0364 According to Shannon’s information theory, which offers a mathematical model for “information” occurring in human-mediated electro-magnetic transmissions, there are five components to the whole process: (i) an information source, (ii) a transmitter, (iii) a channel, (iv) a receiver and (v) a destination that serves as an information sink.

0365 Can I draw associations to the S&T noumenal overlay?

I suppose so.

0366 The specifying sign-interpretant_3b,1b (SI_s) is like an information source (i) and the specifying sign-vehicle_2a (SV_s) associates to the transmission (ii) of something_2a that stands for information_2b (SO_s).  Maybe, I can say that the SV_s is like a transmitter (ii) and SO_s is like that transmission entering the proper channel (iii).

The SO_s is contiguous with SV_e, so a transmission in the proper channel_2b (iii) constitutes an exemplar sign-vehicle_2b(SV_e) that stands for a perspective-level actuality_2c (SO_e) (iv), according a perspective-level normal-context_3c and potential_1c (SI_e) (v).  So, the SO_e may be labeled as a receiver (iv) and the exemplar sign-interpretant_3c,1c (SI_e) associates to the information sink or destination (v).

0367 Here is a picture.

0368 Of course, my associations are both evocative and fallible.

Here are three implications (F, G, H).

0369 First (F), Shannon’s theory of communication regards biosemiotic sign-interpretants as sources (i) and receivers(iv).  These are precisely the elements in the S&T noumenal overlay that need to be explained.  Shannon’s theory places them in black boxes and treats them as givens.

What does that imply?

From the point of view of biosemiotics, I wonder, “What is Shannon’s theory actually modeling?”

0370 After all, if I go to the start of the chapter, the two crucial aspects involved in biological change, as characterized by the premoderns, correspond to sign-interpretants.

0371 Shannon’s theory of communication takes these two primordial aspects for granted, in order to concentrate on another question.

What is the channel’s capacity to carry information?

0372 What is so important about the channel_2b (iii)?

Hmmm. I see that the channel_2b corresponds to “information_2b” and to SO_s[and]SV_e.

What is that about?

Is [and] the same as [contiguity]?

Is this topic about to get fuzzy?

0370 Second (G), Shannon’s theory of communication, as depicted above, is consistent with a biosemiotic approach in regards to the sources of phenomena for communication: transmitter (SV_s) (ii), channel (SO_s [and] SV_e) (iii)  and receiver (SO_e) (iv).

Okay, so everything’s fine.

0371 Does that mean that Shannon’s theory of communication somehow is relevant to the hypothetical scenario where the... um… vehicle of a beta-linked polysaccharide_2a (SV_s) is “transmitted” then “received” as the object of glucose molecules ready to power a wood-eating insect’s metabolism (SO_e)?

In this case, does the term, “information_2b“, correspond to “the ability of a gut bacteria’s dual-modular claw and jaw apparatus to cleave the terminal glucose of a beta-linked polysaccharide”?

It makes me wonder about the meaning, the presence and the message underlying the word, “information_2b“.

There seems be a lot going in within the situation-level actuality_2b, which is where the SO_s transits into the SV_e.

0372 Third (H), Shannon’s theory of communication, expressed as an application of the S&T noumenal overlay,presents a simplification that drags the inquirer to that confounding channel_2b.

After all, the channel (iii) goes with phenomena.

In human electronic communication technology, the channel_2b can carry only so much information_2b.  Noise is the loss of information_2b.  Is “noise” information that can no longer be properly received?  Or is “noise” some lacking that makes information no longer salient?

Questions like these, as problematic as they are, seem well-cogitated compared to ones that arise when Shannon’s theory of communication is transferred from the dyadic S&T noumenal overlay to a three-level interscope containing the specifying and exemplar sign-relations.

0373 Recall the unexpected and twisted path from point 0270 to point 0300?

Now, maybe I should start getting used to that storyline.

0374 Why?

It’s the story of the evocation of thirdness by firstness.

