selves; that is to say becoming a group member of self-confessed alcoholics such as Alcoholics Anonymous — ‘taking the Twelves Steps’ — enables the inveterate drunk to survive. 4. Pragmatics, caring and advocacy Through its intellectual attachment to Peirce, Biosemiotics must necessarily take ac­ count of pragmatics in addition to ‘habit.’ Currently Wikipedia is silent on how pragmatics, as an epistemological approach, conjoins with the biological science of biosemiotics. As mentioned above, one prior article in Wikipedia made a detailed analysis but has since has been withdrawn.1 He pointed out that unlike positivism, the causal approach of pragmatics is towards the future consequences of action, rather than towards determination of the future by past events. It also develops a moral position in keeping with its pragmatic methodology of causality. Pragmatists believe that since observation always has a meaning for some observer, therefore observations in science have an existential component; consequently ever)' scientific observer must ‘care’ about the consequences of his or her observation. Among >ragmatists the links between causality and morality were most strongly drawn in the .vriting of John Dewey. Dewey was a social advocate and translated these ideas of ‘caring’ into programmes of education, with profound effects throughout North America. Another Dewey conceptual innovation, generated from the notion of ‘car­ ing” was that of ‘socialization.’ This, too, was of profound importance since it vali­ dated a social response to science, supported social science, and embedded the latter in educational practices. The question arising is this: does Biosemiotics accept Dewey’s advocacy ap­ proach, or is it going to stick with C. S. Peirce abstractions, orthe other type of ab­ stractions found in Bateson and von Uexkull and leave advocacy alone? There are closeted positivists among those interested in Biosemiotics who shudder at the very idea of mixing science with advocacy. While co-editor of the on-line journal, SEED (Semiotics, Evolution, Energy and Development) I had e-mails from some of these, vocifer­ ously touting the well known argument that proper science, or ‘semiotic realism,’ cannot accept ‘interested knowledge.’ Currently absence of moral discussion linked to Biosemiotics undercuts this new discipline which in and of itself is profoundly moral, although it may not see itself in this light. There seems little thinking as to whether the opposition of Biosemiotics to many aspects of mainstream biolog}', and its equal opposition to linguistic semiology, can continue to be encased in “neutral science” or whether it will be sufficiently ‘caring’ to undertake more pronounced advocacy. I would argue that Biosemiotics, with its encompassing idea of a ‘semiosphere,’ is implicated in a double paradigm shift, both against the dualism of semiology and against industrial applications of science that degrade ecology. Biosemiotics emerges

EDITING BIOSEMIOTICS IN WIKIPEDIA

} gQ

at a time at which the physical conditions of life are undergoing dramatic changes as a result of change in climate stabilities. In brief, we face a runaway climate of “unre­ strained heat” as James Lovelock, the author of the Gaia hypothesis puts it. This will bring about gross physical changes in ecosystems in many areas, thus modifying existent activities of inhabiting organisms and their fields of communication. In this event, Lovelock points out, all prior notions of ‘adaptation’ have to be revised. It is no longer accurate to say that living forms, especially humanity as a living species, simply adapts to environment and its changes. Instead it is quite clear that we are participants in the adaptation process. Like the rest of nature, we co-evolve with en­ vironment, and like the rest of nature this co-evolving relationship enters directly into the consequences of our own perception. Lovelock, argues, that this an evidential basis for an advocacy position, especially for all those scientists who recognize the importance of life experience and forms of intelligence as emergent phenomena in the living world. These sciences above all must be drawn towards the environmental­ ist cause9-36*153 and be active against current degradation and destruction of life. Lovelock provides “three steps” towards taking up the environmentalist cause. They are to agree that: 1. Self-regulation is the essential basis of a coherent and practical environmentalism. This means advocacy against the persistent belief that the Earth is a property, an es­ tate, there to be exploited for the benefit of humankind.915*135 2. Self-regulation indicates that the more we meddle with earth’s composition and ti to fix its climate technically the worse our fate will be.9:152 3. Science must be brought back from its base in technology and economic develop­ ment into a cultural framework and recorded as our cultural inheritance even if it is failed science.9:l58 If, Biosemiotics believes that adaptation should be viewed through the lens of a communicative order, and agrees also with the idea that organisms through semetic interactions make physical conditions amenable to their continued existence, and that perception, interpretation and communication are all of fundamental importance to processes of self-regulation of natural systems, then it is difficult to ignore advocacy at the present moment. What is the point of undertaking a “neutral stance.” To evoke Dewey’s conception of pragmatism, surely ‘environmentalism’ is the new ‘so­ cialization’?*

I do not support advocacy positions in ecology which end up with the denial of or human agency. ‘Deep ecology’ often supports fusion with nature and then argues that the whole of nature is on an equal footing with human interests. Thus “ecocentrics” among deep ecologists talk as if individual action on environmental issues have to be suspended and along with it, talk of human moral responsibility.5:86 My argument suggests few pragmatists would go along with this suspension. Unfortunately, Lovelock himself downplays the value of ‘caring’. He argues that belief in the efficacy of ‘stewardship’ or ‘caring’ is an exercise in sheer hubris. He believes that the principle of Gaia as a self -regulating entity negates any idea that humans are intelligent enough to serve as ‘stewards of the earth’.9:I37*152 This may be theoretically correct since self-regulating system will always trump human agency in any attempt at correcting cur-

1 190 BIOSEMIOTICS in transdisciplinary contexts

1

Will Biosemiotics grasp this nettle? Let me try to put a conception of advocacy into perspective: An article in Harpers Magazine recently stated: “Although the ‘60s counterculture has been much maligned and discredited, it attempted to provide what we still desperately need: a spirited culture of refusal, a counter life to the reigning corporate culture of death. We do not need to return to that counterculture but we do need to take up its challenge again. [We need to force­ fully remind ourselves and others that] If the work we do produces mosdy bad, ugly and destructive things, those things in turn will tend to recreate us in their im-

i

: i *

age”i0J9.40

Biosemiotics, in its expanding discourse provides a counter to the prevailing conceptions of inertness and reductionism that a physically oriented science has per­ petrated. Biosemiotics argues and promotes the concept of semiotic freedom as a feature of development in evolution. This has consequences that are not merely sci­ entific, but also creates greater awareness of how semiotic freedom links human life to non-human life. Materialist science has not ‘cared’, nor had the vision to sec that total belief in the materialist order neglects the consequences of living in the more holistic web of life. In advancing a richer connection between biology and culture, Biosemiotics also advances a moral position - the conception of what it is to be hu­ man in a connected network of human and non-human organisms. Tire whole standpoint of Biosemiotics is to enlarge the range and understanding of meaning in the universe of life. There could be no better moral purpose than this - a much wider conception of life, imbued with meaning, together with the extension of mcaningfulless to non-human life.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

:

Sharov A. Pragmatism and Umwelt Theory. Retrieved online: 6/2/2006 http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/txt/umwelt.html This text is a modified version of Sharov. “The origin and evolution of signs,” Semiotica 127(1/4): 521-535 (1999). Harries-Jones P. (2005). Understanding Ecological Aesthetics: The Challenge of Bateson. Cybernetics and Human Knowing (Special Issue : “Gregor)' Bateson: essays for an ecology of Ideas”) 12(1/2): 61-74. Harries-Jones P. (2004). Revisiting Angels Fear: Recursion, Ecology and Aes­ thetics. SEED J 2004 (1) Online: Retrieved 4/ 10/2004. http//.-www.library.utoronto.ca/see. Bateson G. (1979). Mind and Nature: a necessary unity. New York: E. P. Dut­ ton.

rent imbalance. Yet his sentiments lead to intellectual support of nihilism and despair.

EDITING BIOSEMIOTICS IN WIKIPEDIA J91 5.

Bendik-Keymer J. (2006). The ecological life: discovering citizenship and a sense of humanity. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield . 6. Hoffmeyer J. (1996). Signs of Meaning in the Universe. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. 7. Queiroz J, Emmeche C, El-Hani CN. (2005). Information and Semiosis in Liv­ ing Systems: A Semiotic Approach. SEED J 1: 60—90. 8. Bateson G. (2000) (1972). The Cybernetics of Self: a theory of alcoholism. In Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 309-337. 9. Lovelock J. (2006). The Revenge of Gaia: why the earth is fighting back and how we can still save humanity. London: Penguin Books (Allen Lane). 10. White C. (2006). The Spirit of Disobedience: an invitation to resistance. Harpers Magazine 312 (1871): 39, 40.

I

i

i

'

Life is many: On the Methods of biosemiotics Kalevi Kull University of Tartu, Department of Semiotics, Tiigi Str. 78, 50410 Tartu, Estonia; [email protected]

Abstract: A task of biosemiotics is to develop a theoretical biology based on semiotics. This would mean a redefinition of most concepts of general biology. This also means an application of semiotic methodology in empirical research. An aim of this essay is to gather some ideas on characterization of (bio)semiotic methods of research. The distinction between a ‘physical eye’ and a ‘semiotic eye’ is characterized via the differences between the physical and semiotic real­ ity, as two major complementary ways of scientifically built world-views. The difference be­ tween the physical and semiotic corresponds to the ontological difference between one anr’ many, or a monist and pluralist methodologies. Keywords: methodology, qualitative methods, holism, biophysics, pluralism, semiotics. 1. Introduction Biology means a study of living systems and life processes. As for any science, its tas is to demonstrate the invisible in its domain — like the laws that order it, the elements that build it, the forces that move it, the intentions that change it, etc. Sciences have developed many different tools or methods that are used for implementation of this task. Application of different toolboxes (like, for instance, by the humanitarian sci­ ences or the natural sciences) would mean different approaches. Biology can be dif­ ferent as dependent on the tools it uses. For instance, the biology that uses the tools or methods of physics is biophysics, and the biology that uses the tools or methods of semiotics is biosemiotics. In order to study living systems, it is required to identify the object — a living system, a life process. The identification may start from a pointing to anything that can be called ‘living systems’ in an everyday conversation or in the common knowl­ edge, in the reality that Humberto Maturana has called the ‘consensual domain’. Tell­ ing of anything that is invisible means telling of anything that is not belonging to the consensual domain or everyday reality, i.e. of that what is belonging to another do­ main or reality. These other realities can be, for instance, the physical reality (the uni­ verse), or the semiotic realities (the multiverses). These can be called different reali­ ties because these are accessible only via the tools the sciences provide (the experi­ ments, the models, etc.).

! ' ■

.

i

194 biOSEMIOT1CS in transdisciplinary contexts In the realm of physical reality, the concept of living system has to be independently defined — i.e., scientifically defined. This is because the identification that uses a common practice of everyday language is insufficient in physics, due to the funda­ mental feature of the physical universe to exist independently of its interpretation. This is in concordance with the statement that everything (in physical reality) follows the universal physical laws, without exception. Biophysical research has been able to delimit the area or distinctive features of living systems quite well. According to a biophysical definition, living systems are those that include a special type of autocatalytic processes — the code-based repro­ duction. Code-based reproduction, however, is nothing else than interpretation, which means that life is an interpretation process.1 This, as a matter of fact, would mean that life depends on its interpretation. Which is a perfect argument for studying life not only in the terms of physical reality. Biosemiotic studies demonstrate that living systems are those that make distinctions, or choose (Gregory Bateson’s “difference that makes a difference”). Since codes are the correspondences between different worlds,2 and semiosis is what im­ plements codes, it has to be concluded that semiotic reality is multiverse, it includes many worlds — semiotic reality is many realities. A task of biosemiotics, accordingly, is to demonstrate the multitude, or meaningfulness, of the categories in living, and particularly, the invisible worlds of other organisms, the umwelten.3 The principal feature of semiotic reality is the multitude or plurality of any ob­ ject. This follows, trivially, from the nature of meaning — the meaningful object is not single, it is simultaneously anything else. Few more words on the distinction between physical and semiotic reality can be said. 2. The realities The sense of physical methods is to make a knowledge about physical reality possi­ ble. Physical reality is not what we see or feel, or recognize in our everyday behav­ iour. Physical reality is the quantitative universe that cannot be directly seen by organ­ isms. Only some organisms - the educated humans - can recognise physical reality, doing this via the methods of natural science, i.e., via constructing the physical

1 Cf. Chebanov (1993: 242), “life as interpretation process”. 2 Cf. the definition of code by Marcello Barbieri (2001: 89), “a code can be defined as a set of rules that establish a correspondence between two independent world/'. 3 Cf. Jakob von Uexkull’s “niegeschaute Wclten”.

LIFE IS MANY: ON THE METHODS OF BIOSEMIOTICS 195 (mathematical) models of it, and using these models as representations of physical reality. Thus, only humans, via the language-ability, can represent the physical reality. Analogically, the sense of semiotic methods is to make a knowledge about se­ miotic realities possible. Semiotic reality is not what we can entirely see or feel, or recognize in our everyday behaviour. Semiotic reality is the qualitative multiverse that cannot be directly seen by organisms. Only some organisms - the educated humans — can recognise semiotic reality, doing this via the methods of semiotics, i.e., via con­ structing the semiotic (logical) models of it, and using these models as representa­ tions of semiotic reality. Thus, only humans, via the language-ability, can represent the semiotic reality. The reality of being is different from both. This is the reality of action and per­ ception, or umwelt, both personal and common, and this is available in some way for all animals. It is given and does not require for its perception a scientific construc­ tion. However, in order to explain it, the complementary physical and semiotic reali­ ties have to be constructed. Any example can be used to illustrate this distinction between the realities; for instance, a border. In the reality of common sense, border is what we can point as border — the border. In the physical reality, there are no borders per sr, however, to redefine the notion of border in a mathematical way, we can detect borders also the physical reality. In semiotic reality, the semiotic border is the one that everybot is drawing differently but is identifying it as the same; thus, any semiotic border is . multiple distinction that forms a category of the border. The world as one is true for the physical reality. The reality of umwelten is the semiotic reality. This is created in semioses. Since umwelten of different organisms are different, the semiotic reality as the reality of umwelten is plural. Semiosis multi­ plies reality. 3. The semiotic objects versus physical objects Semiotic object is what by itself exists only due to possessing several meanings. The multiplicity of meanings is what makes it; a semiotic thing is the one that is simulta­ neously many things. Perfect examples of semiotic objects are provided by pictures that are designed to be ambiguous. For instance, as an illustration, let us use the well-known drawing “Message d’Amour des Dauphins” (1987) by Sandro Del Prete. For an adult human who sees the picture, it at first represents two naked people. For a child, it at first represents nine dolphins. For a dolphin, it probably represents neither one nor the other — may be a bottle. For an educated human, it further represents all this, and

r 295 BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPL1NARY CONTEXTS

’■

i

I I !

I i

:

i

even more (including the ‘Message of Love’, or just the material, or the ambiguity altogether, etc.).

:

However, what is really on that picture?

