Category Archives: Specifying sign

04/25/25

Looking at Vic Norris and Alexei Sharov’s Chapter (2024) “…How Bacterial Cells… Change… in Response to Various Signals” (Part 1 of 4)

0648 The text before me is chapter fourteen in Pathways (see point 0474 for book details).  The chapter covers pages 299 to 324.  The authors are Vic Norris at the University of Rouen, France, and Alexei Sharov at Elixirgen Scientific in Baltimore, Maryland.

The full title is “Hypothesis about How Bacterial Cells Sustain and Change Their Lives in Response to Various Signals”.  The fullness of the title is significant.  Elements may be associated to the S&T noumenal overlay.

0650 Here are my associations.

The only term not in the association is “hypothesis”.

0651 Looking back to chapter 13, concerning the sentient cell, the model of the Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBB), illuminates what the authors are constructing.  They project sentience from human consciousness onto the behavior of living bacteria.  Life and sentience are coterminous.

I suppose the authors’ hypothesis proposes that such a project is scientifically legitimate.

I already know the answer from the S&T noumenal overlay.  Semiotic agency2 is a reification of a three-level interscope, a purely relational structure which contains the specifying and exemplar sign relations.  This allows the designation of features that are crucial for empirio-schematic inquiry: phenomena and what needs to be modeled.

0652 Message, presence and meaning associate to phenomena.

The contiguities of [life] and [sentience] are what need to be modeled.

0653 Unfortunately, the authors do not have tools to visualize Peirce’s philosophy, which opens a window to two realms that cannot be observed and measured by humans: normal context3 and potential1.  Indeed, these two realms constitute the sign-interpretants of level-crossing sign-relations.  Which explains why [life] and [sentience] are precisely what models need to explain.

0654 So, how to the authors proceed?

The abstract and the first two sections (14.1 and 14.2) inform the reader as to the character of the project.

The proposed model for [self-governance3b operating on potential courses of action1b (SIs)] describes bacteria as hierarchically structured.  Functional roles are performed by hyperstructures, assemblies of molecules and macromolecules operating in multiple-level coordination as subagents. “Hyperstructures” are functionally competent states (coordinating as “temporal phenotypes”).

This model envisions subagents scrambling to support the ongoing hyperstructure or to change to a more appropriate hyperstructure.  The authors label this scramble, “competitive coherence”. 

The proposed model for [salience3c((1c)) (SIe)] is “plasticity”.  The resulting coordinated order among subagentsmaintains or changes cellular integrity… er… “identity”, as conditions either remain the same or alter.  Plasticity addresses the question, “What is the bacteria going to do?”  In effect, competitive coherence establishes a stage for a phenotypic expression of the holobiont.

0655 Does this argument flow into the structure of the S&T noumenal overlay?

Here are my associations.

0656 For the specifying sign-relation, various cues and signals2a (SVs) stand for competitive coherence2b (SOs) in regards to bacteria cells responding3b by potentially sustaining or changing their hyperstructure (or “temporal phenotype”)1b (SIs).

For the exemplar sign-relation, competitive coherence2b (SVe) stands for maintaining the cell’s identity2c (SOe) through plasticity3c((1c)) (SIe), where plasticity is the ability to hold or shift from one temporal phenotype to another.

0657 Now, an expert in bacteria should be able to observe and (in experiments) measure phenomena related to cues and signals2a (which the researcher can control), competitive coherence2b (patterns of behavior among bacterial subagents) and the maintenance or change of cell identity2c (observed as what actions the holobiont takes).

0658 These noumena may be objectified as phenomena that the researcher observes and measures.

04/22/25

Looking at Vic Norris and Alexei Sharov’s Chapter (2024) “…How Bacterial Cells… Change… in Response to Various Signals” (Part 4 of 4)

0680 Now I can draw another association between category-based nested forms.

0681 If biosemiotics is what all biological processes have in common, and if the authors are biologists who both study and participate in biological processes, then a technical discussion concerning how bacterial regulate their functions in response to various signals should contain a certain irony.

0682 So, it is no surprise that these biosemiotic researchers define3 “complexity”2 as situating the potential of ‘biological explanations of bacterial cues and signals using semiotics’1.

0683 The normal context of definition3 compares to how any biological organism defines itself within its Umwelt3.

0684 The actuality of the spoken word, “complexity”2, compares to what any biological organism is figuratively “conscious of”2 (especially in regards to a model of the Cellular Basis of Consciousness).  Or maybe, “complexity” describes what we are conscious of when we regard the semiotic interplay within any biological organism.

Plus, in the discussion section (14.5), “complexity” touches base with the “subjective experience” of an organism, from the point of view of a disinterested observer (the biosemiotician) looking in.  Perhaps, the organism is “conscious” of its “phenotype”.

