Looking at Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen’s Chapter (2021) “Composite Agency” (Part 2 of 5)

0486 Of course, I cannot ignore Aristotle when it comes to these phenomena.  The labels that I use as a biologist call to mind Aristotle’s metaphysical causes.

Surely, the phenomena of sensitivity, detection, assessment and archetypal behaviors are efficiently caused by subagents, whose operations are coordinated in concert with final causalities.

Also, the material aspects that I measure, what chemical (SVs), what method of delivery and what concentration (SVs), identifiable structural changes (SOs and SVe), followed by overt behavior of approaching or avoiding (SOe), formally cohere to the normal context of the paramecium as agent3.

0487 Yes, all four of Aristotle’s causes appear in the preceding paragraph.

However, for natural scientists, formal and final causation are not allowed, even in the observation and measurement of phenomena.  That is the rule of the positivist intellect, the relation within the Positivist’s judgment.

Okay, this rule must be… shall we say… enforced only theoretically, rather that practically, for biosemiotics.  After all, biosemiotics is the study of semiotic agency2, an actuality2 that cannot be comprehended without its normal context3and potential1.

0488 Formal cause links thirdness to secondness.  The agent3 contextualizes semiotic agency2.

Final cause bridges all three categories.  But, not in an obvious way.

Obviously, thirdness brings secondness into relation with firstness.  The normal context of agent3 brings the actuality of semiotic agency2 into relation with the possibilities inherent in ‘final causality’1.  So, the formal cause is obvious, along with its sidekick, material causality.

Not so obviously, final causality1 operates from the opposite station.  Final causes establish the potential1 from which actuality2 emerges within a particular normal context3.  For the paramecium, the potential of ‘staying alive’1 sustains the phenomena of sensitivity, detection, assessment and overt response2 in the normal context of the paramecium as agent3.

0489 What is the sidekick of final causality?

Efficient causality links secondness and firstness.

0490 Here is a picture of the metaphysical causalities in regards to phenomena for the paramecium as agent.

0491 What does this imply?

The human ability to recognize formal and final causalities allows the biosemiotician to attend to the phenomena associated to semiotic agency2.  The biosemiotician is a scientist engaging in empirio-schematic inquiry under the auspices of a positivist intellect that accepts that metaphysics must be allowed in order for… well… the scientist to make observations and measurements of phenomena.

And yes, this applies to all the subagents within the paramecium as well.

0492 The reason why we (scientists) are able to establish the parameters for considering material and efficient causes(which a traditional positivist intellect only entertains) is because we (humans) intuitively know that the actuality2 of concern is not recognizable without a normal context3 and potential1.

0493 How can I make this claim?

Well, for one, in chapter twelve of Pathways, covered earlier in points 0434 to 0470, Abir Igamberdiev says (according to this examiner) that the agent3, as a normal context3, arises from final causality, as potential1.

0494 Does this imply that final causality1, which cannot be directly observed and measured, is something that needs to be explained by biosemiotic models?

No, the agent3 and the potential of ‘final causality’1 are not explained by biosemiotic models, they are assumed by researchers in the course of empirio-schematic inquiry.  After all, semiotic agency2 is incomprehensible without them.

0495 So, what is explained by biosemiotic models?

Ah, the contiguities, [SIs] and [SIe], corresponding to the sign-interpretants for the specifying and exemplar sign-relations, as well as [&], the contiguity between the specifying sign-object and the exemplar sign-vehicle.

Here is a picture.

0496 [&]?

[&] is the substance translating specified information2b into exemplar relevance2b (or more precisely, “relevant information2b“).  {SOs [&] SVe}2b occurs within information2b.

[SIs] consists of a situation-level normal context3b and potential1b.  In terms of biosemiotics, [SIs] is self-governance3boperating on potential courses of action1b.

[SIe] consists of a perspective-level normal context3c and potential1c.  In terms of biosemiotics, [SIe] actualizes the goal2c (SOe) of the organism for this particular challenge (SVe).

0497 The contiguities need to be explained by biosemiotic models.

But, there is another way to appreciate the specifying and exemplar sign-interpretants.

I can look at them in terms of the scholastic interscope for how humans think.

[SIs] corresponds to the normal context3b and potential1b for the situation level.

[SIe] corresponds to the normal context3c and potential1c for the perspective level.

0498 Here is a picture.