;

As for the physical reality, there is a certain spatial distribution of pigments on the surface. In this distribution of pigments, there is no any ambiguity. In a given mo­ ment of time, in a given light and temperature, there is just one distribution of mole­ cules. There are no several patterns, there is just one heterogeneous molecular mate­ rial. Physically, the picture is finite. Physically, the picture is really one. As for the semiotic realities, there are many, both alternative and simultaneous things on the picture. The number of potential objects on the picture is countless. Semiotically, the picture is really many. Semiotic objects cannot be static - because if they would be turned into any­ thing static, they immediately loose the very nature of semioticity - their mcaningfulness, their ambiguity, their turnaround in semiosis, their plurality. An object is semiotic if it is in interpretation. Interpretation, according to the contemporary biosemiotic view, starts with the very process of life. Physical objects are constructed by science as ‘dynamic structures’ that are imagined as existing in a certain moment in one certain way, a single way. A physical object may have several representations or models, but the object itself is thought to be existing as single. Semiotic objects, in contrary, do not exist in any single way. Their nature is the existence in several ways (“at least two ways”)4 simultaneously. While thinking on them as single ones we transform them into a physical object. If we describe the variety of nature using a continuous scale of forms either in space or time or concerning the structural differences, we tend to approach the physical view on the world that usually uses monism. If we would apply everywhere the dual oppositions, we may have a threat to be undistinguishable from dualism. But if we point on a series of thresholds and apply a more fine-grained classification of qualitative differences, we may find ourselves in the domain of semiotic approach, of pluralism.5

4 Referring with this expression to Juri Lotman’s description of semiotic systems. 5 Floyd Merrell has written (in his letter to the author, from October 28, 2006): “Most scholars do not believe Peirce was a pluralist, but I really don’t think you take his theory of the sign as anything but pluralist: since the ultimate interpretant — its absolute truth — always escapes us, all our signs make up a pluralist set”. See also Rosenthal 1994.

i

i

t-

i

1

*

LIFE IS MANY: ON THE METHODS OF BIOSEMIOTICS } 97 Likewise a picture may have both physical and semiotic descriptions, any living sys­ tem and life process can be approached in both ways. The principal difference of biology from physics on the level of objects has been studied, e.g., by Walter Elsasser, Robert Rosen, Howard Pattee, thus stepwise coming closer to semiodcs. Here, we develop the same path, now already using biosemiotic standpoint. According to the biosemiotic understanding, the very nature of living systems lays in their ambiguity, in their plurality.6 A good example for semiotic objects can serve the cognitive objects.7 For in­ stance, these include all perceptual categories, or Merk^eichen and Wirk^eicben, accord­ ing to Jakob von Uexkiill. But these also include much more complex cognitive ob­ jects, like for instance awakenness, or sleep, etc. A very general class of semiotic objects can be called categories, perceptual cate­ gories as one of these.8 Categories are the result of differentiation processes that oc­ cur due to interpretation, or semiosis. Good examples of categories as semiotic ob jects are the biological species. 4. Semiotic modelling A principal feature of semiotic objects concerns the hopelessness to derive their dif­ ferences from the physico-chemical laws of nature, or from using the general deduc­ tive models. Instead, their differences have to be discovered through a careful com­ parative analysis, an ad hoc classification. As, for instance, the alphabet or vocabulary of a language cannot be deduced from the physical laws of nature; instead, the differ­ ences between words have to be found in comparative study of uses of language. The methodology of scientific description and analysis of physical systems is well developed. This is based on an assumption of the existence of universal laws of nature. These laws are non-contextual, i.e. they hold independently of the place, time, and situation. If there may be natural laws that change in time or space, etc., then there exist more general non-contextual laws that describe these dependences in a precise way. In case of living systems, in addition to the laws of nature, there appear regu­ larities that are local and temporal and are not deducible from the laws of nature. Examples of such regularities include habits, species, codes, languages. These regu­ larities (that are described as various rules and organic or cultural structures) are gen6 Cf. Sergey Chebanov’s view on “the living being as a centaur-object” (Chebanov 1993: 225). 7 See also Allen, Bekoff 1992. 8 See also Stjernfelt 1992.

r 5 |9g BIOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS erally products of communication. As different from the laws of nature and the structures deducible from these, the organic and cultural regularities are never univer­ sal, they include exceptions, they make errors, they change in time. However, of course, they never contradict to natural laws — the latter simply do not determine them in a predictable way, they instead provide the possibility of their existence in an immense variety. What should be the result of a semiotic inquiry, and what is its difference from a physical description or physical model? First, this is a classification. Classical biology, likewise to linguistics, provides many good examples of this kind of results. Its methods owe much to Richard Owen’s introduction of the types of homology and analogy as the basic tools of comparative research. However, the resulting semiotic classification has to stay context-dependent. This means that any semiotic classification is a relative one, and in a certain extent ambiguous. There cannot be absolute characteristics that describe certain species. A species is established in relation to other, similar species. Second, this is a set of complementary descriptions. Niels Bohr has well em­ phasised the role of complementarity in description, however, he did not draw the clear distinction between the physical and semiotic reality - since the complementar­ ity is necessary only for the latter. Physics may live without it, semiotics can not. Third, a semiotic model has to be based on several mutually nonconvertablc (noncommensurable) qualities, on qualitative differences. Thus the basis of semiotic models is not quantitative, it is qualitative instead. Of course, we may find much of semiotic features in the physical models and modelling. This is evidently so because science, including physics, has to deal with interpretation as a part of its work. However, in case of interpretation of interpreta­ tion, and this is what semiotics always is and does, the fundamental features of inter­ pretation process concern the object level itself, and this makes it different from the way physics looks the world. 5. Comments on semiotic methods As V. V. Ivanov has pointed already in the outset of Tartu-Moscow school of semiotics,11 “The fundamental role of semiotic methods for all the related humanities may with confidence be compared with the significance of mathematics for the natural sciences”

i!! i

i-

■

LIFE IS MANY: ON THE METHODS OF BIOSEMIOTICS } 99

■ I

I : !

The methods of semiotic study or semiotic analysis have been described, more or less distinctively, not so often, and if, then in a quite different way by different semiotic schools.12’13 Tommi Vehkavaara has emphasised that the explication of methods may be a central problem in biosemiotics nowadays.14 Moreover, according to Vehkavaara, the study of methodological problems may turn to be crucial in the development of the whole of biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, in many ways, differs from the more classical fields in semiotics, like for instance semiotics of culture. A particular difference concerns their methods, since the study of sign processes in non-human organisms or inside the organism’s body may not have much use from traditional methods of humanities or social sci­ ences. Also, biosemiotic studies often appear in a situation of opposition with the alternative, natural scientific approaches used for studying the living systems. F. S. Rothschild,15 who was the first to use the term ‘biosemiotic’ already in 1962, emphasised the distinction between biosemiotics and biophysics on the basis of the difference of their methods. Thure von Uexkiill, in his review of umwelt research as developed by Ja' von Uexkiill, points also on the specificity of its methods. He writes:16 “The approach of Umwelt-research, which aims to reconstruct creative nat ‘process of creating’, can be described as ‘participatory observation’, if the terms participation (Teilnahme) and observation (Beobachtung) are defined more clearly.” (281) Observation can be characterized as follows: “Observation means first of all ascertaining which of those signs registered by the observer in his own experiential world are also received by the living being under observation. This requires a careful analysis of the sensory organs (receptors) of the organism in question. After this is accomplished, it is possible to observe how the organism proceeds to decode the signs it has received.” (281) Participation is defined: “Participation, therefore, signifies the reconstruction of the Un/welt (‘surround­ ing world’) of another organism, or — after having ascertained the signs which the organism can receive as well as the codes it uses to interpret them — the

I

. : 1 .

200 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts sharing of the decoding processes which occur during its behavioral activities.” (281) Robert Rosen’s17 point of departure in his search for an adequate methodology for the study of living processes uses the opposition of this methodology to the physicalistic methods. Rosen describes mimesis as an alternative to reductionistic method. Semiotics as basically non-quantitative science would accordingly get much use in a wide and systematic application of qualitative methods.18*20 The latter include participant observation, phenomenological description, individual case studies, struc­ tural analysis, naturalism, etc. However, a study on the application of qualitative methods as developed in social sciences, is still almost absent in biosemiotics. What specifies semiotic biology? What characterises a biosemiotic inquiry? A general purpose of semiotics is to study how choices are being made in living stems. Because semiosis can be seen as a general mechanism of choice. AccordV, a semiotic study may include two basic aspects. First, it describes structures, categories, habits, codes that living systems have ed (are forming) in their (inter- and intraorganismic) communicative processes. Second, it models the interactions of habits, or the processes of behavioural jices.

The first means application of structuralist, semiological methods, also nomo­ thetic. The second means idiographic methods. When using the term ‘scientific’ here, I include under it both nomothetic and idio­ graphic research. Therefore, in this sense, humanities are also sciences, or in German terms - Geishvissenscbaften are also true Wissenschaften. These are Wissenschajten, but of different type, indeed. A sine qua non for a biosemiotic approach is the inclusion of an activity of organism, or subjectivity, as anything real and describable. The inclusion of subjectiv­ ity is done in terms of sign processes. Semiosis, a sign process, is itself the mecha­ nism of subjectivity, which is the mechanism of making choices. A single sign process is almost unreachable. However, a single text, a unique organism, a unique culture is approachable for a scientific study.10 Here we are in the limits of idiographic science. Thus, stating that living systems are multireal, or plurireal, it should be possible to take this principal nature of theirs into account. A physical approach descibes eve­ rything in the world as unireal, including organisms. Description of organisms as plurireal would then mean (and assume) a semiotic description.

LIFE IS MANY: ON THE METHODS OF BIOSEMIOTICS 201

Biosemiotics as extended biology — the biology that can study the organism’s subjec­ tivity — would not exclude the methods of natural sciences, but it does not restrict itself with these. Thus, the semiotic approach would mean an enrichment of the toolbox that a biologist is allowed to use.

References 1.

Chebanov SV. (1993). Biology and humanitarian culture: The problem of inter­ pretation in bio-hermeneutics and in the hermeneutics of biology. In: Kull, Kalevi; Tiivel, Toomas (eds.), Lectures in Theoretical Biology: The Second Stage. Tallinn: Estonian Academy of Sciences, 219—248. 2. Barbieri M. (2001). The Organic Codes: The Birth of Semantic Biolog)'. Ancona: Pequod. 3. Uexkull Jv. (1936). Niegeschaute Welten: Die Umwelten meiner Freunde. Berlin S. Fischer. 4. Deely J. (2005). Basics of Semiotics. 4th edition. (Tartu Semiotics Library 4.). Tartu: Tartu University Press. 5. Lotman J. (1990). Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Londoi*. I. B. Tauris. 6. Rosenthal SB. (1994). Charles Peirce’s Pragmatic Pluralism. Albany: State Uni­ versity of New York Press. 7. Chebanov SV. (1993). Biology and humanitarian culture: The problem of inter­ pretation in bio-hermeneutics and in the hermeneutics of biology. In: Kull, Kalevi; Tiivel, Toomas (eds.), Lectures in Theoretical Biolog)': The Second Stage. Tallinn: Estonian Academy of Sciences, 219-248. 8. Allen C, Bekoff M. (1997). Species of Mind: The Philosophy and Biolog)' of Cognitive Ethology. Cambridge: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press. 9. Stjernfelt F. (1992). Categorical perception as a general prerequisite to the forma­ tion of signs? On the biological range of a deep semiotic problem in Hjelmslev’s as well as Peirce’s semiotics. In: Sebeok, Thomas A.; Umiker-Sebeok, Jean (eds.), Bio­ semiotics: The Semiotic Web 1991. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 427—454. 10. Kull K. (2002). A sign is not alive — a text is. Sign Systems Studies 30 (1): 327— 336. 11. Ivanov Ws. (1978) [1962]. The science of semiotics. New Literary History 9 (2): 199-204. 12. Clarke DS. (2003). Sign Levels: Language and Its Evolutionary Antecedents. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

202

biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts

13. Maasik S, Solomon J. (1994). The semiotic method. In: Maasik Sonia; Solomon, Jack (eds.), Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 4—9. 14. Vehkavaara T. (2002). Why and how to naturalize semiotic concepts for bio­ semiotics. Sign Systems Studies 30(1): 293-313. 15. Rothschild FS. (1962). Laws of symbolic mediation in the dynamics of self and personality. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 96: 774—784. 16. Uexkiill Tv. (1992). Introduction: The sign theory' of Jakob von Uexkiill. Semiotica 89(4): 279-315. 17. Rosen R. (1999). Essays on Life Itself. New York: Columbia University Press. 18. Anderson M, Merreli F. (1991). Grounding Figures and figuring grounds in se­ miotic modeling. In: Anderson, Myrdene; Merreli, Floyd (eds.), On Semiotic Modeling. (Approaches to Semiotics 97.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3-16. 19. Shank G. (1995). Semiotics and qualitative research in education: The third crossroad. The Qualitative Report 2 (3). 20. Kaushik M, Sen A. (1990). Semiotics and Qualitative Research. Journal of the Market Research Society 32 (2): 227—242.

Additional: Portmann A. (1990). Essays in Philosophical Zoology' by Adolf Portmann: The Liv­ ing Form and the Seeing Eye. (Carter, Richard B., trans.) (Problems in Contemporary' Philosophy 20.) Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Integrating Semio-Dynamics: a Transdisciplinary Systemic Hellmut Loeckenhoff Research Consulting, Ossictzkkystr. 14 D-71522 Backnang BRD, [email protected]

Abstract: Biosemiotics is the unique approach to understand the origin and evolution of life systems as related to the evolution of signs and meaning. Following the preceding ‘evolution­ ary' semiotics’ *•2 recent research covers all living systems as well as the entire path of evolution. Virtually, semiosis begins with physical/ chemical proto-life evolving up to consciousness and to higher consciousness. Departing from language it sets on to include the domain of mental constructs as ideologies or religions. From first approaches centred on biology' and semiotic systems in situ, an encompassing evolutional, dynamic view has emerged, which may be chris­ tened semiodynamics. The evolutionary turn enhances the character of semiosis as a transdiscipli­ nary science of its own right. It signifies the usefulness of a complementing semiotic discipli­ nary advance to a comprehensive transdisciplinary vieir, focusing likewise on the functional and the evolutional aspect. Semiodynamics in particular open a path to understand better mentalsocial phenomena as meme, ideologies, beliefs and convictions in general. On the applied technical side a ‘beyond’ could e.g. include hybrids of brain and computer, of mind (physio­ logical neuronal nets) and artificial life. Semiodynamics qualify as an inroad into cross- and transdisciplinary studies in particular of highly complex systems, as e.g. into trans-culturality. Keywords: Semiodynamics; Evolution; Transdisciplinarity; Culture; Theory of Science. 1. Prologue: The turn to semiodynamics Reformulating common definitions biosemiotics may be seen as “a transdisciplinai science involving theoretical and empirical studies to investigate the use of signs in and between organisms”. Within this broad conext the paper focuses on “Biosemiot­ ics. It explores the role that meaning is assigned in living systems and their evolu­ tion”. The argument does not solely start from models of the anthropolo­ gies/humanities, but advances likewise from semiosis itself. Both aspects cover also the human, the social and the societal domain, as it will be discussed in this paper. The basic question ’what is life’ extends, following the web of life forms, to the enquiry of the conditio humana, to social life and to society. Which qualities de­ scribe the processes of communication? What constitutes a society? Not least, the function of semiosis in human mental artefacts (Popper’s World III12), state and evo­ lution, are proposed for semiotic investigation. Following the evolution turn in science, systems are seen not merely in situ, in the actual state and situation. To gain a more thorough understanding systems are complementarity viewed from their evolution, or from their individual development. They are assessed from their essential (life) processes rather than from temporarily given — insofar static- structures. Semiosis itself is seen as a process and investigated as to its dynamics. The focus on ‘becoming’ and on ‘process’ constitutes semiody-

204 biosem!OTICS in transdisciplinary contexts namics. It addresses die evolution of semiosis itself and its development within life processes e.g. of growth, adaptation or decay. 2. A set of transdisciplinary models

i

;

=

The semiosis/semiodynamics approach works cross- and trans-disciplinarily. It is applied to pre-life biology up to the anthropologies and humanities. Apart from its disciplinary research, semiosis is proposed as a core model to virtually all life related scientific disciplines. The (open) set of 1 + 5 basic models follows a concept of evo­ lution constituting a transdisciplinary science as suggested here4. All models own a dynamic character; favouring again the term semiodynamics. And if brief and incomplete examination of the set of transdisciplinary models emphasises the connecting and driving dynamics. The zero level begins with model 0 Potentiality Fields (to be understood analogue to physics void), displaying spontane­ ous emergence of material existence. The emerging order may be observed as the basic model for ordered and connected elements, id est systems. Connections are the result of a connecting means, of structural constrained/targeted qualities and of a process of distinction respectively sharing. The outcome is a specific entity, owing particular qualities which inhere and constraint priorities for subsequent connections. In model 1, Systems, dissipative systems turn up. Inner metabolism and exchange of inergy and information with the surrounding systems show an increasing importance ind specificity of ‘environment’3. In turn connections and relations arc embodied in a developmental helix, heightening efficacy, survival and evolution chances. Dynamic systems - living systems at that - are capable of development, experience evolution. Recent research focuses on the semiotics and the origins of double coding on these proto-life and basic life levels. It explores in particular the part (bio-) semiosis is con­ tributing in the process addressed in model 2, Evolution. The dynamic interactions within systems as well as with their environments increasingly become more com­ plex, spawning even simplicity from complexity. Model 3, Complexity, questions the rules, which the increasing complexity is co-determined by. Non-linear mathematics, e.g. when revealing strange attractors, qualify as a powerful tool. So do phenomena as e.g. autopoiesis proposed by systems biology. Within the complexity frame, the driv­ ing as well as constraining force of semiosis for complexity growth can be explored. Models 0 to 3, from different aspects already addressed stages of evolution und degrees of complexity evolvement from the semiotic point of view. They show semiosis as essential for life, evolution and emergent complexity. In model 4, Semio­ dynamics, the emphasis lies on semiosis itself, on its role in (proto-)life systems, as constraint and driver in evolvement, and in particular on semiosis shaping higher forms of life. A focus on semiosis itself opens both the view on semiosis in actual systems as on semiosis in evolution. More precise: It points to the evolvement of semiosis itself within the process of evolution. Vulgo: the semiodynamics model pro­ vides the opportunities of a clearinghouse for semiosis /semiodynamics as well to their epistemological connections as to salient evolutional marks. It draws to atten-

INTEGRATING SEMIO-DYNAMICS: A TRANSDISCIPLINARY SYSTEMIC 205 don a phenomenon acknowledged but to my knowledge not often questioned in depth in the semiotic context: consciousness, and higher consciousness as in humans. Consciousness and higher consciousness offer the pivotal point wherefrom retrograde the contribution of semiotics in models 0 — 3 can be reconsidered and quali­ fied. (No discussion here of the constructivist approach). The phenomena open the vistas to the domains of self-conscious, self-reflective life forms and the referent semiotics. Proto-language develops into oral, into written and into general symbolic (and non-symbolic) languages. Language based societies emerge, and with them cul­ ture. Representation by language shapes new space for communication and co­ operation, for co-evolvement by language representations. Languaging may even sever the bound to reality perceived; it permits ‘pure’ imagination, depicting imagined worlds, ‘unreal’ and impossible realities the by whatever standards of the possible a' well as the impossible5. Semiosis creates by its own laws artefacts. We call the mo 5 ‘Semiosphere’. 3. Transscience Science is founding on a presumed peculiar position of man in the (his?) universe, destiny and his responsibility. It centres on the meaning which he can ascribe to hiL existence, and how he should act accordingly (unde, ubi, quo, quomodo). The pre­ sumption is expressed in the semiotics of science: assumptions, tasks, societal func­ tion, epistemology, models, methods, procedures, language. From the traditional Western point of view science is practiced as a way to perceive and to cope with the world effectively. In different cultures that attitude may be weighted differently and not comply with deep rooted Non-western foundations. However, mathematics and basic logic are rendered as universal systems irrespective of culture and semiotic sys­ tems. So are most fundamental scientific modes of investigation, of prove or dis­ prove. Yet on closer inspection, with each more detailed step of operational applica­ tion, cultural variety fields of possible interpretation reveal themselves. The design of inquiry systems, rules of confirmation and refutation lead into ‘fuzzy’ spaces, where e.g. a distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ presumptions need be created as e.g. to appropriately investigate highly complex viable or life systems. Methodical rigorosity has to be defined for each particular topic of research, and can often be stated pre­ cisely but at the end of a long research practice. As the Russian polymath and mathematician V.V. Nalimov-6-7 stated, the science faces a probabilistic world. Science has constantly to reconcile, renew and to specify where it stands methodically and what power and reach of explanation it can stipulate. The range for variation cannot be eliminated by Physicalism nor dissolved by ‘anything goes’8. Qualitative research provides a wealth of examples, as the ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ handling of methodical assump­ tions and rules. The space given for inquiry dependent on variance and interpretation mani­ fests itself in cultural differences concerning attitudes to science. Well known are the early investigations of J. Needham9-10 ‘Science and Civilisation in China’ (Cambridge

: i: !.

j.