0685 The potential of ‘explanations (meaning) of cues & signals (message) using semiotics (presence)’1 compares to the potential of ‘identity (meaning), competitive coherence (presence) and events within the Umwelt (message)’1 for any biological organism.

0686 Surely, this implies that Norris and Sharov’s hypothesis applies to any biological organism, not just bacteria.

How so?

In points 0634 and 0635, the category-based nested form for definition meshes with the actuality2 of semiotic agency.

Here is the same diagram applied to the bacterium.

Does it seem that speech-alone talk infiltrates semiotic agency?

It is as if a bacterium3 speaks2 its identity1.

0687 At the same time, I must keep in mind that biosemiotics dwells in the house of science.

Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay, that is semiotic agency2, is objectified by biological phenomena in regards to meaning, presence and message1.  Or, should I say, “…in regards to SOe, SOs [&] SVe, and SVs.”?

These phenomena (what is for the Positivist’s judgment) are observed and measured in order to produce models using the disciplinary languages (including diagrams) of biosemiotics (what ought to be for the Positivist’s judgment).

All this occurs under the auspices of a positivist intellect (relation for the Positivist’s judgment) who would rather do without metaphysics  But hey, semiotic agency2 is an actuality2 within a triadic relation.  Without a normal context3and potential1 for semiotic agency2, biosemiotics simply does not register.

0688 Perhaps, “the temporal phenotype that the agent seems to be conscious of”2(2) corresponds to what needs to be explained in the S&T noumenal overlay.  If so, then the agent is “conscious” by way of its specifying and exemplar sign-interpretants (SIs and SIe).

That is to say, two sign-interpretants constitute an organism’s figurative “consciousness”.

Surely, these sign-interpretants3((1)) cannot be reduced to actuality2 because they reside outside of Peirce’s category of secondness.  However, because the entire nested form in the above figure meshes with the actuality of semiotic actuality2, these sign-interpretants3((1)) are incorporated into the realm of secondness2 by an agent3 (say, a bacterium) on the basis of the potential of ‘a final causality’1.

So, what does a scientist do?

The scientist reaches for the label, “complexity”.

It is sort like asking a familiar civilized term to execute a tricky cognitive manipulation.

0689 Who would anticipate that?

Surely, Vic Norris and Alexei Sharov propose a worthy hypothesis on on how bacterial cells sustain and change their lives in response to various signals.  The phenomenon of competitive coherence is worth elevating, along with the phenomena of identity and cues within the Umwelt. These phenomena are observable and measurable sign-elements ofthe S&T noumenal overlay.

0690 At the end, I am left with the ambiguity of “definition”.

What compares to definition?

In general, the normal context of definition3 brings the actuality of a spoken word (or term)2 into relation with the potential of meaning, presence and message1.

For this chapter, the normal context of the agent defining itself with its Umwelt2(3) brings the actuality that the agent is “conscious” of its “phenotype”2(2) into relation with the potentials of ‘identity (meaning), competitive coherence (presence) and signals and cues (message)’2(1).

For the unfolded empirio-schematic judgment, the normal context of disciplinary language3 brings the actuality of (complex) models for “the phenotype”2 into relation with the potential of ‘observations and measurements of biological phenomena’1.

0691 Here is a picture of the last two category-based nested forms in the previous point.

Clearly, a comparison between a definition that meshes with semiotic agency and the empirio-schematic judgment is provocative.

Yet, that provocation is in tune with the author’s proposal.

0692 That proposal is constructed with spoken words.

Speech-alone talk can label anything.  And, now we can label the meanings, presences and messages within biological organisms as if they are phenomena.  We can also model our observations and measurements of these phenomena using spoken words that describe what needs to be explained, the sign-interpretants themselves.

0693 Here is one implication.

Biosemiotics is the field of inquiry3 that brings definitions that mesh with semiotic agency2 into relation with the potential of empirio-schematic inquiry1.

Perhaps, this is why the field of biosemiotics seems to be older than science as configured by modern Positivists (beginning with the mechanical philosophers of the 1600s).

And younger.

0694 For the modern Positivists, empirio-schematic inquiry (what ought to be, secondness) belongs to the realm of actuality and the noumenon [and] its phenomena (what is, firstness) belongs to the realm of possibility.

For the postmodern biosemiotician, empirio-schematic inquiry opens up to the categories of thirdness and firstness,which are the same categories encountered in Aristotle’s formal and final causalities.

The implications are difficult to fathom.

