0561 What about learning, the topic of section 4.6?

A renown form of learning is the conditioned “reflex”.  It is not really a reflex.  But, the conditioning make it look like one.  Another label is “stimulus-response”.

0562 Figure 4.7 in the text has a picture of Pavlov’s famous experiment.  A dog is positioned within an sling in order to measure the amount of drool that it slobbers while waiting for dinner.

If the experimental apparatus and the captive dog are subagents of an empirio-schematic inquirer, the subagents are working in parallel, not in sequence.

Here is a picture.

0563 Is that correct?

The dog is not really captive.  Instead, the dog is so tame as to allow the pelvis to be put into a sling and the mouth attached to tubes that suck up saliva.  The bell_2a (SV_s) stands for dinner_2b (SO_s) according to the self-governance_3b of its neural system operating on possible courses of action_1b (SI_s).

According to the scientist, who is so clever as to devise a way to measure the volume that a dog drools using tubes to suck the drool as it spills between mouth and lips, the bell_2a (SV_s) stands for the expectation of food_2b (SO_s) in regards to scientific inquiry_3b into the potential of ‘a rigorous conceptualization of anticipation’_1b.

0564 Does Pavlov induce the dog to drool in anticipation?

Does the dog’s saliva fulfill Pavlov’s expectations?

What is it about dogs that allows them to go along with such foolishness?

0565 I think that dogs are adapted to believe that humans are their pack leaders.  There is a motive for this belief.  Humans are not as cruel as wolves.  An alpha wolf is downright mean and expects to be… um… top dog all the time.  A human pack-leader is wonderful in comparison.  Not only do humans not bite back, although they occasionally hit and are nasty, they tend to share their food as if the dog is part of their pack… er… family.

It’s a nice gig, if you can get it.

0566 So, by instinct, the dogs know that Pavlov is pack leader.  Pack leaders have expectations.  So, the dogs go along with what Pavlov wants because, well, they want to please their pack leader.

05670 What do Pavlov’s dogs learn?

First, Pavlov’s dogs learn how to let themselves be hooked up to that stupid sling, which obviates the use of their hind legs.  Totally awkward.  Then, the dogs learn that the drool measuring apparatus hooked to their heads is not going to hurt them.  Dogs that can not handle this lesson are cut from Pavlov’s pack.  Finally, the dogs find out what the apparatus is all about.  It is the way that master is going to feed me.

0568 So, Pavlov’s dogs learn far more than the business about conditioned response.

Indeed, the salivation is merely an exemplar sign-relation that is built into their subagency.  If food is around, prepare to eat.  

0569 Meanwhile, Pavlov achieves what he wants to achieve.  Anticipation is a model that is associated to conditioned responses.  The model soon replaces the noumenon of what those Pavlov-loving dogs endured.  Today, the noumenal overlay of “anticipation” is objectified by the phenomena of psychological experiments conducted under the labels of “operant and instrumental conditioning”.

Today’s state educators perform these experiments on young children, completely unaware that the noumenon that the children experience is not quite the same as the model that substitutes for the noumenon.

0569 Does that mean that Pavlov is an subagent for something bigger, such as science as an institution?

I wonder.  In the following figure, Pavlov’s semiotic agency touches base with all three elements of the empirio-schematic judgment.

0570 This raises a parallel between Pavlov, the scientist, and his dogs, the subjects of scientific inquiry.

0570 Okay, semiotic agency works as the noumenal overlay for both the dogs in Pavlov’s experiment and Pavlov himself.  Or should I say, “Pavlov’s scientific self”? 

0571 Why do I say this?

Recall the empirio-schematic judgment?

Disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mechanical and mathematical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).

0572 Surely, Pavlov’s semiotic agency manifests within each element in the empirio-schematic judgment.

0573 What is (firstness) corresponds to the experimental setup and goes into the methods section of the scientific publication.  Ideally, Pavlov’s experiment can be performed independently by any scientist with dogs who will do anything to please their master.

In sum, the experimental apparatus and the resulting data go with the SV_s and correspond to the methods and results sections in a scientific publication.