I 206 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts

-11

I

y |

1954 - ) into topics as e.g. scientific universalism. A recent example is given by the typical elucidating discourse between the Chinese approach to and the Western undemanding of systems sciences. The fundamental comprehension of men in her/his world and the related cultural and historical context leads to differing positions as to handle in particular soft systems approaches. Differences thus traced to their cultural origins can be creatively bridged. Russian scientists, for another example, before 1920 often had a spiritual training near to Gnostic ideas, which reportedly influenced also die context and attitude to mathematics (not so the results). Recendy the fall of the UDSSR and the opening to Western science created a particular ‘mental physiog­ nomy’ of Russian science.11 Globalisation provides a worldwide testing between the worlds predominant ‘weltanschauungen’. Taoist and Confucian more ‘rational’ world views seem to match without mayor difficulties with Western science, as does Bud­ dhism and Hindu and more early in history did the Japanese pragmatic view. How­ ever, also here tensions may turn up questioning the compatibility with deep rooted beliefs. Well known (also to the author) is the necessity to avoid as far as possible to apply uncritically Western models doing research into e.g. African indigenous societal phenomena. Transdisciplinarity sets on to re-integrate sciences fragmented into disciplines. Tansscience needs to analyse, acknowledge and creatively bridge culturally differing iroads to science as a necessarily specific means to co-act with the world. Owing to ,ie strong emotional constituents, transscience, even more obvious than in the case of transdisciplinarity, meets unique cultural semiotics to comprehend and to bridge. Science in itself may be looked upon as a specific myth within a network of cultural (historical) myths. For better understanding the historical context might be reminded. Though in its early roots originating some 2-3 millennia ago, the prevailing concept of modern Western science fully unfolded but some 3 centuries ago. It rather gradu­ ally developed: from Newton who saw himself still as a magician, to the in succession prevailing paradigms of physics, of biolog}' etc. to the actual variety of scientific stances between and within disciplines. Not to forget astrology and alchemy, under­ standing themselves as sciences and now if often reluctantly re-valued as pre­ sciences. To sum up: Science must be conceptualised as culturally and historically co­ determined trans-science essentially for a semiotic point of view. 4. Epilogue: Cultural rejuvenation from value, creativity and innovation Closely tied to semiodynamics are phenomena as creativity and innovation, e.g. re­ lated to (societal) reform and rejuvenation. It is also the central semiosis process in the societal sphere behind which the creation, the emergence and the assignment of new meaning constitute. As personality/environmental studies into creativity and research into the evolvement of culture indicate, the transfer of creative potentials into societal practice depends again on referent dynamic systems of value and mean­ ing. Presumed is the acknowledgement of the necessity for innovation and/or re­ form, the stimulus to react actively, and the motivating and mobilising meaning held

I ; ! * : ;

■

■

INTEGRATING SEMIO-DYNAMICS: A TRANSDISCIPLINARY SYSTEMIC 207

behind. Rejuvenation presumes the emergence, and not least the conscious creation of meaningful vista, of visions, of objectives and measures. Resting on past experiences and targeting, anticipatory models12'15 of the in­ tended future constitute the base for subsequent plans. Recurring to meaningful modelling, the phase of deliberate planning designs measures, transfer processes and control rules. Partly also the helix of planning and control resembles anticipatory procedures, scales of measurement and expected new domains of meaning. These semiosis connected tools of analysis, anticipation and action design, of measurement, planning, of controlling and of strategy request systematic long range learning. Long range systemic learning models need be more intendy employed by pragmatic social sciences. Trying to be free of outright ideology if not free of mean­ ings and values behind, science could more effectively support in particular long range societal policy which is often non existent or at fault. It should employ trans disciplinary semiosis and evolutional approaches. The best example how that mig’ be effected is given so far by evolutionary and transdisciplinary economics.16 It has been stated, that the societal and cultural warping in particular in Gt many reflects weaknesses in identity. Originated in history, WW I and WWII ha\ aggravated identity deficiencies. In Europe and other areas of Christian culture the faith founded Christian systems of meaning, values and of human destiny have lost power of integration. Yet in the stability of meaning systems and their faith founda­ tion, in the backing of life plans by meaning lies the key for identity, motivation and mobilisation. Even more profound, meaning constitutes the ability to the dialogue with oneself and ones social and natural environments, with the beyond. Well rooted meaning determines the will and the strength by which e.g. cultural positions are built, held and necessarily defended. The ongoing often aggressive advance of Islam17 is powered by a strong feeling of identity, and on the will securely based on faith and belief. Similar phenomena can be observed in e.g. economic globalisation at the cost of the ‘old’ Western, in particular European countries. It turns out that the secular­ ized, now often shallow value systems, as notoriously twisted left socialisms, but in­ sufficiently are apt to creative and innovative counter-policies. Tolerance if not backed by a strong identity symbolizes nothing but surrender. To meet change constructively, the awareness of meaning systems and of their necessity has to be reinforced. That needs remembering and reminding. Re-gained awareness needs to be transferred into an identity capable of a dialogue standing its ground and fighting for its convictions. Only then cultural, economic, geographic if dynamic balance and in the end life itself on a global level can be preserved. The ne­ cessity to learn why to do so and how to do it effectually is as essential as it is urgent. Change can be met only by the guided change of meaning systems and by an open science on the fundaments of transdisciplinarity. It will be possible then not to de­ fend the existent passively only but to open potentials into the future.

:

208

! . '

References 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

!

16. 17.

biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts

Rotschild FS. (1962). In: Kull K.: On the history of joining bio with semio: F.S. Rothschild and the biosemiotic rules in Sign Systems Studies vol. 27, pp. 128— 138 (1999). Yoshida T. (1967). in : The Second Scientific Revolution in Capital Letters Informatic Turn- Keynote to IFS Congress Kobe Nov 15, 2005. Edelman G. (1992). Bright Air Brilliant Fire. On the Matter of Mind. Basic Books. Lockenhoff H. (2004). Modelling Innovation f. Creative Control by Basyesian Syllogism. Cyb. A. Systems (2004). Vienna Trappl R. editor. Vol 1 +2 2004. King JK. (2004). The Isis Thesis, A study decoding 870 Egypt, signs. Vol 1 Envisons Ed. Gaylord Mich. Nalimov W. (1985). Space, Time and Life. The Probabilistic Pathways of Evo­ lution. ISI Press. Nalimov W. (1989). Spontaneity of Consciousness. Probabilistic Theory of Meanings and Semantic Architectonics of Personality. Manuscript unpublished. Feyerabend P. (1986). Wider d. Methodenzwang Suhrkamp. Needham J. (1979) Wissenschaftlichcr Universalismus. Suhrkamp tb Wissenschaft 264. Needham J. (1988). Wissenschaft und Zivilisation in China. Suhrkamp tb Wissenschaft 754. Lockenhoff H. (2005.) In memoriam V.V. Nalimov. In russischer Sprache; Werke Band 2, 216 : 260 Moskov 2005. Popper K. (1965). The Logics of Scientific Discover)'. Harper Torch Books Rosen R. (1985). Anticipatory Systems. Pergamon. Rosen R. (1991). Robert Rosen. Life itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry. Columbia Univ. Press. Rosen J, Kineman J. (2005). Anticipator)' Systems and Time: A New Look at Rosennean Complexity. Syst. Res. 22 399 : 412 (2005). Dopfer K. (2005). Editor. The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics. Cam­ bridge University Press. Steyn M. (2006). Why the future belongs to Islam. Mcleans Can. Oct 23 30 : 39.

Biosemiosis, Propagating Organization and the Origin and Evolution of Language Robert K. Logan University of Toronto, Department of Physics; [email protected]

In this presentation I begin with an enquiry made by a collaboration of system biologists, in­ formation scientists and physicists in which it is shown that information in biotic systems and hence biosemiosis is equivalent to Propagating Organization.1 We have also demonstrated that Shannon’s classical notion of information does not apply to biotic systems or to human com­ munication in which meaning plays a role but is limited to engineering applications. The pres­ entation then examines a number of examples of the propagation of organization involving; 1. the impact of the phonetic alphabet as described in The Alphabet Effect,1 2. the evolution of notated language as described in The Sixth Langange? 3. the origin of langauge and culture as described in The Extended Mind,4-6 4. the role of collaboration in knowledge management as described in Collaborate to Compete? 5. the impact of “new media” as described in Understanding New Media: Extending Marsh McLuhan,8 and 6. seven levels of semiosis - a new idea. 1. Propagating organization: An enquiry1

i

Our broad aim is to understand propagating organization as exemplified by the vast organization of the coevolving biosphere. The cell operates as an information processing unit, receiving information from its environment, propagating that information through complex molecular networks, and using the information stored in its DNA and cell-molecular systems to mount the appropriate response. We are looking for a new language and new concepts to deal with info and the propagation of organization in biology based on Kauffman’s book Investigation? Kauffman argues that organisms are emergent causal agents in their own right in their selective environments and that biology cannot be derived from physics. You could use physics to explain how the heart operates but could not predict that the organ of the heart would emerge to pump blood from physics. We argue that Shannon information does not apply to the evolution of the biosphere because one cannot prestate aLl possible Darwinian preadaptations or the ensemble of possibilities and hence their entropy cannot be calculated. According to the Shannon definition of information a structured set of num­ bers like the set of even numbers has less information than a set of random numbers because one can predict the sequence of even numbers. By this argument a random soup of organic chemicals has more information that a structured biotic agent. The biotic agent has more meaning than the soup, however. The living organism with more structure and more organization has less Shannon information. This is counter-

210 BIOSEMIOTICS in transdiscipunary contexts

I

intuitive to a biologist’s understanding of a living organism. We therefore conclude that the use of Shannon information to describe a biotic system would not be valid. Shannon information for a biotic system is simply a category error. A living organism has meaning because it is an autonomous agent acting on its own behalf. A random soup of organic chemicals has no meaning and no organiza­ tion. We may therefore conclude the meaning of life is organization—organization that propagates. 2. The relativity of information We have argued that Shannon conception of information is not directly suited to describe the information of autonomous agents that propagate their organization. We have defined a new form of information, instructional or biotic information such as the constraints in a cell that direct the flow of free energy to do work. You may legitimately ask the question “isn’t information just information?”, i.e., an invariant like the speed of light. Our response to this question is ns, it is rela­ tive. Instructional or biotic information is a useful definition for biotic systems just as Shannon information was useful for telecommunication channel engineering. Work is the constrained release of energy into a few degrees of freedom. But where do the constraints themselves come from - as in the example of a cylinder and oiston that confine the expansion of the working gas in the head of the cylinder to 'ield the translational motion of the piston, hence the release of energy into a few legrees of freedom-one finds that it typically takes work to construct the constraints. Thus we arrive at the first surprise - it takes constraints on the release of energy for work to happen, but work for the constraints themselves to come into existence. This circle of work and constraint shall turn out to be part of our theory of propagating organization. Presaging DNA Schrodinger correctly predicted that the order of life had to be coded in an aperiodic solid crystal, which can contain a wide variety of microcon­ straints, or micro boundary conditions, that help cause a wide variety of different events to happen in the cell or organism. Thus, we starkly identify information, which we here call “instructional infor­ mation” or “biotic information,” not with Shannon, but with constraints or boundary conditions, and the amount of information will be related to the diversity of con­ straints and the diversity of processes that they can partially cause to occur. We therefore conclude that constraints are information and information is con­ straints, which we term as instructional or biotic information to distinguish it from Shannon information. We use the term “instructional information” because of the instructional function this information performs and we sometimes call it “biotic information” because this is the domain it acts in, as opposed to human telecommu­ nication where Shannon information operates.

BIOSEMIOSIS, PROPAGATING ORGANIZATION...

I

I ■

: -

. 1

211

Semiosis: We argue that when an autonomous agent discriminates food or dan­ ger/ toxins, that this is the rudiment of semiotics. We shall locate biotic semiosis, as a subcase of information as constraints. Adjacent Possible: We argue that natural selection constitutes the assembly machin­ ery, when coupled with heritable variation, that literally assembles the propagating organization of matter, energy, constraint, work, and information. This constitutes the propagating organization in autonomous agents, whose coevolution drives the biosphere’s progressive exploration of what we call the Adjacent Possible. Human Forms of the Propagation of Organization : We regard language, culture, technology, governance, and economies as other examples of the propagation of organization. This leads me to the second half of my talk on the evolution and origir of language in which I will review five books: The Alphabet Effect,2 The Sixth L' guage,3 The Extended Mind,6 Collaborate to Compete?and Understanding New Media? 3. The alphabet effect2 Joseph Needham10-11 argued that the Chinese contributed to the development of ab stract science in the West because of their many practical inventions and the transfer of technology from East to West. His assertion leads naturally to the question: Why did abstract theoretical science not begin in China itself but rather in the West? In an attempt to answer this question I once suggested that monotheism and codified law, two features of Western culture absent in China, led to a notion of uni­ versal law, which influenced the development of abstract science in ancient Greece. When I first shared this hypothesis with McLuhan, he agreed with me but pointed out that I had failed to take into account the phonetic alphabet, another feature of Western culture not found in China, which had also contributed to the development of Western science. Realizing that our independent explanations complemented and reinforced each other, we combined them in a paper entided "Alphabet, Mother of Invention"12 to develop the following hypothesis: ‘"Western thought patterns are highly abstract, compared with Eastern. There developed in the West, and only in the West, a group of innovations that constitute the basis of Western thought. These include (in addition to the alphabet) codified law, monotheism, abstract theoretical science, formal logic, and individualism. All of these innovations, including the alphabet, arose within the very narrow geographic zone between the Tigris-Euphrates river system and the Aegean Sea, and within the very narrow time frame between 2000 B.C. and 500 B.C. We do not consider this to be an accident. While not suggesting a direct causal connection between the alphabet and the other innovations, we would claim, however, that the phonetic alphabet (or phonetic syllabaries) played a particularly dynamic role within this constellation of events and provided the ground or framework for the mutual development of these innovations.” The alphabet teaches the lesson of abstraction, analysis, coding, decoding and classi­ fication. The alphabet is both a communication medium and an informatic tool. The