0695 I thank the authors for this chapter and hope this examination adds value to their inquiries.

04/21/25

Looking at Victoria Alexander’s Chapter (2024) “…The Emergence of Subjective Meaning” (Part 1 of 5

0696 The text before me is chapter fifteen in Pathways.  Details on the book are found in point 0474.  Chapter fifteen covers pages 325 through 344.  This is the third chapter in Part III, titled, “Meanings in Organism Behavior and Cognition”, which is a long way of saying, “Non-human Agency”. The chapter’s full title is “Self-Reinforcing Cycles and Mistakes: The Emergence of Subjective Meaning”.

0697 Hmmm, I wonder, “Does the structure of the chapter’s title offer an example of a self-reinforcing cycle and a mistake?”

After all, the topic is the emergence of subjective meaning.

The proposed mechanism for the emergence is self-reinforcing cycles and mistakes.

0698 Putting the mechanism before the subject is like putting a cart before the donkey.  The cart contains the mechanism.  The donkey represents the emergent being.

This reminds me of the way that modern scientists are all about mechanistic and mathematical models (the cart).  They disregard the noumenon (the donkey).  They go so far as to say that the cart should take the place of the donkey.  But, who ever heard of a cart that pulls itself? 

0699 As far as the category-based nested form pictured below goes.  The donkey goes with agent3.  The cart associates to semiotic agency2.  The donkey3 contextualizes the cart2.  The donkey3 brings the cart2 into relation with the potential of ‘final causality’1, which does not appear in the title.  Or does it?

0700 The chapter’s title contains the terms “self-reinforcing cycles and mistakes”.  These go with actuality, just like the cart.

The chapter’s title contains the term “subjective meaning”.  I suppose that this goes with the normal context3, just like the donkey.  

0701 Okay, what about the word, “emergence”, where does that fit in?

Uh-oh.

0702 Let me step back and ask myself, “How could a cart reveal the donkey as a normal context, rather than an actuality?”

How could self-reinforcing cycles and mistakes reveal subjective meaning as a normal context, rather than an actuality?”

0703 Hmmm.  I suppose some adjustments are in order.

Emergence3 must be the normal context that brings the actuality of the dyad, donkey [pulls] cart2, into relation with well… the potentials that historically puts the donkey and the cart together1.  Now, there’s an empedoclement.

Also, emergence3 must be the normal context that brings the actuality of the dyad, subject [experiences] meaning2, into relation with the potentials of ‘self-reinforcing cycles and mistakes’1.  Ah, that suggests opportunities for empedoclements to happen.

0704 Usually, mistakes are impediments.

Occasionally, a mistake will be an empedoclement, which is the inverse of an impediment.

On top of that, some empedoclements seem (after the fact) to be inevitable.  During the Uruk period of southern Mesopotamia, the donkey is domesticated for long-distance trade.  The wheel is invented to make pottery.  In retrospect, the actuality of donkey [pulls] cart2 seems destined.

0704 Now, all that I need to do is to realize that subjective meaning2 is an actuality.  Actuality2 is dyadic.  So, subjective meaning2 can be rendered as a dyad, consisting of two contiguous real elements.  The two real elements?  I suppose they must be the subject and the experience.  After all, both are real.  That leaves [meaning] as the contiguity.

In the following figure, the lower category-based nested form parallels the upper.

0705 Okay, by analogy, the title of “Self-Reinforcing Cycles and Mistakes: The Emergence of Subjective Meaning” reminds me of an anthropological story about the invention of the donkey pulled cart during the Uruk archaeological period of southern Mesopotamia.

0706 Having concluded my examination of the author’s prowess is synthesizing titles, I proceed directly to the conclusion (section 15.8), where the author makes three points (and maybe, one more) by way of summary (S, T U and maybe, V).

0707 First (S), NeoDarwinism may be a factor in evolution.  But, it is not the only one.

On one hand, tell that to a modern biologist and watch the listener’s body-language say, “Oh no, am I talking to one of those intelligent design advocates?”

On the other hand, if I say, “Neodarwinism does not take triadic relations in account.  If it did, then biological evolution would have to be called ‘mysterious’.”

Then, the modern biologist might think, “Oh worse! It’s a postmodern semiotician!”

But, it is not my mission to point out that biosemiotics performs what Christian intelligent design enthusiasts want to do, but cannot.  Biosemiotics brings all of biology into the gambit of triadic relations, including Neodarwinism.

0708 How so?

In Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome, (available at smashwords and other e-book venues), Razie Mah shows that the living being (individual, species or genus) is the intersection of adaptation and phenotype.  Then, in How To Define The Word “Religion”, Razie Mah shows that intersections are mysterious, fulfilling the expectation that the word, “mystery”, accounts for the message underlying the word, “religion”.

0709 Here is a picture of where I am going with this.

One category-based nested form is horizontal.  The other is vertical.