0574 What ought to be (secondness) corresponds to analysis of the data.

Pavlov models the fact that his dogs drool measurable amounts at the sound of the bell.  The model is mechanical.  The bell initially is sounded when the food arrives, so the nervous system of the dog in the sling is conditioned to both bell and food arrival.  Later, when the bell sounds, the dog drools.

Never mind the reality that the dog is only interested in the food, not the bell.

If the food fails to come, the dog will figure out ways to get out of that drool-collecting headgear and pelvis-suspending sling.

In sum, the data is crunched and a model is proposed in the analysis section of a scientific paper.

0575 Relation (thirdness) corresponds to a discussion of the analysis and results of the experiment.

That said, a label may be attached to the type of model that the data suggests.  In this case, two labels apply.  “Anticipation” is a label designed to capture the attention of non-scientific folk.  “Operant and instrumental conditioning” is a label designed to hold the attention of scientific folk.

0576 Why two labels?

Science involves explicit abstraction.  The terminology of explicit abstraction may change depending on the audience.

For the general public, the explicit term, “anticipation”, labels a wide range of um… phenomena.   These observable and measurable behaviors are attributed to a noumenon, a thing itself, called “anticipation”.

0577 For scientists interested in psychology, the explicit term, “anticipation”, labels a suite of models for conditioned responses, produced through rigorous experiments on animals.

Here is a picture of Pavlov’s empirio-schematic judgment.

0578 In triumphalist psychology, the technical term, “anticipation”, should overshadow the common term, “anticipation”.

In the process, the application of the general term is narrowed and shifted towards the counter-intuitive.

I wonder whether Pavlov anticipates that?

Maybe he does, without even being conscious of that anticipation.

0579 Section 6.7 concerns consciousness and cognition in animals.

In this examination of Pavlov’s experiment, a question concerning consciousness and cognition arises within two agencies, that of Pavlov the scientist and that of Pavlov’s dogs.

0580 This suggests a parallel between Pavlov, the scientist, and his dogs, the subjects of scientific inquiry.

0581 Now, the above dyads represent matter where the form is a real initiating (semiotic) event. 

0582 For the dogs, the form is a serving of meat while hearing a bell.  Forget about all that apparatus business.  That is for master to decide.  The drool occurs when the bell rings₂, in the normal context of Pavlov’s apparatus₃, signifying the potential of dinner₁.  This fits the common person’s use of the world “anticipation”.

Indeed, the exemplar sign-relation depicts an innate expectation.  The master feeding me_2b (SV_e) stands for my love for master and my master’s expectations of me_2c (SO_e) in regards to the rituals of being fed by master_3c operating on the possibility that the master is pack leader_1c (SI_e).  Or, something like that.

0583 For Pavlov, the event is an experiment, designed to produce data through measuring volumes of canine slobber.  The measurements_2a (SV_s) stand for a conditioned response_2b (SO_s) in regards to the way that psychologists_3b conduct experiments that mean ‘something’_1b (SI_s).  Then, the conditioned response_2b (SV_e) stands for “anticipation”_2c (SO_e) in regards to making sense_3c of this scientifically relevant ‘something’ by offering a label_1c (SI_e).  This introduces a novel empirio-schematic term into the psychological lexicon.

0584 What does this have to do with consciousness and cognition?

0585 Obviously, I have two referents for the term, “anticipation”.

0586 So, a semiotic tool may be useful in sorting out this issue of labeling in a Lebenswelt of explicit abstraction.

0587 The Greimas square is a semiotic tool that turns out to be useful for ascertaining the location of a spoken word in a system of differences.

How does the Greimas square operate?

The Greimas square is a purely relational structure constructed of four locations.  Each location corresponds to the corner of a square.  The corners are labeled A, B C and D.  Each label represents a rule.  A is the focal spoken word.  B is a spoken word that contrasts with A.  C is a word that “speaks against” (contradicts) B and complements A.  D is a word that contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B.

0588 Here is a picture.

0589 I can apply the Greimas square to what Pavlov accomplishes.

The focal word (A) is the common use of the term, “anticipation”.  The spoken word is an explicit abstraction.  When the bell rings, the dog anticipates a bowl of meat.  The bell brings the meat to um… consciousness.

