03/6/25

Looking at Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen’s Chapter (2021) “Agency In Non-Human Organisms” (Part 6 of 7)

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 me2b (SVe) stands for my love for master and my master’s expectations of me2c (SOe) in regards to the rituals of being fed by master3c operating on the possibility that the master is pack leader1c (SIe).  Or, something like that.

0583 For Pavlov, the event is an experiment, designed to produce data through measuring volumes of canine slobber.  The measurements2a (SVs) stand for a conditioned response2b (SOs) in regards to the way that psychologists3b conduct experiments that mean ‘something’1b (SIs).  Then, the conditioned response2b (SVe) stands for “anticipation”2c (SOe) in regards to making sense3c of this scientifically relevant ‘something’ by offering a label1c (SIe).  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?

03/5/25

Looking at Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen’s Chapter (2021) “Agency In Non-Human Organisms” (Part 7 of 7)

0592 What is Pavlov up to?

He is a modern scientist, who has adopted the precepts of the Positivist’s judgment.

0593 At the end of this chapter on non-human agency, the authors warn against anthropomorphic theories.

Clearly, that is not the only danger facing biosemiotics.

The fact that a word in common use is used as the label for a class of psychological models attests to the way that (for triumphalist science) models may be used to overshadow and occlude their noumena.

Pavlov’s experiment is widely regarded as foundational in psychological empirical science.  Yet, this examination suggests that, even before designing his experiment, Pavlov might have imagined that “anticipation” is what the noumenon must be, when it came to animal behavior.

0593 If correct, Pavlov’s work demonstrates that phenomenology is practiced in the formation of social sciences long before Husserl develops an explicit methodology for arriving at what the noumenon must be.  This is discussed in points 0120 to 0129.

The word, “anticipation” papers over the noumenon for a wide variety of psychological phenomena.  But, some scientists treat the word as if it is only a technical term in the scientific discipline of psychology.

0594 This conclusion is far more difficult to grasp that any warning about anthropomorphic theories.

Why?

Today’s psychologists think that “anticipation” is the thing itself when it comes to operant and instrumental conditioning.

0596 On top of that, neither “anticipation as noumenon” nor models of conditioned responses are semiotic.  They do not face the reality that the thing itself can only be recognized within a purely relational structure.  The noumena for biology, psychology and sociology are not as obvious as the noumena of the empirical sciences.  They are not obvious because they are actualities2 that only manifest in their proper normal contexts3 and potentials1.

Indeed, at some level of awareness, both social scientists and phenomenologists have always known this.  Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay may be the first attempt to ground noumena in the biological and social sciences in the realness of triadic relations.

0597 This brings me back to agency in non-human organisms.  The interactions between agents and subagents, as well as between agents, has been a focus on dyadic research for the modern era.  These interactions will need to be reframed for the postmodern era of triadic relations.

0598 Indeed, take a look at the following figure, depicting the semiotic agency of Pavlov and his dogs as if they are subagents in a scientific institution.

Both the apparatus and the dog in the sling cohere to the relational structure of semiotic agency (as formulated by the S&T noumenal overlay).

0599 But, look at that dashed line arrow.

I wonder, “Is that arrow dyadic?  Or does it hide a triadic relation?”

So concludes this examination of chapter four of Semiotic Agency.

02/28/25

Can Biosemiotics Explain The Psychometric Sciences? (Part 1 of 4)

0227 The book before me is Semiotic Agency: Science Beyond Mechanism, by biosemioticians Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnnessen.  The book is published in 2021 by Springer and logs in at volume 25 of Springer’s Series in Biosemiotics.  The editors of this series have Razie Mah’s permission for use of following disquisition, with attribution of said blogger.

The psychometric sciences have already been introduced in points 0159 through 0173 of this examination.

0228 The titular question is crucial, since biosemiotics culminates a century-long development, starting with Edmund Husserl developing a phenomenological method for intuitively articulating what the noumenon must be, for a wide variety of phenomena, where the noumenon is not absolutely obvious.  Biosemiotics stands within the tradition of science as a search for truth.

0229 Similarly, the psychometric sciences constitute a century-long development, starting with Sigmund Freud discovering a psychoanalytic method capable of bringing unconscious wishes to consciousness in order that they may influence choices.  The label, “psychometric sciences”, is coined by Joseph Farrell, and further fleshed out by Razie Mah in Looking at Joseph Farrell’s Book (2020) “The Tower of Babel Moment” (appearing in Razie Mah’s blog at the end of December 2023). The psychometric sciences stands within the tradition of science as a will to know… or is it… power?