Several steps are required to get there.

But, once I am there, the author’s claim that neodarwinism is insufficient will make sense in terms of semiotic agency.

04/7/25

Looking at Hongbing Yu’s Chapter (2024) “…Danger Modeling…” (Part 1 of 7)

0753 The text before me is chapter seventeen of Pathways (2024, see point 0474 for details. pages 363-375).  This chapter concludes Part III, titled, “Meanings in Organism Behavior and Cognition”.  The related title in Semiotic Agency (2021, see point 0473) is “Nonhuman Agency”.  The author works at Toronto Metropolitan University, in the Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures.

The full title of chapter seventeen is “The Peculiar Case of Danger Modeling: Meaning Generation in Three Dimensions”.

0754 Of course, danger offers great examples for semiotics.  The abstract says as much.  In 2022, Marcel Danesi publishes a book on the topic, titled Warning Signs: The Semiotics of Danger.

For example, when a dog growls at me2a, that serves as a sign-vehicle (SVs) that is interpreted by my self-governance3bcontextualizing the potentials of various courses of action1b (SIs) in order to construct information2b (SOs).

0755 Here is a picture, using the S&T noumenal overlay.

0756 Yes, semiotic agency looks like a noumenon that exhibits observable and measurable facets (phenomena) that may be used to construct models of [self-governance3b operating on potential courses of action1b (SIs)] and[sentience3c((1c)) (SIe)].

Does the reader notice my sleight of hand in the preceding statement?

I substitute “sentience” for “salience” in SIe.

0757 The substitution is justified because information2b (SOs [&] SVe) says, “Danger is present.”

The “danger” goes with SOs.  Its “presence” is what I am sentient of (SVe).

The exemplar sign-relation goes like this.  The danger2b (SVe) that I am sentient of3c,1c (SIe) stands for something that I can avoid or safely ignore2c (SOe).

0758 So, what is the problem?

The author does not have the Sharov and Tonnessen noumenal overlay, which is foundational for the Positivist’s judgment, when it comes to biosemiotics.

Consequently, the author proposes that Thomas Sebeok’s concept of modeling may be used as a productive approach.  After all, modeling offers a highly integrative framework for meaning generation.

0759 Shall we see?

If highly integrative frameworks for meaning (that is, Sebeok’s models) are um… “natural”… for humans, then they should support implicit abstractions, characteristic of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  Implicit abstractions are holistic.

0760 But, there is a problem.

We no longer live in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  The Lebenswelt that we evolved in practices hand- and hand-speech talk, which is holistic and relies on Peirce’s natural sign-relations of icon and index.  Of course, symbols operate in the background, allowing hand talk to become linguistic.

0761 Our current Lebenswelt practices speech-alone talk.

0762 How is this relevant to the current discussion?

With speech-alone talk, different aspects of a holistic implicit abstraction can be explicitly labeled.

The author identifies three dimensions to Sebeok’s models (as highly integrative frameworks of meaning): existential, representational and interpretational.

0763 These three dimensions are explicit abstractions.  They label “dimensions” of a model that frames message{SVs}2a and integrates presence {SOs [&] SVe}2b into meaning {SOe}2c.

In short, these dimensions bring this examiner right back to semiotic agency.

0764 Say what?

These dimensions bring this examiner right back to specifying and exemplar sign-relations.

So, the direction that this examiner will take, with plenty of creativity (hence, mistakes), calls to mind the S&T noumenal overlay, as the purely relational structure that all biological entities and processes have in common, including the case of me, surprising an unfamiliar dog, who is snarfing something already dead, found in a pile of autumn leaves.  The incident occurs on my morning walk with Daisy (who is taken by surprise herself, along with me).

03/18/25

Looking at Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen’s Chapter (2021) “Composite Agency” (Part 1 of 5)

478 The text before me is chapter 10 of Semiotic Agency (2021).  Details on the text may be found on point 0473.  Chapter 10 covers pages 291-312.

0479 The authors’ claim?

A multiplicity of subagents is a typical feature of agency and is necessary for a higher-level agent’s reliable self-construction, robustness and adaptability.

Subagents are semi-autonomous.  The co-exist in partially cooperative and partially antagonistic manners.  In many cases, semiogenesis occurs when one subagent provides the scaffolding that facilitates, represses or redirects the development of another subagent.

0480 Subagents characterize anatomy and physiology in animals.

Animals are subject to natural selection.

Plus, some parasites play the game of subagency very well.