The contrasting word (B) is the technical use of the term, “anticipation”.  When the bell rings, the dog salivates.  Salivation is not regarded as a subagent doing what it is supposed to do.  Rather, salivation is evidence of an unconscious conditioned response.  Is this where the word, “cognition”, fits in?

The word (C) that contradicts (B) and complements (A) is “consciousness”.  For common use, anticipation entails conscious awareness or a process that leads to conscious awareness.  For Pavlov’s dogs, the bell brings meat to consciousness.

The term (D) that contrasts with (C), speaks against (A) and complements (B) is “operant conditioning”.  Operant conditioning is regarded as an unconscious process.

0590 Here is a picture.

0591 What does this have to do with consciousness and cognition?

Does Pavlov’s scientific breakthrough in psychology demonstrate that an explicit abstraction, that everyone applies to human consciousness, may be grounded in unconscious cognitive processing?

0280 Tabaczek’s re-allocates Deacon’s treatment of emergence, without the benefit of Peirce’s category-based nested form.  Razie Mah examines Tabaczek’s re-allocation using two works, A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Formand A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

The result in the Deacon-Tabaczek interscope for emergence.

0281 What can I say?

Obviously, a three-level interscope is a nested form composed of nested forms.

In this interscope, Deacon’s terminology is used.

To begin, consider Deacon’s labels for the three levels.

0282 On the content-level, a thermodynamic process that tends towards equilibrium (in a spontaneous sort of way)_3abrings the actuality of a contained circulation of ingredients_2a, where reagents are separated so that some of the free-energy of their reaction can be captured, into relation with (a situationally induced) displacement from equilibrium_1a.

For example, if a dam extracts the gravitational potential and kinetic energy released in a river flowing downstream, then the content-level is the adjusted spontaneous process of water flowing downstream.

0283 On the situation-level, a homeodynamic process capable of extracting the captured energy_3b brings the actuality of the embodiment of the captured energy_2b into relation with the potential of the various constraints and biases imposed on the content-level nested form_1b.

For the example of the hydroelectric dam_3b, water is channeled in such a fashion as to drive a turbine_1b that produces alternate (and sometimes, direct) voltage in a wire cable_2b.  The emergent being is electrical “current”_2b.

0284 On the perspective-level, a morphodynamic process_3c, capable of utilizing the energy captured by the emergent being_1c, generates a persisting form_2c.  The persistent form is like an end point of the emergence_2c, because it_2c not only dissipates the potential_1c of the emergent being_2b but it_2c “forms” something_2c in the process_3c.  Here, Deacon’s terminology sounds oblique and, perhaps, misleading.  The dissipative power_2c persists as a form_2c, yet “dynamic form” labels the normal context_3c.  Also, the potential of the emergent being_1c is a “simplification”, of sorts.  But, is “simplification_1c” a satisfying term?

For example, a morphodynamic process_3c takes the potential of the alternative electric voltage… or is it current?… in a wire connected (however distantly) to the aforementioned turbine_1c and performs some sort of work, such as heating my morning toast_2b.

0285 Yes, the example sounds lame.  But, with butter and apricot jam, the emergence is really quite satisfying.

0286 An example that is closer to Tabaczek’s argument sounds much less lame.

Mitochondria produce ATP from sugar and oxygen.  I breathe in order to supply oxygen to my mitochondria.  I eat toast in order to supply the sugar.

0287 Outside the body, the reaction of sugar with oxygen is called “combustion”_2a.

Inside the body, the degradation of sugar into carbon dioxide and water belongs to the Kreb’s cycle_1b.  The combination of atomic hydrogen (released by the degradation of sugar) with molecular oxygen is called the mitochondrial electron transport chain_1b.  These separated reactions both produce ATP_2b, a high-energy molecule that, given enough time, will degrade back to ADP and P_i (inorganic phosphate).