: == 5

212 B1OSEMIOTICS IN transdisciplinary contexts alphabet, monotheism, law, science, logic are media that interacted with each other and co-evolved. The alphabet is a medium that propagates an analytic and abstract form of organization that contributed to the science- and logic-based nature of West­ ern civilization. 4. The sixth language3 Based on the lessons of The Alphabet Effect and the experience of understanding the impact of the computer operating as both a medium of communication and as an informatic tool I came to the conclusion that: language = communications + infor­ matics. I realized that spoken language was not only a medium of communication but also die medium in which we humans framed our abstract thoughts. A study of die emergence of writing and mathematical notation revealed that they were invented by accountants and civil servants, who had to deal with an infor­ mation overload resulting from keeping track of tributes from farmers in the form of agricultural commodities needed for redistribution to irrigation workers. Schools merged to teach the new skills of reading, writing and arithmetic, which led to :holars and another information overload. Science emerged as organized knowledge deal with this information overload and led to another overload in terms of indusial science-based technology which led in turn to computing and finally to the internet. I therefore postulated that speech, writing, mathematics, science, computing and the Internet form an evolutionary chain of six languages. Each language has its own unique semantics and syntax. Each new language emerged in a response to the chaos of the information overload that the previous languages could not handle. 5. The extended mind: The origin of language, the human mind and culture6 Speech emerged as the bifurcation from percepts to concepts and a response to the chaos associated with the information overload that resulted from the increased complexity' in hominid life, which included: • Tool making and use; • Control of fire; • Social cooperation to maintain the hearth; • Food sharing, • Group foraging & hunting; • Mimetic communication (gesture, hand signals, body language and vocalization) As complexity increased the percept-based brain couldn’t cope—it needed concepts for abstract thought. Speech represented a bifurcation from percepts to concepts. Our first words were our first concepts. They acted as strange attractors for the per­ cepts associated with those words. The word water unites our percepts of the water

BIOSEMIOSIS, PROPAGATING ORGANIZATION... 213 we drink, cook with, wash with, rain, melted snow, lakes, and rivers with one concept represented by the word water. Words are the medium for abstract thought. Abstract thought is as much silent speech as speech is vocalized thought. Merlin Donald13 claims that mimetic communication was the cognitive lab in which verbal language developed and that it was intentional & representational. If it was such a good communication system why was there a need for verbal language? It was useful for: 1. conceptualiztion, 2. symbolic, abstract thought and 3. planning. Bi allowing for thought about objects and actions not in the immediate perceptual fie' language permits planning. 6. Mind = brain + language Before language the brain was basically a percept processor. With language the brain becomes capable of conceptualization and hence bifurcates into the human mind. The mergence of verbal language represents three simultaneous bifurcations: 1. the bifurcation from percepts to concepts, 2. the bifurcation from brain to mind, 3. the bifurcation from archaic Homo sapiens to full fledged human beings. 7. Collaborate to compete: Driving profitability in the knowledge economy7 We operate in the knowledge economy but not enough attention has been paid to the management of an organization’s knowledge assets. This has given rise to knowledge management, which we define as: Knowledge management is the organizational activity of creating the environ­ ment, both attitudinally and technologically, so that knowledge can be accessed, shared and created within an organization in a way that all of the experiences and knowledge within the enterprise can be organized to achieve the enterprise's objec­ tives and reinforce its values. Unfortunately KM has failed to deliver on its promise. Why hasn't knowledge management (KM) been more successful? In Collaborate to Compete Logan and Stokes suggest that not enough attention has been paid to the human side of knowl­ edge management. We suggest that collaboration is the missing link and not enough attention has been paid to this vital element. We identify the problem in the following terms: The more complex and sophis­ ticated the technology, the more important are the human behavioral issues of atti­ tude, cooperation and motivation, as well as the training, education and learning of all members of the organization. The "soft" issues are the "hard" problems. To be competitive an organization must strive to become a collaborative organization. There must be trust, shared knowledge, aligned goals, decentralized decision-making and minimal hierarchical structures.

214 BIOSEMIOTICS in transdisciplinary contexts

The five messages of the internet The Internet is both a model or metaphor for collaboration as well as a medium for the actual implementation of collaboration. 8. Understanding new media: Extending Marshall McLuhan8 The objective is to develop an understanding of digital "new media" and their impact using the ideas and methodology of Marshall McLuhan. We want to understand how the "new media" are changing our world, which includes how the "new media" are impacting the traditional or older media that McLuhan14 studied in Understanding Media: Extensions of Man. I have identified the 14 characteristics of "new media" which explains their success and rapid adoption. 1. two-way communication 2. ease of access to and dissemination of information 3. continuous learning 4. alignment and integration, and community. ese five messages of the Internet are also characteristics shared by all of the “new :dia.” Since formulating these five messages of the Internet my study of the “new edia” revealed that there are also nine other additional properties or messages that -haracterizes most “new media”. They are 6. portability and time flexibility (time shifting), which provide their users with freedom over space and time; 7. convergence of many different media so that they can carry out more than one function at a time and combine as is the case with the camera cell phone that operates as phone but can also take photos and transmit them; 8. interoperability 9. aggregation of content; 10. variety and choice to a much greater extent than the mass media that preceded them; 11. the closing of the gap between (or the convergence of) producers and consumers of media; 12. social collectivity and cooperation; 13. remix culture; and 14. the transition from products to services.

BIOSEMIOSIS, PROPAGATING ORGANIZATION... 215

9. Seven levels of biosemiosis Let me close my talk with something very preliminary and speculative based on my previous work with die origin and evolution of language and the propagation of or­ ganization plus a paper by Hofkirefiner.15 This mix of ideas has led me to speculate on the existence of seven levels of biosemiosis. But first Wolfgang’s quote that in­ spired this probe: “Semiosis and self-organization are co-extensional - there are as many different basic types of semiosic processes as there are basic types of systemic self-organizing proc­ esses.” The seven levels of biosemiosis that require further study are: 1. the digital transmission of information by DNA from one generation to another; 2. epigenesis of the phenotype from the DNA influenced by signals from the env. ronment; 3. the process by which receptors of prokaryotes interpret signals from the environ­ ment; 4. the biosemiosis of learning by virtue of the emergence of a central nervous system in animals; 5. the transition from percept-based thought to concept-based symbolic thought that emerged contemporaneously with human speech; 6. the sociosemiosis of human society or culture, a symbolic based phenomenon; and 7. the semiotics of human generated signs both spoken and notated both oral and notated. Let me caution the reader that this taxonomy is very preliminary and will surely change. It is communicated for the purposes of eliciting comments. If you are so inclined please email me at [email protected].

References 1. 2. 3. 4.

Kauffman S, Logan RK, Este R, Goebel R, Hobill D, Shmulevich I. in press. The propagation of organization: An enquiry. Biology and Philosophy Logan R. (2004a). The Alphabet Effect. Cresskill NJ: Hampton (1st edition 1986. New York: Wm. Morrow). Logan R. (2004b). The Sixth Language: Learning a Living in the Internet Age. Caldwell NJ: Blackburn Press (1st edition 2000. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing). Logan RK. (2000). The extended mind: understanding language and thought in terms of complexity and chaos theory. In: Lance Strate (ed), 2000 Communica­ tion and Speech Annual Vol. 14. New York: The New York State Communica­ tion Association.

226 5.

biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts

Logan R. (2006). The extended mind model of the origin of language and cul­ ture. In Nathalie Gontier, Jean Paul Van Bendegem and Diederik Aerts (Eds). Evolutionary epistemology, language and culture. Dordrecht: Springer. 6. Logan R. (2007). The Extended Mind: The Origin of Language and Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 7. Logan, RK, Stokes LW. (2004). Collaborate to Compete: Driving Profitability in the Knowledge Economy. Toronto and New York: Wiley. 8. Logan R. in preparation. Understanding New Media: Extending Marshall McLuhan. 9. Kauffman S. (2000). Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10. Needham J. (1956). Science and Civilization. Cambridge. 11. Needham J. (1979). The Grand Titration. Toronto. 12. McLuhan M, Logan RK. (1977). Alphabet, mother of invention. Etcetera 34: 373-83. 13. Donald M. (1991). The Making of the Modern Mind. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 14. McLuhan M. (1964). Understanding Media. New York: MacGraw Hill. 15. Hofkirchncr W. (2002). The Status of Biosemiotics. SEED 3/2.

j

:

Information, Matter and Energy a non-linear world-view Pierre MaDL1, Maricela YlP2 'Pierre Madl; Institute of Physics & Biophysics at the University of Salzburg; 2Maricela Yip; ICT&S at the University of Salzburg; Abstract: As far as we understand life today, it is the most amazing, even the most wonderful appearance on this planet. Only since exploration of space do we become increasingly aware how the entire architecture of the cosmos seems to be synchronized in a way to make life pos­ sible in the first place. Embedded in a series of orders the universe — including Earth — is but a ripple in a vast ocean of energy. This highly inorganic realm seems to be in total opposition with the animated world. However, the highly complex physico-chemical interaction of mole­ cules differs only in its phenomenology not in its principles from the non-animated world. Thus the shift from live to non-life must be gradual, a continuum so to speak. As with the cosmic principle, both the animated and inanimated realms are open, dissipative systems that are far from equilibrium. Both rely on injections of energy, or neg-entropy. Based on these dissipative structures these systems undergo changes, which, at a critical point, completely destroy the previous structure only to give rise to new and different dissipative structures. Two basic features characterize such systems: One is the concept of the bifurcation point, the other is the evasion - but not violation - of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Being supplied with negentropv and thus far-from-equilibrium, such systems seems stable at one instant and unstable the next. At the point of bifurcation, predictability seems to collapse, making any determina­ tion of the course of these systems impossible. Open systems seem te choose whichever probability it wishes to activate thereby reorganizing themselves. This attribute of self-organizing systems creates order out of chaos. Since this process occurs in both the animate as we as 1 the in-animated realm, the gap between the inanimate and animate becomes obscured. Keywords: neg-entropy, bifurcation, animated / non-animated world Self-organizing syste 1. Introduction The laws of thermodynamics (LoTD) are idealized concepts that are valid for clo. systems. According to the 2nd LoTD, the physical world runs down such that useful energy continually degrades into heat (entropy).1 This is somehow in stark contrast to the biological world, which seems capable of doing just the opposite as it increases organization by the flow of information, energy and matter. So where are the boundaries that make these laws applicable to the organic world and what is the se­ cret of life that seems to contradict thermodynamics in the first place? Thermodynamics operates with a concept known as entropy. In real processes it always increases but never decreases. Hence, with the unidirectional flow of time the change in entropy is always positive, or in the limiting case “0”. Already Schrodi/iger pointed out that living systems are open to the environment. They create a local decrease in entropy at the expense of the surroundings and use it to increase their own organization.2 Organization is maintained in some kind of ‘steady state’ by

213 BIOSEMIOTICS IN transdisciplinary contexts a flow of energy and matter. As soon as that flow is interrupted, decoherence sets in, disorder takes over and eventually leads to large-scale decay.3 Living beings avoid rapid decay into the inert state of ‘equilibrium’ by feeding on negative entropy.4 Neg-entropy has not so much to do with free energy, but rather with the way energy is trapped, stored and mobilized. This enables organisms to organize their energies in a coherent fashion and to maintain their long-term sur­ vival. In this regard, free energy is just that part of internal energy or enthalpy that can be extracted to do work. The part unavailable for work is entropy. Entropy can also be explained from an athermal point of view. Therein, the concept of entropy statistically operates in quantum states. That is, each of which can exist in a vast number of different microstates. The greater the number of possible microstates, the greater the entropy, hence ‘randomness’ or disorder. However, in information theory demonstrated that the equivalence of neg-entropy is information.5 In this regard, Scbrodinger seems to unite these various definitions in that he pointed out that messenger molecules are the active agents in living systems. A handful of these molecules bind to specific receptors in the target cell membrane. Their infor­ mation content is sufficient to initiate a cascade of biochemical reactions that alter the characteristics of the whole cell, the corresponding organ and even the organism in which it is embedded. Pheromonic action among same-species of opposite sex is just one striking example.6 In this regard, useful work can be done by direct transfer of stored energy — here bio-molecules. This is in contrast to thermalized energy, yhich can no longer be converted into stored energy within the same system that light to be in equilibrium.3 . Energy In the classical sense, energy is the potential for causing change. In living organisms, energy-yielding reactions are always coupled to energy-requiring reactions. Being noiseless, fluctuationless and highly specific, the coupling can be so perfect that the efficiency of energy transfer is close to 100%. It is only determined by the frequency of the vibration itself (EQM = h Vq), in that resonating molecules attract one another. Energy is trapped directly at the electronic level and is stored as vibrational and elec­ tronic bond energies, in gradients, fields and cyclic flow patterns, compartments, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organisms and entire populations.3 The ‘downhill flowing stream’ of electrons for example is tapped and used to make ATP, which in turn converts back to ADP in the biosynthesis of all biomolecules, to grow and de­ velop, to sense, to feel, to move, to think, to love — in short to live.4 Since electronic transitions and emission of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) in biological tissues are tightly coupled, it is not surprising that both are subject to recip­ rocal interaction. It is the stage where coherence comes into effect. Coherence is die property of waves to superimpose to each other. This can either be constructive or destructive. Such interference yields a state of higher order that in turn generates an inter-connected communicative field. The hyperbolic decay pattern in biophotonics

INFORMATION, MATTER AND ENERGY 219 is clear evidence of the synchronized emission pattern and distinguishes itself from chaotic emission pattern in random events that lack coherence and become manifest as exponential decay patterns. The basis for all those criteria is in the physics of quan­ tum coherence.3 It results in biophotonic emission that completely decays only after minutes or even hours - just like a laser that coherently feeds back part of its emis­ sion to the source.6 As living beings are in an excited state, the active biological ma­ trix somehow acts like a resonator cavity for the trapped energy. However, the high information density within the DNA leads to a phenomenon known in physics as Bore-E/>/.r/«//-Condensate (BEC — see also contribution Yip/Madl — Biophotons). Thus, the crucial difference between living and non-living systems lies in how ener­ gies are stored, channeled and directed in a coherent way. Life depends on “catching an excited electron” - by means of specific light absorbing pigments - and then tap­ ping off its energy as it falls back towards the ground state. Life uses the highest grade of energy, the quantum that is sufficient to cause specific motion of electroi in the outer orbitals of molecules.3 3. Matter Since the development of quantum mechanics, we should consider matter as a froze, standing wave patterns of the collapsed wave function.6 This seems to be in opposi­ tion with Einstein1 s famous energy-matter equation (ERT = m0 -c2). However, there is a continuum between energetic and materialistic domains, where “free” energy repre­ sents one aspect while the “fixed” energy the atomistic-molecular aspect. According to quantum theory, the electronic, vibrational and rotational energies of a molecule exist at discrete levels. Yet the spacing among the upper vibrational energy levels is so small that the levels practically merge into a continuum. In the language of quantum theory, the living system has achieved a ‘population inversion’ deviating from the equilibrium prediction of Boltyuanris law. That is, life as we know it typically operates around 300K, whereas this law would assign its equivalent only at around 3000K. Hence, living organisms do not act as thermodynamic engines.3 Even earth’s ecosys­ tem is one big energy store, which is maintained far away from thermodynamic equi­ librium.7 It generates a hierarchy of space-time structures, which in turn organizes the flow of energy. The same space-time catenation of processes can be found in all or­ ganisms, ecosystems, societies and even on the planetary scale - here it involves just larger dimensions and longer durations. Cascades of cycles span the entire gamut of space-time from slow to fast, from local to global, that altogether, make up the life cycle. This inspired ].\j)velock to compare our planet with a super-organism, com­ monly referred to as GAIA. Since the origin of life and biological evolution are strictly tied with the evolution of our solar system we should no longer consider life on our planet as a series of lucky ‘frozen accidents’.3-5*6 Coupled cycles and energy-matter interactions are the ultimate wisdom of nature and occur at all levels, from the molecular to the ecological through a wide range of char­ acteristic time scales, from split seconds to millennia. The residence time of energy

S! E

3. ; : : j

? :

!