0481 So, let me start with the Sharov and Tonnessen noumenal overlay.

0482 Obviously, subagents are employed in the specifying and exemplar sign-interpretants.

0483 The authors’ first example is a single-celled paramecium.  The length of the cell in 300 micrometers.  Is that one third of a millimeter?  Subagents include a macronucleus, micronucleus, pellicle, gullet, food vacuoles, anal pore and so forth.  None of the subagents are truly self-governing.  Each plays a role in various courses of action, depending on what the paramecium is going to do (SOe).

Here are my associations for a paramecium’s semiotic agency.

0484 If this is the noumenon, then what are the phenomena?

In order to find out, I take the paramecium into my laboratory (actually, it’s an academic biology lab) and vary its environmental conditions (SVs).  The paramecium is a holobiont (a whole, living organism).  At any given moment, it acts as an agent3, whose main motivation seems to be ‘staying alive’1.

That is where semiotic agency2 comes in.

Some conditions produce responses (SOe) that indicate that the paramecium responds to something in its environment (SOs and SVe).  Sign-vehicles and sign-objects give rise to phenomena.  Indeed, these sign-elements are objectified by my observations and measurements of those phenomena.

0485 But, what about the paramecium as an agent?

Here is a picture.

03/13/25

Looking at Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen’s Chapter (2021) “Composite Agency” (Part 5 of 5)

0525 That brings me to empedoclements.

Recall, an empedoclement (a noun derived from the name of the Neoplatonic philosopher, Empedocles) is the inverse of an impediment (see points 0329 through 0341).  In this case, almost all institutional and personal interactions at the water fountain impede my boss (the macronucleus) from establishing a feedback to me (the contractile vacuole) that might mitigate my impulse to stir things up.

0526 For my reading of Empedocles, the SIs is strife.  The SIe is love.

In strife, form (SVs) attracts matter, {SOs [salience] SOe}.

Okay, technically, matter is really {(SOs [&] SVe)2b [salience3c((1c))] (SOe)2c}.

The form2a of what is happening3a operating on the potential of ‘something’ happening1a appeals to matter2b[]2c, and that matter2b[]2c itself is a thing, coupling the situation and perspective levels, as matter2b and form2c.

The appeal comes in [strife].  The coupling, the empedoclement as thing, comes with [love].

0527 Obviously, my boss (the macronucleus) has greater wisdom than me (the contractile vacuole).

He has to wait, for the moment when preparation meets opportunity, to establish a feedback loop where my humor, instead of causing trouble, can improve morale.

0528 Yes, evolution is all about empedoclements, which are impossible to predict in advance.

Only in hindsight, does an empedoclement become clear.

0529 In section 10.4, the authors discuss many examples.

In each step of the progression of evolution on Earth, the emergent holobiont is more stunning to behold.  At each step, the holobiont seems to have more and more of an identity.  At the same time, the holobiont appears more susceptible to subagent malfunctions.

0530 With this in mind, I assess my own self-affirmation and self-awareness as the human version of contractile vacuole.

On one hand, I like to have fun.

On the other hand, I better mind my boss.

01/4/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (2008) “Origins of Human Communication” (Part 12 of 12)

0176 Once again, here is Tomasello’s adjustment to the scholastic interscope.

Is this the [substance] of Tomasello’s research?

The exemplar sign is foregrounded.

A hominin perception2b (SVe) stands for a judgment2c (SOe) in regards to a common conceptual ground3c operating on the potential of ‘mutual expectations’1c (SIe).

0177 Here is the original scholastic interscope for how humans think.

The exemplar sign is foregrounded.

A species expressa2b (SVe) stands for a species intelligibilis2c (SOe) in regards to what makes sense3c operating on the potential of ‘contextualizing the situation’1c (SIe).

0178 With these two signs in juxtaposition, consider the three processes that Tomasello identifies as basic to the evolution of hominin cooperation: informing, requesting and sharing.

All three processes associate to the exemplar sign.

0179 So, chapter five invites a question, asking, “What are the conditions where exercising the exemplar sign increases reproductive success?”

The answer must be cooperative activities that increase reproductive success.

That is the topic of the next book in this series.

0180 But, before I leave this examination, I would like to return to prior expositions of the three steps of hominin evolution (points 0097 and 0132).

0181 The adaptations of joint attention and mutual intentionality associate to step one in the origins of hominin communication.

0182 The zeroth period stretches from the last common ancestor to the start of the Pliocene, where the first bipedal apesappear in the fossil record.  Bipedalism is an adaptation away from tropical forest and into mixed forest and savannah.  In these new conditions, collaborative foraging pays off.  As soon as cooperation in foraging activities increases reproductive success, the niche of sociogenesis opens up.  The team is the first social circle to benefit from joint attention and mutual intentionality.

The last common ancestor dates to around 7Myr (million of years ago).  The earliest bipedal apes appear around 4.2Myr.  So, I give an additional 0.7 million years for these walking creatures to start to realize that collaboration pays off.

