0023 In a weird sort of way, biosemiotics parallels laboratory science.  Biosemiotics seeks a recipe where a sign-relation can substitute for a noumenon.  Semiotics goes with sign-relations.  Agency goes with the operations of biological agents.

At the same time, the parallel fails.  Semiotic agency is not a successful empirio-schematic model, worthy enough to place over its noumenon.  Semiotic agency is a philosophical formulation, which contains all four of Aristotle’s causalities in such a way that metaphysical unities express distinctive phenomena.

In sum, semiotic agency, properly defined, may satisfy the positivist intellectual mandate that metaphysics is not allowed.  How?  Semiotic agency places metaphysical unities within the noumenon, which gives rise to phenomena.

0024 In sum, Sharov and Tonnessen’s challenge is to produce a vision of semiotic agency that is not a natural science model, but can serve as what the noumenon must be, in order to be objectified as biosemiotic phenomena.

0025 I now have set the stage for examining section 1.1, titled “Agency as a Subject of Science”.

If semiotic agency overlays the noumenon, then I can discern its phenomena.  Phenomena are observable and measurable facets that objectify their noumenal overlay.  Semiotic agency, for biosemiotics, parallels successful physical, chemical or biochemical models, for the laboratory sciences.

0026 Where to start the construction of semiotic agency as a noumenal overlay?

The authors refer to a 2009 paper by Kaveli Kull, who proposes the following what is for the Positivist’s judgment.

To me, the agent looks like a reasonable noumenon.  Plus, an agent cannot be fully objectified as its measurable and observable facets (phenomena).

0027 For the Kantian slogan, the agent (or agency) is the noumenon.  The noumenon cannot be objectified as its phenomena.  The noumenon is a semiotic agency.  Its phenomena follow the four criteria for agent behavior.

So, what if, through philosophical sleight of hand, I substitute a sign-relation as a noumenal overlay over agent as noumenon?

And, what if the four points listed as phenomena are embedded within that sign-relation?

Then, the noumenon changes from “agent” to “semiotic agency”.

0028 Semiotics concerns inquiry into sign-relations.  Agents participate in sign-relations.  So, the four phenomena identified by Kull may be specific to a sign-relation.  Plus, that sign-relation may be subsumed into a noumenon.