220 ®IOSEMIOTICS IN TRANSDISCI PUN ARY CONTEXTS within the biosphere is directly related to die stored energy, and hence, to species diversity or die size of the trophic web. Yet, die key is neither energy flow nor energy dissipation, but energy storage under energy flow. This assigns biodiversity a much more important role for die homoeostasis of our planet than is generally recognized.3 In this regard, it seems obvious that self-organizadon is a logical step in the meaning­ ful management of resources and maintaining viability among all biota.8 Non-linearity can simply be understood through the interplay of posidve and negative feedbackcycles that fuel natural selection. This leads to wider ecological processes, which are also continuous and subject to cybernetic principles of regulation. While positive feedback increases the number of configurations, negative feedback controls and stabilizes them. The interaction between them creates intricate and chaotic patterns, which can develop very quickly until they reach a stable configuration, an attractor so to speak.3 4. Information

! :

With regard to single molecules involving quantum molecular processes, stored en­ ergy has meaning as much as it has with regard to the whole organism. Energy stor­ age in the molecular range occurs within a spatial extent of nano-meters and a char­ acteristic timescale of nano-seconds. On a macroscopic scale, such as an entire organism, the overall energy stored domain is in meters and decades respectively. Hence, nature can no longer be interpreted by means of matter and energy alone - a third component is required: information. The underlying principles can be found in the morphogenetic field (MGF).8>9 This chemo-mechanical electric field acts in the nano-meter-range where it utilizes the multitude of resonance modes available in the macromolecules. It induces a holis­ tic action on structures like our DNA (see contribution Yip/Madl — Biophotons). Coherent action of the MGF acts on gene-expression. In a healthy organism, the expressed gene feeds back onto the field in a positive manner, thereby sustaining the integrity of the entire organism. Growth, differentiation and coordination are con­ trolled by the MGF. Tightly connected to the MGF is the quantum potential. It is a multi-dimensional information potential and affects the particle according to its shape rather than its magnitude.10 The effect is the same regardless of the strength of the wave. The wave may have larger effects even at long distances, for the wave does not carry energy; it is an information wave. The quantum potential suggests that what we see as separate parts of reality are only aspects of a totally interconnected underly­ ing quantum world. 5. Information-energy-matter triad (IEM) Now it is possible to interpret nature as a continuous “matter-energy-information” give and take relationship. Energy, used as a concept to understand dynamics of most physical processes, is the potential for causing change, while matter on the other

r;

INFORMATION, MATTER AND ENERGY 221 hand is the substance of which physical objects are composed. It constitutes the observable universe. According to the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics there is essentially no distinction between matter, frequency and energy. Thus, infor­ mation as the third element in this relationship obviously determines shape and ge­ stalt’,n (see contribution Manzelli — What Means Life). Mediated with the necessary energy, materialized information is matter. The IEM-triad, so to speak bridges soma and significance in that the wave function (field) as the mental (or significance) aspect of the electron. Here, the field and particle are never separate and are actually aspects of the same reality.10 The field acts on the particle, not by intensity, but by its infor­ mation content (form). It gives rise to an activity that is identified with meaning (proto-intelligence) that guides the electron. However, this is not a one-way flow, both information and materialized entities feed back to each other via energetic means, with the interface between spirit and matter being information.8 Unfortu­ nately, a current scientific understanding emphasizes physical aspects, as it is not y, able to understand and interpret the associated meaning. 6. Properties of life Based on Bob///’s conception of order, we find that primacy is given to the undivide whole.12 The apparent duality - such as particles and quantum states should be con­ sidered as artifacts. Here, the implicate order encompasses all things, structures, ab­ stractions and processes. Nothing is entirely separate or autonomous. Life is a con­ tinuous flowing process of enfoldment and unfoldment involving relatively autono­ mous entities, which are part of the continuum between the implicate and explicate orders. Hence, organisms are much more than the sum of their parts. The hierarchic structure of life covers the entire spectrum of viroids to singlecelled prokaryotes all the way to multicellular eukaryotes.13 With all organisms being part of the continuous dynamic equilibrium of the environment they are embedded in, anabolic (building up) and catabolic (degrading) processes form a continuum be­ tween the extremes of the abiotic and biotic matter. The underlying order is main­ tained as homeostasis (a constant inner balance despite environmental fluctuations). Life must not be understood in Darwinistic terms but rather in quantum leaps; i.e. symbiotic associations that bring about new forms of life.8 This can be compared with a holographic image, which is an interference pat­ tern produced by two intersecting, coherent beams of light. The entire body is re­ garded to exist in a quantum holographic form, which can be reconstructed from a small part, albeit with loss of detail — skills that can be witnessed in the regenerative properties of the Salamander.9 The holographic analogy is reflected in all cell as each one contains the entire genome regardless of tissue specialization. It is even assumed that all organisms, including humans act as holographic bio-computers. A common hypothesis claims that information in the brain is not stored in localized areas of the brain but rather smeared like a hologram over the entire brain and stretches out over the entire body.3 Thereby, information is retrieved via a built-in Fonrier-

\ !

i S

li r !

I !

f :

222 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts transformation and converted to distinct action potentials. The holographic proper­ ties of the entire organism, provides all parts of the body to with information regard­ ing its overall status. The coherendy radiating MGF within each cell that drives cellu­ lar metabolism is thought to be the result of this bodily memory function.6 The nerves are the trigger, while the body is the coordinator. Coupled with the holo­ graphic structure, it results in a biophotonic field that affects life as a whole. By using a broad spectral range along with polarization (mediated via bodily tissues), the or­ ganism is capable to transmit signals from one part of the system to the other almost instandy. This instantaneous coordination of various nonlocal body functions is thereby mediated, not by the nervous system, but by the body consciousness. Organ­ isms are quantum superpositions of coherent activities that are actively maintained. This has profound implications on die nature of knowledge and knowledge acquisi­ tion, as well as issues of determinism and freewill.3 Much of personal memory may be stored in an ambient collective quantum holographic memory field delocalised from the individual organism. This is fully con­ sistent with the foundations of quantum theory that all nature is interconnected, and that separateness of discreteness of things in the common, sensible world is illusory.3 The material structures involved in such a process act like antennae that pick-up in­ formation and re-emit them into the delocalised quantum field. In order to do so, evolution helped by coming up with perfecdy matching molecular geometry of bioaolecules thereby enabling the development of such highly synchronized biolotonic field resonators.6 Organisms as non-linear systems Quantum coherent states maximize both global cohesion and local freedom. Within the coherence volumes and coherence times of energy storage, there is no space-like, nor time-like separation, and that is why organic space-time can be non-local.3 How­ ever, since the system is constantly interacting with its environment, there is a tendency to decohere the system. Thus, the fully coherent state is an idealization that can only be approximated but never reached, just as is the case with an attractor. Rhythms with constant amplitudes are not perfectly periodic. Such deterministic chaos is especially evident in the so-called healthy stage. It reflects the constant inter­ communication between different biological rhythms that must take place in a healthy organism.3 Chaotic behavior in non-linear systems, as in living beings, is a dynamic attribute. Chaos may look pretty random nonetheless it is deterministic. The trajectory of a chaotic system is sensitively dependent on die initial condition. That is, at the right time and the right place, an unobservably small cause can produce large effects. In other words, regularly occurring points of instability represent symmetry breakages or bifurcation points, with both paths stabilizing themselves again in tem­ porary robust states. Thus, chaotic systems reveal a fractal nature. Both fractals as well as bifurcation patterns are found to be universal.14 Whenever brief disturbances tip a system, homeostasis is sooner or later restored. However, if the disturbance is

INFORMATION, MATTER AND ENERGY 223 significantly long or intense, a series of irreversible events shift the system to a new ‘steady state’3 Chronic disturbances favor development or differentiation of new response mechanisms. Evidence of such response behavior can be found in the Aris­ totelian concept of epigenesis.8-9 According to its dissipative nature, the organism is able to flip-flop from one state to the other (from a healthy to a sick state).6 Whenever the oscillatory pattern reverses direction it passes through a point that is most sensitive to external distur­ bances — the Point of Inflection (Pol). Here, changes to the oscillating system can be effortlessly made at the Pol, whereas changes during the full swing are almost impos­ sible to induce.11 Hence, various attractors constitute various regulatory patterns of a healthy or a diseased state in a human. This obvious chaotic motion is a driving force in the self-organizing phenomena and is subject to external triggers.8*14 Accordingly, disease should be considered as a decoupling process — healthy cells resonate unisono, i.e. they are coupled systems of specific tissues, organs and include even die entire organism. A sick organism is in disharmony, is out of tune and is no longer capable to “learn”, to adapt to new situations. Disease on a physical level is tightly connected to coherence in mind. Even an improper thinking pattern, or self-acquired persistent mental reflexes may trigger situations of tension or conflict.12 In case of prolonged activation, this may lead to chronic distress, and if no bio-energeetic regulation takes place, psychological and or physical disturbances may result; i.e. sleeping disorders, stomach cramps. In turn that may pave the way for precancerogenic stages.4 Such stages can be considered as decoherent states, which in the end are induced by cultural, political, religious, or social disturbances. Biophotonic investigations of healthy and diseased stages have shown that there is a significant difference. A harmonious state results in a coherent field and reveals itself as a Poissonian distribution, while EMR of a decoherent field is always stochastic. Photon counts of normal liver cells for example, have a relatively stable or even falling level of photon counts at increasing cell density, while cancer cells of the same cell type show an increasing photon count at higher cell densities.6 Populations of cancer cells have lost the harmony otherwise so typical for healthy tissues. Hence, a malignant tissue is the result of an erratic reconstitutional attempt, which results from the loss of negative feedback cycles between chaos and order of the entire or­ ganism.9 Therefore, cutting out the tumor is not equivalent with healing (see contri­ bution Payrhuber/Madl/Frass - Information alters Matter). The hyperbolic bio­ photon-decay function can be taken as a measure of incoherence, as it is direcdy cor­ related with the inability of the system to re-absorb emitted energy coherently. These results are consistent with the suggestion that tumor cells have a diminishing capacity for intercommunication. As there is no such thing as a bad cell15 — virus, bacteria, plant, animal, individual, group of people, etc. — it becomes obvious that only the interaction with its surroundings determines the response of an embedded entity. Here the disease itself becomes a messenger, the vehicle that tries to communicate to the outer world / brain.10 Projected into a social analogy, it would be as wrong as to say that someone is anti-social. It does not solely depend on the person, but rather

224 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts on the interaction with the person's environment.3 Thus cancer must be considered as disturbed coherence of biophotonic communication. Conclusion

i

! ;

. i : :

Extending our perspective by the dimensions of the IEM-concept, implies a complete paradigm shift in our current scientific understanding. This has been already asserted by most indigenous traditions as they neither regard living processes in terms of a physico-chemical processes nor as a fight in the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian sense against external enemies. They consider live as a game, a challenge and an ad­ venture.8 Rather than protection and mistrust, mere curiosity and trust are at the forefront. Be it indigenous or quantum-mechanical terminology, one can characterize life by four complementary realities, which are: (1) everything is spatially and tempo­ rally limited, (2) everything is connected to everything else, (3) everything is a symbol that represents something else, (4) everything is one and part of an undividable whole.14 In accordance with Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, it is impossible to gain absolute knowledge by applying common scientific understanding, as reality cannot >e described by gazing deeper and deeper into matter. With science, we can only gain ipproximate knowledge.16 Hence, it is time to ask serious questions regarding the ultimate goal of various scientific disciplines:4- n-14 Can physics uncover the real as­ pects of matter by diving ever deeper into the subatomic world? By keeping analyzing and dissecting organisms, elaborating complex webs of interaction and models, does biology really comprehend the essence of life? Is our medicine really uncovering the origins of disease or still trapped to deal with symptoms? Can psycholog}' help us to understand the concept of die soul? Does sociolog}' really get involved in the univer­ sal connectivity among social beings? Is our economy truthfully used to promote sustainable development? Confronted with these questions, the new-paradigm thinking in science should shift its focus toward the relationship between the parts and the whole. The proper­ ties of the parts can only be fully understood through the dynamics of the whole. Ultimately, parts are just the nodes of the more important inter-nodal structure of this web. Rather than stressing the forces and mechanisms through which processes interact, science should investigate the manifestation of the underlying principles. Here, we should be prepared to shift from objective science to epistemic science, in that knowledge can never be obtained by detached, objective observation, just as the riddle of the inseparability of ‘the observer and the observed’ in quantum physics — although they still can be distinguished. Increasing accuracy, precision, and thus knowledge can only result in asymptotical convergence to the absolute knowledge that eventually we will never reach. Rather than the quest for the ultimate truth, ap­ proximate descriptions must again be at the forefront. As all natural phenomena are ultimately interconnected, science can never provide any complete and definitive understanding.16 Human survival in the face of the technological holocaust will be possible only if we shift from an attitude of domination and control of nature / hu-

INFORMATION, MATTER AND ENERGY 225 mans, to one of cooperation and non-violence. Today both science and technology are predominantly still used for purposes that are dangerous, harmful, and antiecological.17

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Hewitt PG. (1993). Conceptual Physics, 7th ed. Harper Collins, New York. Schrodinger E. (1944). What is Life?. Cambridge University Press. Ho MW. (2003). The Rainbow and the Worm: The Physics of Organisms; World Scientific, Singapore. Resch G, Gutmann V. (1994). Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen der Homoopathie, Berthel & Berthel, Schjifdarn. Principia Cybernetika (1998): http://pespmcl.vub.ac.be/ENTRTHER.html Bischof M. (1995). Biophotonen, das Licht in unseren Zellen. 2001-Verlag. Frankfurt. Lovelock J. (1981). Gaia - Nuove Idee sulTecologia. Bollati Boringhieri. Durr HP, Popp FA, Schommers W. (2000). Elemente des Lebens. SchmidStiftung, Zug. Becker RO, Selden G. (1985). The Body Electric. Morrow, New York. Friedman N. (1997). Bridging Science and Spirit. Living Lake Books, St.Louis. Durr HP. (2005). Stoff und Gestalt: Von der Realitat zur Potenzialitat; LMHI. Bohm D. (2004). Wholeness and the Implicate Order; Reprint. Taylor & Francis, London. Villarreal LP. (2005). Viruses and the Evolution of Life. Washington, ASM Press. Kralky WW. (2003). Komplementare Medizinsysteme. Ibera, EUP. Popp FA. (2002). Die Botschaft der Nahrung. 2001-Verlag. Frankfurt / Main. Capra F. (1975). The Tao of Physics. Shambhala Publications, Boulder. Bateson G. (2000). Steps into an Ecology of Mind. Reprint. University of Chi­ cago Press.

i

!

i

‘

'

"What means life” Paolo Manzelli EGOCREANET/OPEN NETWORK FOR NEW SCIENCE; c/o Dept. Chemistry, Scientific Pole, Flo­ rence University, via Lastruccia 3 - 50019 Sesto F.no - FIRENZE - Italy. [email protected]

Abstract: Living organism are characterized by their ability to survive and to reproduce itself though the transmission of informational signs. Remembering that DNA is no an auto- repro­ ductive molecule, the above definition need to be extended to the interpretation of any autocatalytic systems that works by means exchanging chemical signals during the cyclic metabolic transformation on the basis of many organizational levels of the transfer of signals of informa­ tion. For an example the Nitric Oxide (NO) is a free radical and in- tercellular messenger working as catalytic signaling substance, within a rich spectrum of biological chemistry. In fact Nitric Oxide works giving a catalytic role in signaling and controlling the regulation in normal physiology in various animals and plants metabo- lisms. Therefore NO activity need to be considered as well as an indicator of the best catalytic pathway for the successive biochemical transformations where the chemical information is stored in the new bonding structures. Looking at this and other exam pies of signaling catalytic properties, it is possible to understand that the difference among autocatalytic chemical self reproductive systems, and biologic v ing systems concerns onlv the grade of complexity developed in the evolution o sign s an information exchange, especially regarding the protection of communication control of genetic codex. This premise is useful for understanding that the concept of “information (that means tacking a new form) need to be revised for better understanding how “Biosemioucs can make an integrating attempt into a coherent theoretical structure of biochemical ca^>^c tions, aiming to develop a better understanding of the general question. W 1 THE LIFE” explained on the basis of better interpretation of the "catalytic sign operauo ' into the self -organized evolution -systems. Keywords: sign, information, catalysis, genetic-codex, life. 1. Introduction The main purpose of this paper is to give a contribute to understand "meaning of in trans-disciplinary Bio-semiotic science (Bios = Life & Semion = Sign) and to cht cuss: "Why should we overcome the difficulties to define life as an evolutionary trends, growing in complexity of the self-reproducing catalytic systems, based on “Energy and Matter” interactivity working out of the thermodynamics condition of equilibrium?4' Hence in this approach, Bio-semiotics, is seen as well as the study of communication and signification of information in living systems. The Austrian Nobel Physicist Erwin Schroedinger (1887-1961) proposed the idea that ever)' open system working in creating order from disorder as well as living organisms, feed upon “negative entropy” production. Therefore the existence of living organisms for Shroedinger depends of an increasing of “Neg-entropy” to create effi­ cient levels of co-organisation from disorder to ordering dynamics. Moving towards the Schroedinger ideas and because Entropy can be considered as well as an “infor­ mation-noise”, it becomes easy to consider that Neg-entropy need to be related to the

228 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts

\

grow of information. Indeed information is a measure of the decrease of uncertainty, during the pathway of every' change, coming from disordering to ordering dynamics. Furthermore the Nobel Prise in Chemistry' Ilya Prigogine (1917-2003), shows a relationship between living organisms and “Dissipative Structures” that forms patterns in the self-organization of the open flow dynamics of “Energy' and Matter” in the chemical oscillating reactions. Really life is based on bio-chemical irreversible trans­ formations, maintains itself ,far from equilibrium conditions, in a self organized cata­ lytic fluctuations, replacing constantly new materials (food, air, water), and energy', the last primarily coming from sun and from other sources. In this sense it is possible to mention that; “equilibrium is synonymous of death and non-equilibrium is alike to life”. Aiming now to get a more sufficient attention of understanding life, it is neces­ sary' to underline that a general principle of life evolution, need to be founded on the basis of an increase of communication of information in relation to the rise of the complexity' of the catalytic interactions of the systems, going from not-living state (i.e. Physics and Chemical Systems), forward Living states of Biological species. Besides we can observe that the evolution of the sy'stem, from no living dissipa­ tive states, to living states, is no linear. Subsequently, on the basis of the contemporary scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to understand the exact condition of the keychanges of life evolution. In fact we don’t know the specific reason of the advent of the DNA coding of genetic information. Nevertheless we know that living and not iving states, work together in a living body; this means that metabolic functions work Srough catalytic information for improving cyclic transformations of “Energy' and •flatter”. Furthermore we know that the metabolic functioning are not entirely de­ pendent by the genetic information; for instance the folding of proteins are independ­ ent from die DNA codification and some other functions of a living cells like the same “Apoptosis” of the cells , are self-governed by the communication of informa­ tion coming from the surrounding cells and environmental signals. From those previous scientific acquaintance about what we actually know about living systems, seems that the "essence of life" need to be linked with the growing role of Information in the evolution of complexity'. Therefore a flux of signs and signals need to be embodied in the scientific explanation of all dynamics systems of transfor­ mation working out of equilibrium. In conclusion we can acknowledge that at the basis of evolution of life, need to be accepted and generalized a function of “Information”, that is characteristic of every system working without distinction between living and not living states. This function concerns the signaling activity' of catalytic actions, exactly because the catalysis permits the growing of the auto-organization of each system dynamics working in a progres­ sive complexity' through producing and transmitting and regulating the flux of infor­ mation.