0183 The first period nominally starts at 3.5Myr.  During the next 1.7 million years, natural selection explores the adaptive spaces generated by joint attention.  This includes the space for the evolution of hand talk within collaborating teams.  The Homo genus appears in the fossil record around 1.8Myr.  The expansion of the hominin neocortex is testimony to an increasing number of successful teams.  For each team tradition that increases reproductive success, subsequent adaptations routinize that success. More common grounds and styles of mutual intentionality are programmed into an expanding brain.   Each hominin team becomes better and better at what it does.

The second period begins around 0.8Myr. Homo erectus has already migrated out of Africa and into Eurasia.  The domestication of fire ensues. This is the beginning of the next phase, where hominin hand talk becomes fully linguistic.

0184 Even though Tomasello proposes a significantly different timeline, the following list expresses this examiner’s opinion of what Tomasello’s timeline should be.

The discrepancy between Tomasello’s proposed timeline and this examiner’s list needs to be accounted for.

0185 This commentary is not a substitute for Tomasello’s text.  It is a complement to his explorations.  Tomasello is an excellent, well-organized writer.  My examination may be scattered and disorganized, but it adds value by re-articulating his arguments in a semiotic framework.

The term, “semiotics”, does not appear in the index of Tomasello’s book.  But, that is not a drawback.  That is an opportunity for me, a semiotician, to demonstrate a deep correspondence between Tomasello’s arc of inquiry and Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

0186 Sociogenesis is the potential of triadic relations.

12/8/23

What Is A Meme? (F of G, Part 14 of 20)

0124 A meme involves an interventional sign-relation, whose sign-vehicle3c (SVi) fills in the slot for species impressa2a(SOi) while providing clues to a relevant content-level normal context3a and potential1a (SIi).

A meme also involves a specifying sign-relation, where a content-level species impressa2a (SVs) specifies a species expressa2b (SOs) within a situation-level normal context3b and potential1b (SIs).

0125 Here is a general picture of the specifying sign.

0126 Obviously, the interventional sign-object occupies the same content-level actuality2a as the specifying sign-vehicle.

The adaptiveness of the subsequent specifying sign weighs (takes into account) the initial bias (perhaps, affordance) provided by the interventional sign’s interpretant.

0127 In chapter nine, Dennett considers spoken words as paradigms of memes.

What about the gesture-words of hand talk… er… “sign language”?

Surely, these are even more paradigmatic because the gesture-word images and points to its referent.

0128 What if language evolves in the milieu of hand talk?

Here is a scenario to think about.

A warm rain falls all afternoon on my mixed forest location in eastern Africa, around a million years ago.  My Homo erectus comrades can’t do much, so they huddle under trees and nap.  The next day, the clouds have not given way, and I can smell something and I know what that something is.  Mushrooms are sprouting!

0129 How do I know this?

A mental module has evolved, over the course of generations, specifically devoted this opportunity, the smell and the taste and the weather conditions are all encoded, because those of my ancestors who responded to the mushroom-related opportunity reproduced more successfully that those who did not.

Plus, I don’t have a leash.

0130 However, I need to recruit others.  I need volunteers willing to work for food and share the riches with others.  In time, others will return the favor.  So, I initiate an interventional sign-relation.

0131 By Dennett’s account, my hand talk words constitute “a meme,” a unit of culture, containing semantic information, a difference that makes a difference, and a piece of know-what worth having.

0132 By a scholastic’s account, my hand talk words constitute the sign-object of an interventional sign-relation (SOi).

I don’t know whether medieval schoolmen successfully formalize the causality inherent in the interventional sign as a relational being.  According to Comments on John Deely’s Book (1994) New Beginnings, Latin-writing scholars formalize the specifying and the exemplar sign-causalities.  The discovery of the interventional sign, which has all the characteristics of Dennett’s notion of “an inversion of reason”, appears in Comments on Sasha Newell’s Article (2018) “The Affectiveness of Symbols”.  Both commentaries are available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0133 Whatever the accounting, my intervention sign initiates a specifying sign, leading to a wonderful mushroom harvest and contributing to our team (and our band’s) reproductive success.

0134  What is this “inversion of reason” business?

The interventional sign-relation inverts the commonplace notion that the sign-vehicle is visible (and thus, a subject) and the sign-object is mental (and thus, an object).

The specifying sign-relation reverts the inversion back into the commonplace notion.

0135 Both sign-relations intimate an affordance.

In this instance, the two affordances speak with one voice, saying, “Our team can gather many more mushrooms than a single individual.  We can gather enough to feed all the other potential (but not, at this weather moment, actualized) teams in the band.  Plus, we can dry and hide the rest.  Time is short.  Get to work!”