0375 Initially, Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay associates to the specifying sign relation.

Once the Deacon and Tabaczek interscope for emergence enters into the picture, the S&T noumenal overlayincorporates the exemplar sign relation.

0376 Initially, Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay belongs to what is of the Positivist’s judgment.  It belongs to firstness.  Yet, it touches base with secondness, in so far as its own dyadic structure serves as a guide for discerning what should be regarded as phenomena and what is in need of being modeled.

This makes sense, in so far as biosemiotics is the study of the relational thing that all biological entities have in common.

0377 I mean really, how is a biologist going to examine a sample of the relational thing that all biological entities have in common?

Hey, who left a biosemiotic slide in the microscope?

Is it Shannon?

Let me take a look.

0378 Yeah, it’s Shannon’s alright.  It has information theory written all over it.

But now, the associations are even more evocative.

0379 The two tendencies that the premoderns identified, the force of life and the influence of circumstances, now associate to normal contexts and potentials.  The stuff of strife (situation-level) and love (perspective-level) associate to both thirdness and firstness.  These are the things that biosemiotics is supposed to account for.

0380 Shannon’s information theory fixates on the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.

0381 The perspective-level actuality_2c of a receiver_2c virtually brings the situation-level actuality_2b of a channel_2b into relation with the potential of a content-level information transmitter_2a.

Yes, these actualities manifest phenomena that can be observed and measured.  Shannon’s information theory assists in modeling those observations and measurements.  But, do those models tell me about the situation- and perspective-level normal contexts and potentials?  Do they tell me about the specifying and exemplar sign-interpretants?

If they do not, then is Shannon’s information theory biosemiotic?

0382 Does Shannon’s information theory offer a metaphor for biosemiotics?

And, how weird and disturbing would that analogy be?

0383 Consider the hypothetical that exemplifies the author’s biphasic depiction of evolutionary growth.

Here is a picture.

0384 According to Shannon’s information theory, I should focus on the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.

The perspective-level actuality_2c of free glucose to the insect’s body_2c virtually brings the situation-level actuality_2b of the functionality of the claw and jaw combination achieved by bacteria in the insect’s gut_2b into relation with the potential of the content-level actuality_2a of glucose bound within the cellulose that the insect has eaten_2a.

0385 My exterminator says that he recommends a new product.

Apparently, investigators at the Molecular Biology Department at the University of Slidell, in Louisiana, hatched a scheme for treating lumber with dilute concentrations of hydrofluoric acid.  They patented the process.

0386 Apparently, the fluoride replaces a hydroxy group on the beta-linked polysaccharides of wood, here and there.  The fluoride causes the claw part of the jaw and claw to not let go.  Apparently, one fluoride on one beta-linked polysaccharide can gum up the operations of a whole bacteria and the bacteria dies, which is no big deal, until the wood-eating insect’s gut digests the bacteria and frees that one fluoride-labeled beta-linked polysaccharide back into the gut, for another bacteria to pick up to digest.

In short, bacteria-killing fluoride-labeled beta-linked polysaccharides start to build up in the wood-eating insect’s gut and the insect gets less glucose, even as it continues to eat the treated wood.  This is no good.  So, the wood-eating insects move on.

Yes, the treated wood_2a transmits a message into a channel within the wood-eating insect’s gut_2b so the insect itself receives a signal to move on_2c.

0387 What a sales pitch.  The explanation offers a specific mechanism for deterring wood-eating insects.  Plus, it fits a budget.

The economy of the exterminator’s proposal, along with the promised robustness of treatment and flexibility in application, convinced my neighbor to use the processed wood for his new shed, which replaces his old, well-infested, one.

I suspect that my neighbor secretly hopes that the wood-eating insects simply move over to my lot.  It is as if my neighbor_2a transmits a message into a channel consisting of a trail of wood-eating insects to my untreated wood shed_2bthat signals to me that I better build a new shed with treated lumber_2c.