WHAT MEANS LIFE 229

2. The principle of fertile evolution From the epistemology of the construction of science Thomas S. Kuhn (1962) wrote that to overcome the limits of knowledge, each scientific structure evolves, by means adding some new axioms in a manner that science grows as a Chinese boxes pile, where the last paradigm is the container of the previous one. Therefore aiming to discover this general working function related to the flux of “Information” we pro­ pose the following hypothesis in a way that can become useful to give a meaning of the gradual evolution of life in the natural world. In this hypothesis we look to consider information (I) as well as a fluctuation-variation (d.) of signaling communication of catalytic-agents, generating active signs and interactive signals. The signaling communication of information, works as indicators of the catalytic relationships between Energy (E) , and Matter (M) transformations. Thus accepting that, in origin, every event can be thought as well as a form of Energy , we define three forms fundamental forms of Energy, in place of the simple duality of Energy and Matter that are: 1) - Free Energy codified by vibration (E ) , 2) - codified Energy in form of Matter (M) and 3) - Information —energy ( I ), that it is related to the informationcommunication activities. Therefore as a consequence of ■ the fundamental postulate of science, “ Energy cannot be created or destroyed” , we can write that the fluctuant variation ( d. ) of the sum of the different codification giving the Total Energy, need to be equal to 2ero . i.e. < d. (E) + d. (M) + d. ( I ) = 0 >. significant solution Following this way of reasoning, it is possible to pull out of the above equation is: < + d. ( I ) = - d. (E ) -d. (M) >. Note: (E), can be substituted by< E= h f> with, f = frequency), and( M) can be extracted from: < E= Mc2>.

dM

E= me ^ + dl=\- dM - dE

dE'

E= hf

dl

FERTILE EVOLUTION PRINCIPLE

:

230 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts The above formula give a fundamental meaning to the gradually evolution of com­ plex systems because shows, how ever increasing of Information ( + d. (I) ) is bal­ anced by the decrease of flows of Energy ( - d. (E) ) and/or of Matter (- d. (M)). This Equation is named “PFE”, and can be applied to any dynamics of transformation, because can be considered a general pathway for any evolutionary changes from not living, to living complexity in nature. In fact this principle address the direction of the energy flow transformation, in every interaction among dissipative structures, working in terms of Matter and Energy trasformation, oriented by the catalityc information activities. It is clear that the “PFE” follow the same criteria of minimum energy performance that occurs in the traditional physics, but in this new triadic approach of the paradigm , if the “minimum of energy” is reached, at the same time is achieved the “maximum of In­ formation activity”. This result is clear, if we remember that the classical physics is based on the “in­ variance of forms” during the motion activities of transferring matter, while in the context of transformation, based on the triadic relationships among para­ digm, the information activity need to be introduced as an axiom, that is “a priori”, for understanding the “changes of the forms of matter” during every bio-chemical tansformations. Following the initial hypothesis about the need to discover a new lundation of science, now we can utilise die “PFE” equation to explore the possibily to overcome die reductionisms of mechanical science starting with an open bio,emiotic debate, about the evolutionary aspects of the interactive co-organization in nature of Energy, Matter and Information . Approaching this problem for debating about and developing new triadic para­ digm of science, we underline that the information based on “sign//signal” commu­ nication need to be considered a characteristic of ever)' system without distinction between living and not living states. This because the evolution of complexity utilizes always some catalytic activities for developing an irreversible open-cyclic transforma­ tion in presence of appropriated raw materials and energy. In synthesis the observa­ tion about the continuous emergence of information in parallel to the growing of the system complexity, allow us to formulate the following trend of evolution by means the following sentence: 3. The origin of “information-energy” The process of establishing a relationship between information and energy went gradually in science. As a matter of facts the essence of information, at die physical level, can be re­ lated to the quantum mechanical studies of the micro-world interaction. In particular a preliminary significance of information can be derived by the assumption of the No­ bel Prise Louis De Broglie (1892-1987) when in 1923 proposed that electrons like

WHAT MEANS LIFE 231 photons do not existed only as well as particles, but also conduct the themselves motions by means quantum-coupled waves. The “Pilot wave” is an section of energy associated to the three- dimensional particles of energy (photons , phonons...) and also of matter (electrons, atoms, molecules...). That is the “Pilot wave” is not a vir­ tual wave; in fact generates a real activity as it is experimentally demonstrate. The “Pi­ lot wave “ is capable of physical effects giving a quantum information probability, based on instantaneous signals that induces coherence in the diffraction pathways of particle’s motion. After De Broglie, the studies on Quantum Mechanics developed by David Bohm (1917-1992), permits to think to an conceptual extension of the “Bohm-de Broglie - Pilot wave”. Thus those additional studies on quantum mechanics allows a more appropriated description of double physical reality of matter and energy at microscopic quantum level. As a matter of facts the experiment of single particle diffraction (photons, electrons, neutrons...) on a double slits interferometer, lets to demonstrate that all the single micro-particles are able to show interference with itself, passing in a synchronic interfering across the two slits. Those experiments unambigu­ ously demonstrate the quantum inseparability of the “Pilot wave” from the “Parti­ cle”. This complementary action, was foreseen by Niels Bohr (1885-1962) when he proposed his theory of "complementarity". Therefore a “quantum particle”, can be regarded in two complementary ways, i.e. both as a particle and as a wave phenome­ non. Hence the two entangled realities are equally true because their validity is w demonstrated on the basis of reproducible experimental circumstances. At this proposal Albert Einstein (1879-1955) said: “God does not play dice w quantum reality”, this because the entangled particle’s performances are “not a-prio1. determined. In fact the “double slit’s experiment”, demonstrates that the twice proper ties of micro-particles are “self determined” into a not an isolated system. That means, they are not owing to an dual inner reality of the particles, but are depending from an external relations, based on a synchronic connective information reply of the particle with the relative time-space configuration of surrounding environment. Thus the en­ tire world seems to be linked by force of a complete communication of information. Therefore through these theoretical studied, based on the fact of “wavesparticles duality ”, the “Pilot wave” can be considered an effective wave of informa­ tion, functional to the self-organization of the dynamic properties of the particles mo­ tion. As a consequence we can assume that the “Pilot wave” it is not only a “probabil­ ity' wave-function”, but need to be considered as well as an “information-energy” able to synchronizing particle’s motion with environment by means a signaling oscillator)' flux of signals. The above conclusion is a consequence of the experimental diffractions of single particles, where we can consider the “Pilot-wave” function, as an effective guiding signaling of entangled states of matter and energy interactivity, in a way that the parti­ cles can show simultaneously two types of motion appropriated to the particle and also to the waves. The last can be interpreted as an effective self-organizational inter­ ference result; this because the “Pilot wave” as well as a wave of signal of information,

: I

i

232 B10SEMIOTICS in transdisciplinary contexts can pass through both the two splits, while the particle can surpass indifferently one or the other fissure. In this way of thinking about the twin motion opportunities of particles belong­ ing to a micro-states, we can also comprehend how, in the macroscopic realm, the various “Pilot waves” associated to the single particles, disappear, as a consequence of die destructive wave interferences inside of the bulk of matter. So that the “Pilot wave” effects remain only as an surface action of macroscopic substances, while in the case of microscopic world interactions, among Energy and Matter, the Pilot wave supports a space-temporal information energy, that can be seen in terms of oriented flux of signals. Thoughts in this way of reasoning, it will be more easy to be aware of the cata­ lytic activity of “information-energy”, during a chemical or bio-chemical transforma­ tion that evolving gradually in complexity by means self-organized chemical and bio­ chemical catalyzed transformations. Therefore it is becoming more understandable, how the “shift from life to non life” is gradually turn out by the “PFE” Principle, that works for both animated and unanimated realms, because includes “a priori” the information parameter in die context of the new triadic paradigm of sci­ ence. In this way we follow the generalized assumption that “information-energy” exchanges, are not confined to living and social experiences but participates to an uni­ versal co-evolution, mediated by different strategies of semiotic interactions working it different levels of complexity. . Comments about the historical approach to the catalysis To appreciate from an historical point of view the above approach, written to formu­ late a better meaning of life, it is important to remember that in 1835, the Swedish chemist Jons Jakob Berzelius (1779-1848), intuitively presented a new notion to chemistry named “Catalysis” as a combination of two Greek terms (Kata = down and Lysis = break). Berzelius starts to think at the idea of catalysis, from the observation that the nucleation of some crystal precipitates, initiates through the introduction of heterogeneous solid bodies that facilitate the crystallisation. Therefore observing from various experiments how different small quantities of matter , which apparendy do not react stoichiometrically with the reactants, seems to modify the reaction path, Berze­ lius considered the existence of a new “driving -force” different from ordinary me­ chanical forces, namely, the “Catalytic force”, as it is necessary to address the irre­ versible reaction path forward the better result. After Bezelius the biochemical cata­ lytic power in biology was attributed to an self-catalytic systems driven by “enzymes, hormones, and vitamins” as fundamental means to co-organize the life metabolism. The original intuition of Berzelius, clearly tray to introduce an particular “vector force”, before unknown, this because the catalytic effect it is very different from the mechanical contacting forces, that are not bright to mean the new chemical catalyst activity. Also Berzelius underlines that catalysis is a diverse force from the other forces resulting from action at distance, like the gravity and the magnetic forces.

WHAT MEANS LIFE 233 Therefore Berzelius introduces the “Catalitic power” as a solution to interpret an entirely new force, acting at distance during the chemical transformation. s power idea vanish quite completely after the utilization of an extension of r" uu ics” to chemical equilibria, developed by the mathematician Josia ar .1 (1839-1903), and also during the successive interpretation of chemical equilibria as proposed by Svante August Arrhenius (1859-1927), Jacobus Henricus van ° \ 1852-1911) and Wilhelm Oswald (1853-1932). In fact after Bezelius, chemical studies separates kinetics from chemical equilibria, taking in consideration only the reversi e reactions; so that the “catalysis” was merely embodied in some activity multip cation coefficients”, but, in practice, also they can be neglected in the case of dilute solutions. Only in more recent years the “catalysis” is taken in serious scientific considera­ tion in relation to the evolution of biosynthetic pathways. First of all the physicist “David Bohm” argued that the distinction between organic life and non-organic mat­ ter is arbitrary. As a consequence the “catalysis” is a driving force for coding/ decod­ ing molecules by chemical bonds. In similar way the RNA’s catalyses the genetic in­ formation by means to codify and de-codify in complex nucleic acids. In this mode of thought, molecular catalysis can be seen as a driving force to develop a wide range of very' powerful procedures to storage in a variety of chemical bonds, codified inform? tion. From the above remark it is possible to emphasize that in the evolution catalyti pathways from chemical to biochemical catalysis, there is only a difference ii complexity, but there is not any diversity in principle. Therefore between the genetic codification of DNA and the other bonding procedures as weU as the various covalent and not covalent bonding connectivity, there are no fundamental difference in storing codified “information energy”. The catalytic method to address the storage in bonds of the “information energy'”, in principle is no so different from DNA double helix construction and/or from other sequences of molecular conformation of bio-chemical and bonds. In ending all the bonding procedures can be seen as well as an “Information Energy'” conservation, in force to the molecules as an information preservation via specific types of intra molecular or supra molecular bonds. This is an important re­ flection to explore in bio-semiotic trans-disciplinary science a new open cognitive process, that enabling the improved knowledge of “catalysis” to interpret energy' trans­ formation into a more accessible scientific meaning of living systems evolution. Hence looking to enrich this goal, the DNA architectural codification dynamics, need to be correlated to an fundamental evolution of “information energy quality maintenance’ in more and more complex strategy of storage of “Information Energy” in chemical bonds. Remembering in this context that for definition Energy means the “power to change”, from now on, we can consider “Information-energy” as the section of very high qualitative energy, that it is necessary to favor and stabilize the increasing com­ plexity all bio-chemical processes, based on a catalytic transforming of the codifying information procedures, through a dynamical re-bonding of all the forms of interac­ tions between Energy and Matter.

234 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts Conclusions Starting from the previous considerations, in order to compare dyadic or Cartesian mechanics science based on the quantitative Energy & Matter interactions, with the triadic interactivity among diree forms of Energy of the paradigm, I am going to precise and resume a number of interpretations of terms and processes used in this paper. For this motive we can specify that Total energy organization in nature can op­ erates in three different states of developmental quality: “Thermal -Energy”, in rela­ tion to the dissipation of heat, “Free Energy”, capable to doing mechanical work’s potentiality, and “Information-Energy”, that is available energy used to increase an information bond’s storage, in relation to the evolutionary potentiality of “En­ ergy/Mass” codification in the evolution of self-organizational dynamics. The “cataly­ sis” activity is based on an type of at distance work, based on signaling modulation, as it is necessary to straight the best composition of the bond information storage and to address die most favorable selective rules of “Information Energy” communication of “sign/signal” codification and reproduction. Consequendy an sign/signal producing is enclosed in the bond vibration, gener­ ating the potential construction of signalling communication, as it is necessary to imment the evolution of bond codification/de-codification dynamics of “Information gy”. In this conceptual context the “PFE” can be seen as well as an “Universal iple” regulating the information of flux of “signs/signals”; this fluctuationion, is the operative function of information energy obtained in a way to set up lierarchical relationships among the development of energy quality grades. In fact .. ‘TFE” indicated how grows the quality of information increase ( + d. I ), while he total energy decrease (= - d. (E ) - d. (M). Hereafter this formula can be seen as the basis to understand die transformative evolution of the catalytic co-organization of life. At the present it is possible to better understand the “Principle of Fertile Evo­ lution” ( “PFE”) as a solution of the equation that include the “information energy” in the scientific postulate that admit: “the total energy remain constant while the qual­ ity of the forms of energy can change in the rank of quality”. Henceforth by means the above simple intuitive definitions, based on Bio-semiotic integration with the fun­ damental concepts of sciences, it is becoming promising to obtain a better meaning of life as it is necessary to explore, through successive studies of bio-semiotic and through a trans-disciplinary integration of sciences, how various agents works as an signalling emission for obtaining any catalytic information transfer and transduction. Ultimately the “PFE” Principle move towards to open a new approach to the old question that splits the “vitalist” construction of science against the “mechanical reductionist science”. This contradictory duality of science, need to be surpassed in a way that a more significant unity of science can be researched, for understand better the possibility of co-organization of a variety of performing programs of biological

WHAT MEANS LIFE 235 processing, especially in the case of building blocks of biochemical nano-materials. Mechanical laws are, for the actual science endeavour, too much reductive, because they remain based on a binary relationships between energy and matter. So that the fixed dyadic approach prohibits alternative diversification of new forms of energy. In fact this paper would like to affirm the new conceptual need to overcome the dyadic approach of science, as was been expressed by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), one of die fathers of semiosis (sign-generation) and semiotics (sign-relation). In fact Pierce works on the optimization of the impact of the explicit meaning of signs gen­ eration and sign-relations against of scientific prejudices and wrote: “The machine, by itself, as a dyadic architecture of separate bits, has no capacity to evolve because all its properties and relations operate within closures”. In spite of this Pierce’s sentence the common language of molecular biology converge till today, in a machine metaphor, based on the dyadic properties of energy and matter interactions. Therefore the mech­ anist approach exclude a more advanced ideas bio-semiotic evolutionary creative gen­ eration about the meaning of life. As a matter of facts in the context of the dyadic scientific approach, traditionally the world “information” is seen as having an “imme­ diate-meaning". This is not right now true, because the meaning of information is coming from a cerebral working function of neurons, that transform “informationenergy”, in an conventional language of historical knowledge. Differently in the triadic loom among the paradigm, the meaning < life is becoming an evolution-function of the qualitative-grows of “Information E ergy” In the end I believe that the “PFE” Principle, founded on the reasonable cha acterization of the “Information Energy”, will get a valid opportunity to prevail ovei the old reductive approach of mechanist science understanding “for developing a fruitful new kind of reasoning about the scientific meaning of life”.