0136 Notably, this affordance cannot be articulated using hand talk.

How can one picture or point to “team”, “potential” or “affordance”?

Nonetheless, the affordance includes the potentials within the purely relational structure of the scholastic interscope for how humans think.

Clearly, each member of the team conjures the same relational structure, even though each individual possesses a different brain.

Only one more step is required to answer the question, “What is a meme?”

12/7/23

What Is A Meme? (G of G, Part 15 of 20)

0137 From the previous blogs, I know that the meme is bound to the species impressa2a.

In the species impressa2a, the sign-object of the interventional sign (SOi) weds the sign-vehicle of the specifying sign(SVs).

The question arises, “How are the two united?”

0138 Aristotle’s hylomorphe meets the definition of Peirce’s category of secondness.  The category of secondness consists of two contiguous real elements.  My nomenclature puts the contiguity into brackets: one real element [contiguity] other real element.

0139 The two real elements are subject to the law of noncontradiction.

Plus, the contiguity is not a real element, even though it seems to be.

Ironically, I intend to use the word, “substance”, to label the contiguity.  The word has a long pedigree.  After being used for philosophical discourse for thousands of years, the word does not have much use in our current modern Age of Ideas.  Some people call table salt, “a substance”.  Some moderns call addiction to cocaine, “substance abuse”.  So, my technical postmodern adoption of the term, “substance”, as the contiguity between matter and form, marks a turning point, the dawn of a new age of understanding.

More or less.

The hylomorphe stands at the beginning of the Greek Age of philosophy.

0140 Here is a picture of Aristotle’s hylomorphe.

0141 For this application, the meme is a species impressa2a manifesting the following hylomorphic structure.

0142 Dennett devotes several chapters to memes, including chapter ten (“The Meme’s Eye Point of View”) and eleven (“What Wrong with Memes?  Objections and Replies”).

0143 This picture of the meme satisfies Dennett’s concept of the meme.

How so?

Memes are units of cultural information.  Memes allow competence without comprehension.  At the same time, memes play a role in comprehension.  

0144 Of course, this picture also challenges Dennett’s notion of the meme.

How so?

The meme is a hylomorphe constructed with sign-elements of two sign-relations.

This brings me back to competence, as opposed to comprehension.

Competence merely requires both signs to function.

Comprehension depends on how apparent the interventional sign is.  How well does the interventional sign-action2a(SOi), which like inversion of what we imagine a sign-object to be, convey what is happening3a and the potential of ‘something happening’1a (SIi)?

After all, comprehension implies that a person registers what is happening3a and the potential of ‘something’ happening1a(SIi), while decoding an ongoing event2a (SOi).

0145 This raises a related issue, asking “What is the proper metaphor for memes?”

According to Dennett (following Richard Dawkins, who originally promotes the idea that memes are phenomena subject to scientific inquiry), memes are like viruses.  Each meme pursues own reproductive fitness.  So, a cultural unit may have traits that exist simply because they are advantageous to its replication.  Yet, the host must matter, because the host carries the meme, just like host carries a virus.

This makes me wonder.

Are viruses the most appropriate analogy for memes?

Or are synapses?

Virus do not form connections.  Synapses do.  The meme as hylomorphe connects the sign-object of an interventional sign(SOi) with the sign-vehicle of a specifying sign (SVs).

0146 A Darwinian paradigm where memes are like viruses leads to different predictions than one where memes are like synapses.

Take a glance at the following figure where a meme is a hylomorphe and ask, “Does this figure look more like one neuron [cultivating] a synapse to another neuron or a virus [infecting] a host?“

Okay, that was a rhetorical question.

0147 If memes are hylomorphic entities, then other characteristics of memes become obvious.  Memes offer competence without comprehension.  Memes are informational beings.  They survive because they encourage the evolution of neural networks.  Plus, they offer affordances.  Neurons make their living by trafficking in information. Information consists in opportunities to form relevant synapses and to cost-cut synapses that are no longer busy.

Here is a picture of Dennett’s characteristics of memes.

0148 The three characteristics of memes highlight the fragility of modern theories that account for cultural phenomenawith poorly-defined labels, such as “beliefs” or “ideas”.  Modern social theorists cannot account for why beliefs or ideas arise in the first place and how they are replicated among individuals.  Meme theorists can.

0149 So, what do social scientists say in response?

Do I hear laughter echoing down the hallways of the College of Social Science?

Or is it it the Colleges of Social Sciences?

0150 In chapter eleven, Dennett defends the meme research project against detractors, who tend to be modern social scientists. Some of these professionals employ the paradigm of natural history to explain human adaptations.  Some of them ignore human evolution altogether.