0288 ATP_2b is one of the currencies of the cell.  All sorts of biosynthetic routes and transportation mechanisms_3c within a eukaryotic cell will take the ATP, which has three covalently bound phosphates, then pop off the last phosphate_1b, and use the released energy to do biochemical or kinetic work_2c.

0289 Here is a picture of the Deacon-Tabaczek interscope for mitochondria.

0290 On the adjusted thermodynamic or content level, the normal context of orthograde reactions_3a brings the actuality of the transfer of electrons from sugar to oxygen_2a (yielding water and carbon dioxide)_2a into relation with the potential of ‘the chemistry of glucose and oxygen’_1a.  

On the homeodynamic level, the normal context of cellular matrix and mitochondria_2b bring the actuality of ATP (as an emergent being)_2b into relation with the potential of ‘the Kreb’s cycle and the mitochondrial electron-transport chain’_1b.

On the morphodynamic level, the normal context of staying alive_3c brings the actuality of biosynthesis and cellular transport_2c into relation with the potential of ‘utilizing the controlled degradation of ATP in order to do work’_1c.

0291 Now, I turn to biosemiotics.

Recall that Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay presents the triadic specifying sign-relation (connecting situation and content levels of an interscope)…

…as a dyadic relational structure.

0292 A specifying sign-relation also stands within the interscope for emergence.

The specifying sign-relation stands out when ATP_2b, as an emergent being, associates to the specifying sign-object (SO_s).  then, other elements of the interscope for mitochondrial respiration fall into slots in the S&T noumenal overlay.

0293 As it turns out, the interscope for emergence also contains the exemplar sign-relation.  Well, every three-level interscope contains an exemplar sign-relation.  So maybe, that is no surprise.  The exemplar sign-relation binds the situation and perspective levels.  A situation-level actuality_2b (SV_e) stands for a perspective-level actuality_2c (SO_e) in regards to the perspective-level normal context_3c operating on a perspective-level potential_1c (SI_e).

“SV”, “SO” and “SI” label the sign-vehicle, sign-object and sign-interpretant. Subscript “s” denotes the specifying sign-relation.  Subscript “e” denotes the exemplar sign-relation.

0294 When I turn my gaze back to the S&T noumenal overlay, I note the following.

The three-level interscope depicting the production of ATP as an emergent being contains both specifying and exemplar sign relations.

The S&T noumenal overlay directly incorporates the specifying sign-relation.

When the full three-level interscope of emergence associates to the S&T noumenal overlay, the incorporation of the exemplar sign-relation becomes apparent.

0295 So, for emergence, the agency aspect of the S&T noumenal overlay should express the exemplar sign-relation.

Here is a picture.

0296 I recall that the agency aspect for the S&T noumenal overlay has simpler formulations.

Here is one that is worth comparing to the ongoing association.

0297 In mitochondrial respiration as emergence, ATP_2b is the actuality₂ on the situation_b level.  Both actuality₂ and situation_b associate to Peirce’s category of secondness.  ATP_2b is the actuality₂ on the level_b associated with actuality.  Consequently, the observation and measurement of ATP_2b in biological systems should be of interest for modeling the specifying character of [habit] as well as the exemplar character of [salience].

In this regard, ATP_2b associates to information and information displays the way that the emergent being_2b serves as both the sign-object of the specifying sign-relation (SO_s) and the sign-vehicle of the exemplar sign-relation (SV_e).

0298 The production of ATP_2b is the specifying sign-object (SO_s).

The dissipation of the energy (SO_e) embodied by ATP_2b (SV_e) represents a goal.

ATP_2b (SV_e) stands for the productive dissipation of its energy_2c (SO_e) in the normal context of dynamic form_3coperating on the potential intracellular uses of ATP_1c (SI_e).

This application of emergence, appearing in Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024), offers a promising start to look at Sharov’s carefully formulated model for the origin of life.

0299 Here is a three-level interscope for emergence, with the specifying and exemplar sign-relations noted.

0300 Emergence enters into S&T’s noumenal overlay.

Here are the results.

0301 When Sharov and Tonnessen confront the origin of life on Earth in chapter five of Semiotic Agency, associations with Mariusz Tabaczek’s formulation of emergence are not apparent.  The focus on inquiry is on chemical self-replication rather than structures that capture thermodynamic energy_2a through an emergent_2b then dissipate the emergent’s energy_2cby building a persistent structure.