BIBLIO On LINE E.Schroedinger: http://www.whatislife.com/reviews/schroedinger.htm http://whatisli fe.com/about.html Principle of Fertile Evolution: http://www.edscuola.it/archivio/lre/science_of_information_energy.htm Catalyst and Catalysis: http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/sciencehistory/catalyst-and-catalysi-wsd.htm Chemical Bases of Biological Information: http://www.edscuola.it/archivio/lre/chemicaI_bases.htm Pathfinder E .U. Proposal: http://www.edscuola.it/archivio/lre/pathfinder.htm Chemical Signalling: http://www.mansfieId.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/lectures/biology/campbll 1 .ppt

>

236 biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts Matter. Energy, Information: http://fdavidpeat.com/ideas/activeinfo.htm RNA-WORLD: http://nobelprize.org/artides/altman/ H.T.ODLM: Energy Quality- Energy Quality : http://en.wildpedia.org/wiki/Energy_quality C.S.PIERCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce ACTIVE INFORMATION SYNCRONISM: http://xoomer.alice.it/a.i.s/ - What Means Life: in http://www.egocreanet.it

i

.

Structural and Semiotic Aspects of Biological Mimicry* Timo Maran Tiigi Sir. 78, 50410 Tartu, ESTONIA [email protected]

Abstract: Biological mimicry can be described as a structure consisting of two senders (a mimic and a model), a receiver, and their communicative interactions. The distinguishing of three participants in mimicry brings along the possibility to explain mimicry from different perspectives as a situation focused on signal-receiver, mimic, model, or human observer. This has been the foundation for many definitions and classifications of mimicry as well as for some semiotic interpretations. The present paper introduces some possibilities for defining and classitying mimicry and shows them being burdened by structural approach. Proceeding from Jakob von Uexkiill’s ‘Theory' of meaning’, it is possible to question the common understanding that participants in mimicry are specific species. According to “Theory of meaning”, mimicry as any other relation between species is Umwelt-dependent i.e. it is conditioned by meanings and functions present for an animal. Therefore also mimic and model, as entities that the re­ ceiver fails to differentiate, are first entities of meaning in one’s Umwelt and are not necessarily representatives of some biological species. Uexkiillian approach allows us to analyze various examples of abstract and semiabstract resemblances in nature. Based on some examples, the biological notion of ‘abstract mimicry’ is reinterpreted here as a situation where the object of imitation is an abstract feature with a universal meaning for many different animal receivers. From semiotic point of view, the most common property of mimicry seems to be the re ceiver’s inclination to make a mistake in recognition. This allows describing mimicry as inco: porating a specific type of semiotic entity — ambivalent sign, — which is understood as a oscillation between one and several signs depending on the actual course of interpretation. Keywords: Biological mimicry, Mimicry systems, Classifications, Model, Abstract resemblance.

Biological mimicry can be described as a structure consisting of three participants, mimic, a model, and a receiver, and their communicative interactions. From the perspective of communication theory, these three participants can be divided between the position of sender and the position of receiver so that the mimic and the mo e occupy the position of sender as opposed to that of signal-receiver. This tripartite structure of mimicry has been the foundation for many definitions and classifications of mimicry. The relations between the three participants commonly pointe out in mimicry' definitions are: 1) similarity between colors, signals or species, 2) deception of one participant, or a participant’s inability to recognize the difference; 3) some use or benefit for, or increase/decrease of the fitness of the participants. For instance, British entomologist Richard I. Vane-Wright defines mimicry as follows: ‘Mimicry

The paper was written with the support of grant No. 6670 allocated by the Estonian Science Foundation.

238

biosemiotics in transdiscipunary contexts

occurs when an organism or group of organisms (the mimic) simulates signal proper­ ties of a second living organism (the model), such that the mimic is able to take some advantage of the regular response of a sensitive signal-receiver (the operator) towards the model, through mistaken identity of the mimic for the model*.1:50 Distinguishing of three participants in mimicry and their relationships brings along the possibility to explain mimicry from different perspectives, that is, as a situa­ tion perceived by either the signal-receiver, the mimic, the model, or the human ob­ server. In early studies mimicry was regarded predominandy from the viewpoint of human researcher and considered rather as a taxonomic disorder or as a fallacious similarity between different species. For instance in 1862 Henry Walter Bates speci­ fies mimicry to be ‘resemblances in external appearance, shape, and colours between members of widely distinct families [...] The resemblance is so close, that it is only after long practice that the true can be distinguished from the counterfeit, when on the wing in their native forests’.*502’504 Later other perspectives became more emi­ nent. Studies of warning coloration introduced the view of mimicry as a parasitic phenomenon that takes advantage of and at the same time is dependent on normal communication.*396*397 Classical studies on mimicry by Jane Van Zandt Brower and Lincoln Pierson Brower launched the understanding of resemblance between mimics and models as a behavioral dilemma for the signal-receiver.4’5 In semiotics, the specific aspects which have been emphasized when discuss­ ing biological mimicry also seem to depend largely on the researcher’s position with regard to the triad of mimic, model and signal-receiver. For instance Thomas Sebeok tends to emphasize the position of mimic, when describing mimicry as an example of iconicity in nature.6:95*96 From the position of mimic, the process of changing itself or the surrounding environment in order to resemble the model can be considered as a reation of iconic resemblance. This preference is well illustrated by Sebeok’s lescription of the behavior of Asiatic spider who changes ‘its surroundings to fit its own image by fabricating a number of dummy copies of itself to misdirect predators away from its body, the live model, to one of several replicas it constructs for that very purpose’.*116 Such approach is in compliance with Sebeok’s later theoretical stand: to de­ scribe different types of sign in connection with various modeling strategies, i.e. rather from the position of the utterer and sign creation than that of the receiver and sign perception. For instance, in the book The Forms of Meaning. Modeling Systems Theory and Semiotic Analysis’, iconic signs are defined on the basis of the features of sign creation: ‘A sign is said to be iconic when the modeling process employed in its creation involves some form of simulation. Iconic modeling produces singularized forms that display a perceptible resemblance between the signifier and its signified. In other words, an icon is a sign that is made to resemble its referents in some way’.8-24 An alternative possibility to analyze mimicry as a semiotic phenomenon is to focus on the position of signal-receiver. Mimicry situation may appear to the receiver very differently from how it appears to the sender. This change is first rooted in a common feature of communication: the emergence of shifts in meanings due to the

STRUCTURAL AND SEMIOTIC ASPECTS OF BIOLOGICAL MIMICRY 239

asymmetry of the processes of formulating and interpreting, coding and decoding. Theatre semiodcian Tadeusz Kowzan has described this as different aspects of sign, which are expressed in the different phases of communication. For instance a sign can be mimetic in its creation and iconic in its interpretation.9171 In mimicry, however, the difference of meaning for the sender and the receiver seems to be a more funda­ mental property. Alexei A. Sharov has explicated mimicry with the term inverse sign>> where sign has a positive value for the sender (‘transmitter’ in his terminology), but negative for the receiver. Sharov describes female fireflies, which imitate light signals of other species to attract their males in order to eat them as an example of such inverse signs. Sharov specifies that ‘an inverse sign is always an imitation of some other sign with positive value for the receiver’.10:365 Similarly to many other cases of animal semiosis, also in mimicry for the signalreceiver the sign relation is formed from the search image or perceived features of an organism (that is representamen), the organism as it is physically capable of being interacted with (that is object), and the meaning connected with the applicability of the organism (that is interpretant). The common denominator of mimicry seems to be the signal-receiver’s effort to make the correct recognition in a situation where perceptibly similar objects or organisms may be present.1,:332'334 The difference be­ tween the model and the mimic for the signal-receiver may be manifested for in­ stance in the following oppositions: discernible object versus perceptual noise, eat­ able versus uneatable item, safe versus dangerous organism. The oppositions often go together with diametrically opposite aspirations to react (e.g. catch versus flee' The differentiation of mimics from models depends on many contextual facto (such as the physiological status of the participants, or the specific location of t mimicry situation) and therefore it reappears in each and every act of communic tion. Because of this it is not possible to conclude whether there are one or two sign or sign complexes involved in mimicry. In our effort to deal with ambiguous sign complexes, the American semiotician Charles Morris can offer us some guidance. In ‘Signs, language, and behavior’ Morris introduces the term ‘sign family’, defining it as a group of signs, which have the same meaning for the interpreter: ‘A set of similar sign-vehicles which for a given interpreter have the same significata will be called a sign-family’.1"96 In accordance with his behaviorist stand, Morris unites signs into a sign family on the basis of a similar behavioral reaction released by the interpreter. In connection with the concept of sign family Charles Morris also points out that a sign may, but need not have only one meaning. He contrasts unambiguous and ambiguous signs: ‘A sign-vehicle is unambiguous when it has only one significatum (that is, belongs to only one signfamily); otherwise ambiguous’.12:97 The concept of ambiguous signs seems to cover different types of relations between meanings. First, there can be situations where meanings complement each other, and second, there can be situations when different interpretations or meanings are in opposition and exclude each other. For mimicry, the second type of ambigu­ ousness is more characteristic. In its Umwelt the interpreter cannot combine inter­

240

biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts

pretations that correspond to the mimic and the model species but needs to choose between these. Therefore it would be more correct to call such sign combination ambivalent sign instead of ambiguous sign. Ambivalent sign can be described as a sign structure, which fluctuates between one and two signs and where the actual composition and number of signs emerges in the course of interpretation. Such am­ bivalence has structural importance in mimicry. The perceptual similarity of mimics and models, and the opposition in meanings are components of evolutionary conflict between the mimic and the signal-receiver and an important feature of the communi­ cative regulation between them. Besides analyzing meanings that different objects obtain in Umwelten of vari­ ous organisms, biosemiotic research can also focus on diverse relations between ani­ mals to discover meaningfulness there. In ‘Bedeutungslehre’ Jakob von Uexkull de­ scribes correspondences between body plans and Umwelten of different animals as counterpoints of meaning. The different Umwelten are mediated by functional cycles, where animals obtain the positions as meaning utilizers and meaning carriers for each other through the perceptual and effectual activity. According to Uexkull these coun­ terpoints of meaning modify entire structures of animal bodies as well as their lifecy­ cles. The meaning of all plant and animal organs as utilizers of meaning-factors ex­ ternal to them determines their shape and the distribution of their constituent mat­ ter’.1337 These meanings can also be mediated by cue-carriers which are distinct from the animal’s body, such as the squeaking sound standing for the bat in the moths’ Umwelt, but also by a completely distinct organism who acts as a meaning carrier. Here Uexkull presents an example of the male bitterling in which not the female fish causes mating coloring to occur but the sight of the pond-mussel. The bitterlings spawn into the mussel gills where the young fish larvae can later safely grow. 13:53 Structures in nature that mediate meanings make it possible to consider mimcry in Uexkiillian framework of contrapuntal correspondences. With respect to mim­ icry, Uexkull mentions two examples: the angler-fish Lophius piscatorius who uses a long and movable appendage to lure prey fish, and butterflies that carry colorful eyeresembling spots which scare off insectivorous birds. Uexkull sees these examples as an extension of meaning rules that organize forms in nature. The form shaping of the prey is in these cases not directly connected to the form shaping of the predator, but correspondence is achieved due to some other image or shape-schemata present in the animal’s Umwelt.1338'59 Uexktill’s ‘Bedeutungslehre’ opens a significant aspect of relations between species, which should be considered as the biosemiotic ground for interpreting mim­ icry. That is, the relations between different species, to the extent that these are based on communication, are Umwelt-dependent, i.e. they are conditioned by the meanings and functions present for the animal. Concerning mimicry, the Uexkiillian approach means that any deceptive resemblance should be considered first from the viewpoint of the participants’ Umwelten. This premise brings along some quite significant con­ sequences for the semiotic interpretation of biological mimicry.

STRUCTURAL AND SEMIOTIC ASPECTS OF BIOLOGICAL MIMICRY 241

F-rst it means that the common description of mimicry as a resemblance between taxo ^CCleS covers on]y rather limited cases among many possible similarities. As aSS^Icat^ons biological species are the product of human culture and Per 1C tC> ^Uman blmwelt, the animal receiver may distinguish between beesb ^nisms comP,eteIy differently. For instance, the taxonomic diversity of well V Um • C eCS ant. The reaction of the padent to the environment according c F 1S ,nfi*vidual values constitutes the padent’s mental concept.14 This mental pt seems to be wore important than even physical symptoms such as gastritis, cysti remedy. * 3n aUto*mmune disease, etc. in order to find an appropriate

inst

8' ExamPle for a mineral remedy h ibhs^L ! ^ difficult and humiliating mother-daughter reladonship induces neuron chil I8 ^ • ^tCr °n ^eu^emia- Here, Chlorum (muriadcum) stands for the motherand M at,0ns^*P- Calcium stands for a specific insecurity' to the theme of mother c 11 , and the resulting conflict has consequences the whole life trough.5 10 stage 2 insecure evaluate

Jr

i

t

/

/|Y&9LCJ

sjageU end, loss lo hold on, lo lei go limsh mother-child relationship climax in relation, care lor others complaining

fhi/R

~7~

/ msecunty terjsilive lo cntics observed in her Job Calc-nt (difficult mother-child relationship) • dependent on her mother, as an adult on people students, society • serving, cares for others

Example 1:

The combination of the two elements represents the conflict of the per­ son.

266 BIOSEMIOTICS in transdisciplinary contexts

Hairy-Cell Leukemia i 29 May.'01

It

resistant to chemotherapy

Chronology of events Growth

t !

Complete Remission W

I

2005

2001

2006

Regression

of Tumor Type of Therapy

COPlIiSW SK

conventional

^ homoeopathic

Results: complete remission of leukemia. Case analysis: Looking for the theme of this patient, we are able to associate it with two chemical elements (two atoms). We are able to choose Calcium and Chlorum each out of more than a 100 elements of the Periodic Table of Elements. We can combine these elements. The potentized mineral (grinded and diluted step by step)10, is administered to the patient in single doses and in different potencies, each dose chosen carefully. The diagram above shows the action of Calcium muriaticum: panic attacks and tu­ mors subside, the morphine derivates can be set off. The treatment finally results in a complete remission of leukemia. >. The periodic table of elements

&

Periodic Table of Elements

F

(•da^td ten Jan Soft*«r)

Climax |

44+]>f !11

,,■4^

i J

Timi TO Wn 10 WJ M and wnaQr-% I nun Por*/'} T>v-*Te f iBHW (UMOfAhnrroi J P***P^" Uanagry

°

r ! it rHUttP

'

}H I r *>•

M

»

Gude ko" firtrid t*« iawi

I *

Ill! 1 i! ,\ulm!! \

i i j i

L*>|.*J*

*

I -

I

ssr rsjr-

|

i u

•i

m

.« y

Cu

Zn

•»

8

C

H

0

f

AJ

S»

p

3

t*

e»

O

5” S s»

»»

Cm

.V

N*

5

Electronic orbitals represent various life themes (verti­ cal) and different stages ot themes (horizontal).

.

6r i

I

’

*

o

Er

Ll\.

Life themes are as­ sociated to a given mineral (law of similarity).