0151 Once again, here is the Darwinian paradigm, beloved by natural historians.

In the normal context of natural selection3b, an adaptation2b emerges from (and situates) a niche1b, which is the potential1b of an actuality independent of the adapting species2a.   The biologist considers an adaptation2b, as a situation-level actuality, with the goal of first, identifying the actuality independent of the adapting species2a and second, delineating the specific potential that is either exploited or avoided1b.

0152 Now, replace the natural-historical terms with versions that derive from Dennett’s meme project.

In the normal context of cultural selection3b, an explanation for a meme2b emerges from (and situates) an affordance1b,which manifests the potential1b of the hylomorphic structure of the species impressa2a, as pictured above.

0153 What does this imply?

The social scientist should consider the meme as an adaptation2b, as a situation-level actuality, with the goal of first, identifying the content-level actuality2a where a sign-object of the interventional sign-relation substantiates the sign-vehicle of a specifying sign-relation2a and second, delineating the specific affordance that is either exploited or avoided1b.

0156 Clearly, the modern anthropologist faces a more complicated and confusing task than the natural historian, because the meme2a is embedded in the scholastic interscope depicting the way humans think.

12/5/23

Looking at Daniel Dennett’s Book (2017) “From Bacteria To Bach and Back” (Part 17 of 20)

0174 When Dennett says that words are great examples of memes, he considers only spoken words.  He does not suspect that language (that is, grammar) evolves in the milieu of hand talk.  He knows that, today, all civilizations practice speech-alone talk.  Plus, his reading audience is civilized.

Consequently, Dennett’s claim that words play a role in cultural evolution carries an ironic overtone.  His assertion is much larger that he supposes.  In southern Mesopotamia, speech-alone is first realized by the Ubaid culture.

(This is discussed in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, as well as An Archaeology of the Fall, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.)

Outside of southern Mesopotamia, early civilizations are potentiated by the adoption of speech-alone talk.  After exposure to a speech-alone talking culture, hand-speech talking cultures drop the hand-component of their hand-speech talk. Mimesis is key.  Speech-alone talks spreads from a single site to the entire world.

0175 The different semiotic qualities of hand talk and speech-alone talk play a key role in human evolution. Human evolution comes with a twist.  I label that twist, “the first singularity”.

The first singularity illustrates Dennett’s key point.  Speech-alone talk offers affordances that hand-talk lacks.  The consequences are obvious.  Cultures practicing speech-alone talk exhibit greater wealth and power than cultures practicing hand-speech talk.

Yes, the advantages are obvious.

The dangers are hidden.

0176 I wonder.

Is one of the main tasks of postmodern philosophers, such as Dennett, to reveal the dangers inherent to speech-alone talk?  Or, is their main task to conceal them?

Indeed, Dennett’s postmodern philosophical approach distracts me from the manifest image of the scholastic interscope of how humans think and substitutes a scientific image of memes replicating and being selected through cultural evolution.

This is very similar to how I got the dead cat out of Daisy’s mouth, by offering one of her favorite treats as a substitute.

0177 Has the author come to a judgment2c?

0178 The species impressa intelligibilis2c, the universal aspect a content-level species impressa2a, corresponds to what is2c.

According to Dennett, the meme is a basic unit of culture, a word-like being, carrying semantic information, and offering ‘something’ that makes a difference.  The meme is the source of behavioral phenomena observed and measured by social scientists, who then build models, using the specialized languages of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics and so on.

0179 The species expressa intelligibilis2c, the intelligible aspect of a situation-level species expressa2b, corresponds to what ought to be.

The meme offers models neglected by social scientists.  The meme offers models couched in the disciplinary language of the biological sciences.  Can a meme be accounted for by way of a Darwinian model of descent with modification, in the normal context of cultural selection?  Yes, a meme is a replicator that survives only because it replicates.  Therefore, the differential replication of memes offers a scientific image for cultural evolution.

0180 The relation between what is and what ought to be passes from biological evolution (“Bacteria”) to the pinnacle of human creative engineering (“Bach”) and back to cultural evolution (“and Back”).

0146 Here is a picture.

0181 If this judgment serves as a sign-vehicle for an interventional sign, then the resulting sign-object is a scientific account of the evolution of human brains (SOi).

Part III of Dennett’s book is titled, “Turning Our Minds Inside Out”.

Inside is the noumenon, the thing itself, the human mind.

Outside is a scientific model of a brain, the observable and measurable conjurer of the thing itself.

Or do I have that backwards?

Does the mind conjure the brain?

Or does the brain conjure the mind?

0182 Here is a picture of Dennett’s work as a meme.