The eukaryotic cell’s metabolism of glucose and oxygen works by extracting energy released in the combustion of these reagents.

In combustion, oxygen gas directly takes electrons from glucose, without any homeodynamics.  Covalent bonds are broken.  Covalent bonds form.  Lots of free-energy is released and converted into heat.

In the eukaryotic cell, electrons produced by the oxidation of glucose (at one cellular location) are used to produce an emergent being, such as ATP, before going into the reduction of oxygen (at another cellular location), where more ATP is produced.  ATP_2b is the emergent being, whose energy is dissipated on the morphodynamic level.

0302 So, where is a scientist supposed to start, when considering abiogenesis?

Researchers into the origins of life focus on the formation of covalent bonds that constitute polymers.  Polymeric molecules are persistent structures.  But, scientists have not identified an emergent, similar to ATP, whose concentration is low yet constant, because it is produced on the homeodynamic level and used up on the morphodynamic level.  Nor have researchers identified any thermodynamic processes amenable to exploitation by a homeodynamic level.

0302 In section 5.5 of Semiotic Agency and sections 9.4 and 9.5 of Pathways, Alexei Sharov presents a replicator-niche coupling model.  Several items are required: water, oil, pigments (in oil), light, and two complementary molecules that are separate in water, yet combine to form an active site when they attach to the surface of an oil droplet.

0304 Here is a picture.

0305 Let me start with the oil droplet.

Water tends to drive alkanes out of solution.  That is why alkanes form oil droplets in water.  These droplets are not really stable, because they are not held together because of mutual attraction, but are held in place by the fact that each water molecule networks with other water molecules so well that, if a molecule does not participate in water’s hydrogen-bond networks, it gets driven out of solution. That also applies to the pigment, which is oil-soluble and not water-soluble.

0306 What about the polymers?

Parts of complementary polymers are soluble in water.  Other parts are not as soluble.  So, parts are driven out of water and parts are pulled back into water.  These molecules collect on the surface of the oil droplet, then couple with one another, with the pigment and with an alkane, which is part of the oil droplet.

0307 There are no oxygen molecules in the picture.  Today, the Earth’s atmosphere is around 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen.  In the early Earth’s atmosphere, reduced carbon compounds make the smaller fraction and nitrogen makes the large fraction.  More or less.  No scientist can go back in time and measure the composition of the atmosphere of the early Earth.

Reduced carbon in the atmosphere goes with the alkanes in the oil.  Much of the light of the early sun is absorbed by the carbon-rich atmosphere, but some makes it down to pigments in the oil droplet.  The pigment and complementary polymers conjoin in two locations in the figure below.

0308 Then, what happens?

The pigment absorbs a photon and becomes an electronically excited pigment.

Then, the energy captured by this pigment initiates a chemical reaction, where the alkane is oxidized to a fatty acid.  Oxidation releases electrons.  One among many possible oxidations is pictured above.  With a little more oomph, that carboxylic acid would pop off as carbon dioxide.  However, this reaction stops as an alkane chain with a carboxylic acid at the terminus.  I call this molecule a “fatty acid”.

In the following figure, the two processes are depicted as two dyads.  Each dyad exhibits the structure of reagents [turn into] products.

0309 Now, theoretically a reduction reaction is close at hand.  If the oil droplet is near a chemical that can accept the electrons, then a coordinated reduction can take place.  For example, the hydrogen ions and the electrons can combine to form 3H₂(g).  Or, atmosphere nitrogen (N₂) can be reduced to ammonia, 2NH₃.

0310 What happens next?

The fatty acid serves as the emergent being_2b, because the carboxylic-acid side tends to favor the water and the alkane side stays in the oil droplet.

0311 In short, fatty acid is the emergent being_2b that has the potential of stabilizing oil droplets_1c, allowing them to “feed off” or “absorb” oil from less stable oil droplets_2c.

0312 Does Sharov’s scenario, as far as it goes, fit the Deacon-Tabaczek interscope?

Indeed, it does.