The minerals represent a hierarchy and show how animated and inanimated spheres blend into each other - they are both part of the condnuum. The hierarchy of the elements of the periodic table mirrors die life conflicts of individuals. The diagram

{ATION ALTERS matter 267 INFORA

below highJjghts Ca]cium and ChIorum> which both symbolize the particular conflict chain nd!VI1duaI’ The elaborat.cn of the Periodic Table of Elements (PTE) in its psylar remedy 5CnSI°n by JScHOLTEN is a key in order to be able to indicate a pardcu-

10. Semiotics of atomic relationships Since elements and minerals are the tiniest and most archaic units, out of which life is found nr tbe Porcntized forms represent pristine archetypes, which may have prochosen frnr^ri^oTC11^05 J^ese atoms, chemical elements or small molecules ity to chanon to^Ge r' -U*Ve “ cUpari

potentized and™y appropriately - a strong capacbe ^ »used dissolve a tumor'fa

of

“p—

therapy \Ve , °n P“Cnt and «° “deePer” than moleculr P. ■ . ometimes arc able to come facc-to-face to the roots of the disease. 11. The action of high potencies A second example may illustrate the action of a high potency of the appropriate ret* edy. The action may include (a) that “pure information” is able to dissolve malignant tissues, (b) symptoms go from the vital to the less vital organs (Syndrome Shifts, HrrinG),15 (c) oltl symptoms re-emerge (Syndrome Shifts, Hf.RING).15 a) Observation I: At the first consultation, a patient suffering from a malignant pleura-mesothelioma has had a life expectancy of a few weeks. Phosphorus MK in single doses, carefully administered, dissolves a large malignant tumor within weeks. The patient is free from symptoms for more than one year when other symptoms establish and he dies four and a half years later. An MK-potency corresponds with a dilution of a substance of up to 100-1000. In comparison, the estimated number of atoms in the universe is about 1080Investigating our remedy substance, we do not find a single molecule in that remedy. We would not even find a single molecule of phosphorous if the whole universe would be filled with that remedy - it is pure information. b) Observation II (I iFRING’s Rules):15 The symptoms shift to less vital organs. If a curative process takes place (in our case shifting from the lungs to the intes­ tines), the symptoms go from up-downwards, go to the less vital organs (SPACE). This observation reveals the biological hierarchy of the organism. In order to protect vital organs, disease migrates to less essential. c) Observation III: The symptoms re-emerge in the reverse order of appearance (TIME), which is also a sign that a curative process has set in — example 3. The Rules of HERJNG enable us to recognize if a curative process sets in. These prin­ ciples give insight into the order of the organism, the hierarchy of symptoms.

268 wsx-Misrrif .b

thanmiffi

i:,in y / / a\ i i-/ j

-Tixampitr 3: The case* bcj/)\y tsfwws lb?< ///< serrations which they ewite emerge into im the pm erne&ns. i m /w&m ;-,v: mi s. son is sve ivseifor beliefin the real) -V ido war n~ mme r —for.. The ccxv.ny instance is a kind of hv “ r: ^ ■

-

~>

': V ^’poroes's corise^juendy is the reason, to mc. v- .e toe .oc.es of generality and conti'Ttftvning from conscg:;iducynfc. .7 'TU Mg.lC£ CWC» {■ < .A, ■ ' V oh

ZC'CCUH':

Tgh\:lprocess which *->,71 rcc ~ .::a,. - r ccyrtc. : ;> x.\\ fiy/rlotY, like posh nt jcscrz/m* ax, : : fanning an

busness and thought

fcotkttt

l

Uexktill: Functional Cycle

f H; -!) F

2 w

-

V W

r.«-

tl A (ft

/ / l!

111 101 DU

-down triangle to represent his own concept of reality |Fig. 2.1].12 The basis of the I angle diere represented firstness, while die smaller sections visualized the sequence t cognitions, each to represent another cognition of the same object which is less lively and which determines the cognition represented by the first line. Now let us suppose that we have a triangle resting upon its apex. Then, every horizontal section of that triangle will represent a cognition of the object represented by the apex, determined by any cognition represented by a section below this line, and determining any section above it.13 In 1908, the larger triangle of die cenopythagorean categories with its horizontal sections is just the elaboration of the earlier drawing. Like a large arrow-head, the apex of this first triangle is pointing towards the object. This is the visualization of reference. But also Peirce visualized the switch between the reference and the phe­ nomenon by the basis of this triangle. Later this aspect is presented as the mentioned synechist view of unconsciousness as a certain grade of feeling beyond conscious­ ness. The explanation of 1868 also represents the concept, which later is trans­ ported by ceno in the composite cenopythagorean. The sequence, related to the base of the triangle, is representing the sequence in cognition. On that basis, ceno was not linked to kenos, recent, but to the visual representation of the Achilles argument of Zeno of Elea (~490 BC — ~ 425 BC): Achilles, the fastest possible runner, could never overtake overtake the tortoise, the slowest possible goer, if the latter had ever so short a start;for the distance between them consists of an infinite series ofparts, and when Achilles, by traversing one of these

ANOTHER SOP TO CERBERUS 'torts, comes to where the tortoise

/.w.» „ Mm,

283

* X?

**« £ «te* * Zenoniau paradoxes are sough, to bo brought under *”^*7?* **rry philosopher will admit the existence of motion in the phenomena sense in WJ/ *vrld believe in it. And that is enoughfor ourpresent purposes. In short, w a w ■ ■ one although the act ofperception cannot be represented as whole, by a series ofcogm ons e another, since it involves the necessity of an infinite senes, yet there is no percep on so object that it is not determined by another which precedes it -for when we reach the P01”* ~‘° determining cognition precedes we find the degree of consciousness there to bejust gro und in short .* have reached the external object itself, and not a representation ofit* Soon the basis of d»t visual explanation of the triangle, the Achilles argument is somehow still present in the Peirce term cenopythagorean, which would be more visibly in t e term spe e Pythagorean. Consequendy, the term written cenopythagorean j^ro uce^a van quence-related explanations of the equation cenos — kenos— recent. 4. Chance, experiment and cognition The phrase of the sop to Cerberus pointed at the broader concept of intelliget. sciousness, while the Achilles argument formed the basis of the semiotic triangle in u object related stream of consciousness, while Peirce used the related term Tychism17 t< communicate the objective existence of chance, which represented the first of the cenopythagorean modalities of possibility, reality and necessity. The role of possibility beyond cognition Peirce detected by probability related experiments, while his colorexperiments focused the borders of cognition, to understand the role of intelligent consciousness. In a more general view, Peirce experiments focused the threshold in sign-generation. The threshold of cognition related to chance Peirce developed in his article On Small Differences in Sensation (1885):18 The generalfact has highly important practical bearings, since it gives new reason for believing that we gather what is passing in one another's minds in large measure from sensations so faint that we are not fairly aware of having them, and can give no account of how we reach our conclusions about such matters. The insight offemales as well as certain telepathic” phenomena may be explained in this way. Suchfaint sensations ought to befully studied b the psychologist and assiduously cultivated by every man.'9 The objectivity of statistics in cognition later is represented by the mentioned therm tychism. Though, it may not be forgotten, that the tactile experiments On Small Differences in Sensation referred to a vision sensation experiment, the Fechner candle experiment. Consequently, the experimental approach to understand the threshold of cognition implicitly Peirce helped to understand the primary phenomenon of color, and apparently, color also constituted the idea of firstness, for color could reference a real pigment, but color also could be a possibility or a necessity without reference to

i

284 BIOSEMIOTICS in transdisciplinary contexts a pigment Perhaps this ambiguity may explain all the color sensation-related studies by Peirce since 1869:20 1869 1877

Spectrum analysis Note on the sensation of color (three-color based brilliance and color discrimination) 1878 Photometric research 1884/1885 On Small Differences in Sensation (a revision of the Fechner candle experiment with Joseph Jastrow) 1886 Night observations with O.N.Rood's color disk 1889 On sensations of color (lost) 1889 Color experiments 1909 Color definitions for the Century Dictionary. The stream of consciousness is a stream of thought, so far as it consists of a succession of such proc­ esses each having its own unity of object ami interest™ This cognitive disdnetion unveils the common interest of Peirce in his experiments and his therms, which represent signs of his concepts. Also the Peirce experiments and his color definitions, published to­ gether with the definition of his cenopythagorean terms represent his broader con­ ception beyond the person, and are the basis of many of his color-arguments, like those in the papers On a New List of Categories (1868)22 and On Representations (1873).23 They represent the direction of a interest related stream of thought, cumulating in the Letters to Lady Welby and the articles written for the Dictionary of Philosophy and Psy­ chology ed. James Mark Baldwin (1901) and the two supplemental volumes of The Cen­ tury Dictionary and Cyclopedia (1909 and 1911) ed. Benjamin E. Smith, where Peirce ailed his semiotics a cenopyhthagorean phenomenology. The broader concept is reprented by terms like phaneron and phenoscopy. These articles in total outline the universal enomenology of Peirce as the scientific attempt, to unify all sorts of cognition with the reefold sign-relation: whatever is before the mind in any way, as percept, image, experience, nought, habit, hypothesis, etc. And this explanation in the article phaneron even has more value, because it is the only in the Century Dictionary signed C.S. Peirce. This view allows to focus to the biological aspect in the phenomenology, asking for the mean­ ingful! similarities in the Uexkull functional circle [Fig. 2.2] and the Peirce relational triangle [Fig. 2.1]. The phrase of sop to Cerberus at the border of the world of shadows was a hint, to associate cenopythagorean phenomenology with Plato's allegory of the cave. Peirce had used the phrase of the sop as a sort of visualization to point at the genera­ tion of triadic relations as reality. The key-word Sign-making function extended this ac­ tive aspect in the Baldwin Dictionary.24 Accordingly, die use of imagination as the guiding representation of the whole, in its logical context Peirce discussed in his arti­ cle Reasoning. The related elements in the manuscripts and publications of Peirce all point at the same idea of the stream of thought or stream of consciousness, which was under­ stood as a generative subjective stream or cycle of sign-relations.25

ANOTHER SOP TO CERBERUS

285

5. Conclusion: The environment in the concepts of Peirce and Uexkiill IY'ben a baby points at a flower and says 'Pretty', Peirce writes in his article Subject in the Baldwin Dictionary, that is a symbolic proposition; for the word pretty being used, it represents its object only by virtue of a relation to it which it could not have if it were not intended and under­ stood as a sign.f..] In like manner, all ordinary propositions refer to the real universe, and usually to the nearer environment. Uexkiill has the same environmental argument of reference to constitute the functional cycle of the subject.26 Like Peirce in his subjective colorexperiments, Uexkiill refers to the spectrum of the sun light, to draw a circular bind­ ing-scheme of the color qualia (Qualitatenkreis der Farben).27 Also Uexkiill’s argu­ ment of the Schwellenbestimmung (threshold)28 is the same which Peirce had discussed in 1884/1885 in his mentioned tactile experiment On Small Differences in Sensation. Fur­ thermore, the primary color qualia Uexkiill realized as the driving forces, to shape the network of receptors (Receptoren) and representants (Reprasentanten).29 This objectdirected shaping Uexkiill called tindng (Tonung). This tinting performed the psychoidal unification of the autonom-related Merkding-network and the Wirkdingnetwork [Fig. 2.4]. The psychoidal unification (Psychoid) for Uxkiill had an equiva­ lent meaning, the phaneron in the cenopythagorean phenomenology had for Peirce. And while Peirce represented the sign-making function of the phaneron by a sign-triangl [Fig. 2.1], Uexkiill is drawing a functional cycle [Fig. 2.2]. Though, there also is common use of the triangle with respect to the active sign-making function, wh< both Peirce and Uexkiill draw object-directed triangles and triangle-composed ne. works. Especially the scheme of the 1908 postscript (Fig. 2.3], intended to commumcate to Lady Welby the idea of the projected Logic considered as Semeiotic, looks much like the Uexkiill image of the network [Fig. 2.4], and might be seen as a network as well - but in the level of its logic.

References Abbreviations for reference: Baldwin Dictionary Baldwin J.M. (1901-1905). Dictionary of Philosophy and Psy­ chology. The Macmillan Company, New York, USA Century Dictionary Smith B.E. (1909-1911). The Century Dictionary and Cyclope­ dia Supplement. The Century Company, New York, USA CP Peirce C.S. (1931-1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., USA CW Peirce C.S. (1982ff.). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA

\ r- (

286 BIOSEMIOTICS in transdisciplinary contexts LW Hardwick ChS., Cook J. (1977). Semiotic and Signifies: The Correspondence Between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA MS Peirce C.S. (1967). The Charles S. Peirce Papers. Manuscript Collection in the Houghton Library, Harvard University. The University of Massachusetts Press, Worcester, Mass., USA Notes: 1. LW: 80; Lady Welby at this time wrote the article Signifies for the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In the first supplement of Century Dictionary s.v. signifies: The science or study or signification, meaning, or significance (ideal worth), with reference to the Bald­ win Dictionary 2: 529. 2. Peirce CS. (1868). On a New List of Categories. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 7: 287 (CP 1. 545-559). 3. Brewer JS. (1993). The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1894). Wordsworth Editions.Ware, Herfordshire, UK s.v. Cerberus: To give a sop to the Cerberus: to give a bribe, to quiet a troublesome customer. 4. Baldwin Dictionary 2: 763 s.v. Virtual. 5. The article Represent (Representamen) in Baldwin Dictionary 2: 464 repeats the active aspect: Thus a spokesman, deputy, attorney, agent, vicar, diagram, premise, testimony, all rep­ resent something else, in they several ways, to minds who consider them in that way. See Sign. 6. Zink J. (2004). Kontinuum und Konstitution der Wirklichkeit. Analyse und Rekonstruktion des Peirce’schen Kontinuum-Gedankens. Digitalc Hochschulschriften der MLU Miinchen, Mtinchen, Germany. Peirce CS. (1878). Deduction, Induction and Hypothesis, CP 2. 619-644. Peirce CS. (1878). How to make our Ideas Clear. CP 5.388-410: Fig. 5. . The Century Dictionary, supplement 1, s.v. abduction. 10. LW: 24 (Oct. 12th 1904) and CP 1.351, 1.352 and 8.343; The Century Dictionary', supplement 1, s.v. cenopytbagorean [Gr. kenos, recent, + E. Pythagorean.] Of or pertaining to a modem doctrine which resembles Pythagoreanism in accepting universal categories that are related to and are named after numbers. See also CP 8.343. 11. Peirce CS. (1887/1888). The Triad in Psychology'. CW 6: 183; 186. 12. CW 2: 178f. MS 148 (1868). 13. CW 2: 178f. MS 148 (1868). 14. Baldwin Dictionary s.v. Zeno of Elea. 15. CW 2: 178f. MS 148 (1868). 16. The sequence refers to entries in the Centrury Dictionary' like firstness: In the phe­ nomenology of C.S. Peirce, the mode of being of that which is whatever it is regardless of any­ thing else. [...] The related therms are kenosis, cenopsychic, or kenogetic for recent ap­ pearances in mental and organic evolution, with reference to the term recent. "Zenonian" appears again in Peirce CS. (1905). Review of Wilhelm Wundt's Princi­ ples of Physiological Psychology'; CP 8.199.

ANOTHER SOP TO CERBERUS

287

/. Baldwin Dictionary s.v. Tychism; Century Dictionary s.v. Tychism. A redesign of this experiment I reproduced for the Prague Biosemiotics confer­ ence. 9 Peirce CS,JastrowJ. (1885). On Small Differences in Sensation. (CW 5: 122). X). CW 6: 447 1869—1889; the list should be extended beyond 1889. Jl. Baldwin Dictionary s.v. Stream of Thought. £2. Peirce CS. (1868). On a New List of Categories. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 7 (CP 1.549 Sec. 5.; CP 1.557 Sec. 13): It is the con­ sciousness of one thing, without the necessary simultaneous consciousness of the other. Abstrac­ tion or prescision, therefore, supposes a greater separation than discrimination, but a less separa­ tion than dissociation. Thus I can discriminate red from blue, space from color, and colorfrom space, but not redfrom color. I can prescind red from blue, and spacefrom color (as is manifest from the fact that I actually believe there is an uncolored space between myface and the wall); but 1 cannot prescind colorfrom space, nor redfrom color. 1 can dissociate redfrom blue, but not spacefrom color, colorfrom space, nor redfrom color. [...] 23. CW 3: 66; MS 212 (1873): The printed word white is white as to its imputed quality but materially speaking black or red according to the color ofthe ink. 24. Sign-making Function (not in use in the other languages). The selection or construction ofcertain objects — the signs — in order that by mentally operating with these, results may be obtained applying to other objects — the things signified. It is also called (h/lcCosh) the symbolicfunction. This references James McCosh (1811-1994): Intuitions of the Mind (1860) and: Ex­ amination of... Mill's Philosophy (1866). 25. The public experiment at this point of the presentation asked the entire audience, to generate individually concurrent realities of object-size. The concurrent differ­ ence in touch by mouth and touch by hand, was estimated by the audience to be about 1 : 1.5. The difference normally remains unrealized, just as a man who never takes off his blue spectacles soon ceases to see the blue tinge. (Peirce CS. (1902) . Minute Logic = CP 1.239-241). 26. The Funktionskreis, like the triple-relation, denotes a cycle - and not circle, because the following Wirkmal is erasing the primary Merkmal in a sequence or cy­ cle (v. Uexkiill J. (1973). Theoretische Biologie (1931). Suhrkamp Verlag, Frank­ furt am Main, Germany: 209). 27. Theoretische Biologie: 99. 28. Theoretische Biologie: 101. 29. Theoretische Biologie: 178.

m

X\