0313 Does this interscope associate to the S&T noumenal overlay?

Yes, it does.

0314 Well, so far so good.

Nevertheless, there is a long way to go to get to a prokaryotic cell (as noted in sections 5.8-5.10 of Semiotic Agency and 9.6-9.8 of Pathways).

For example, prokaryotic cells replicate themselves through cell division.  But, the replication is nothing like this oil droplet example.  That is because DNA plays a role in prokaryotic cell division.  Biologist call this type of replication, “template based”.

Also, there is the issue of the cell membrane.  The cell membrane is a lipid bilayer, consisting of phosphorylated fatty acids.  In other words, fatty acids may stabilize an oil droplet.  Once those fatty acids have a phosphate attached to them, then their phosphates love water so much that the alkane-portion of the molecule is excluded from the water so strongly that a bilayer is stable.

0315 Also, there is the formalization of pigments that capture sunlight in order to produce energy-rich sugar molecules.  Today, photosynthesis absorbs carbon dioxide (gas) and releases oxygen (gas).  In the early Earth, photosynthesis does the same.

Here is the balanced chemical reaction.

0333 Well, what if matter… er… information… consists of multiple biomolecules that are… um… modular… in so far as they… because of circumstances… simultaneously engage in a cooperative endeavor… a “love”, so to speak?

Some would say that this what if is similar to the hierarchical relation between parts and a whole.

But, would the whole be the form associated with goal or the form associated with the real initiating event?

Or, would it be the thing called “semiotic agency”?

0334 At the start of section 10.2, the author lays this ambiguous multiple metaphor onto the procrustean bed of an evolutionary paradigm, where (on a molecular level) biological parts are added to one another in a piecemeal way to an evolving system.

The author proposes a phylogenomic-based biphasic model of module creation that explains evolutionary growth in biochemical systems.  In phase one, modules nest within one another, in a provisional sort of way, until over time or suddenly, the form that is goal clarifies. Different modules start to work together as a semiotic agent. In phase two, modules working within that functioning cooperative change as semiotic agency diversifies.

0335 The second phase associates to “adaptation”.

The first phase does not have a proper name.  I suggest the term, “empedoclement”. 

An empedoclement is the inverse of an impediment.

0336 Here is an analogy.

Recently, I joined a tennis club.  I trained to play the game by enduring real initiating events and reviewing information on my performance.  Since I am so modular, different aspects of me perform independently of one another, so I did not adapt well to the circumstances. My instructor says that if I don’t think about what I am doing with each of my modules,then I could move holistically in a coordinated manner.  I will become an adept, rather than a lackluster player full of impediments.

0337 One would think that routinely training and playing tennis would lead to (perhaps slow, but) steady improvement towards the goal of being competitive.  This is a matter of adaptation.  All the facets of mind and body are modular.  Each module develops along its own trajectory. In apparent stasis, improvement is held at bay by one or two recalcitrant modules. In surprisingly fast change, two or more modules improve in tandem.  The fast change could be an empedoclement.

0338 While this analogy helps, I find it difficult to imagine that first phase, where parts are present and may afford some advantages, but no one part realizes the game that is afoot.

0339 The author offers two images as metaphors for the phylogenomic-based biphasic model.

One metaphor is a tree, where the roots represent modules, the trunk stands for the modules coalescing into matter [love] form, where matter is information and the form is a telos or an end.  

The other metaphor portrays modules themselves, which over time, interact to generate scaffolds and active sites, until a robust combination constellates.

Here is a picture of the second metaphor.

0340 The word, “constellates”, is a psychological term (actually, Jungian) that marks the coming into presence (esse_ce) of an archetypal form (essence).  The result may be called “a primordial image”.

For example, the archetype of the king may constellate in a variety of ways, including the duplicitous and the honest, the greedy and the beneficent, as well as the foolish and the wise.  Each pair of these primordial images informs us of a module within the one archetype and how that module can yield different responses to similar circumstances.

0341 But, can the word, “constellate”, also label the coming together of modules within an archetype as an empedoclement?