0230 Both of these traditions lay claim to the Positivist’s judgment.

Judgment?

A judgment is a triadic relation containing three elements: relation, what ought to be and what is.  When each of these elements is assigned to one of Peirce’s categories, the judgment becomes actionable.  Actionable judgments unfold into category-based nested forms.

Here is a picture of the Positivist’s judgment for the natural sciences.

0231 As for what is, a noumenon is the thing itself.  The thing itself cannot be fully objectified as its observable and measurable facets.  A noumenon cannot be objectified as its phenomena.

As for what ought to be, disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).  This is called the “empirio-schematic judgment”.

0232 Triumphalist scientists advocate that a noumenon be replaced with its model.   When a successful model substitutes for the noumenon, then the model (overlaying the noumenon) can be objectified as its phenomena.  In short, the tension within Kant’s slogan is mitigated when a model substitutes for its noumenon.

0233 As for the relation, the positivist intellect has a rule.  Metaphysics is not allowed.

Of course, when investigating human behavior, metaphysics is necessary for models.  Metaphysics includes formal and final causalities.  Formal causes pertain to designs and their requirements.  Final causes pertain to intentions, aims, goals, and the like.

I suppose that metaphysics (in the sense of two of Aristotle’s four causes) may be allowed in biosemiotics and the psychometric sciences, if they are not “metaphysical terms” (in the sense that theologians are always talking about “metaphysical” or “religious” stuff).

So, both biosemiotics and the psychometric sciences play word games.  Metaphysics is okay as long as formal and final causes are regarded as material and efficient causes.  Metaphysics is okay as long as it is not “religious”.

0234 Biosemioticians Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen propose a noumenon that is derived from the specifying sign-relation.  The triadic sign-relation is simplified into a dyadic formula.  Dyads are characteristic of Peirce’s category of secondness.  Secondness is the realm of actuality.

If I look at what is for the Positivist’s judgment, I notice that a dyadic structure is assigned to the category of firstness.  Why is that so?  The noumenon and its phenomena may be considered real elements.  The issue is whether the two elements are really the same thing.  A noumenon and its phenomena are not like matter and form, where matter is not the same as form.  The thing itself and its observable and measurable facets are the same entity.

0235 This explains Kant’s slogan, reminding the scientist that the thing itself cannot be objectified as its observable and measurable facets, even though both labels apply to the same entity.

02/27/25

Can Biosemiotics Explain The Psychometric Sciences? (Part 2 of 4)

0236 So, what is for the Positivist’s judgment belongs to the category of firstness (the realm of possibility) because phenomena have the potential to be observed and measured and their noumenon has the potential of being the thing responsible for the phenomena. 

What ought to be for the Positivist’s judgment belongs to the category of secondness (the realm of actuality).

0237 Triumphalist scientists propose to substitute a successful model for the noumenon because the substitution increases the potential that there is something real that is responsible for the phenomena.  Indeed, to a laboratory scientist, the model (overlaying the noumenon) is objectified by its phenomena.  Yes, the model is more “real” than its noumenon.

0238 The biosemioticians Sharov and Tonnessen propose to substitute their noumenal overlay, with similar results.  Phenomena objectify their noumenal overlay.

0239 Notice how the noumenal overlay has a dyadic structure.  Since the dyad characterizes the category of secondnessand since secondness is the realm of actuality, the dyadic structure increases the feeling that the the noumenal overlay is actual.  Indeed, the dyad is so actual that Kant’s slogan seems to apply.  This overlay has the feel that it is more than what it appears to be.

This is precisely what Sharov and Tonnessen claim.  Their noumenal overlay is what all noumena in the biological sciences have in common.  If the diverse noumena of the biological sciences (like the leaves on a tree) have one thing in common, it is the biosemiotic noumenal overlay (like the tree that bears the leaves).

0240 This includes the noumenon of the psychometric sciences.

Or, I should say, this applies to the model that the psychometric sciences aim to substitute for Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay.

After all, their model is a simplification of the S&T noumenal overlay.

02/26/25

Can Biosemiotics Explain The Psychometric Sciences? (Part 3 of 4)

0241 Science is about the search for truth.

This is the case for biosemiotics.

Science also is about empowering the human will.

This is the case for the psychometric sciences.

The human intellect3 contextualizes the potential of the human will1.  Does this normal context3 and potential1 describe human reason?  What actuality2 does human reason3,1 support?  How about what I think [is manifested by] what I say2.

This nested form allows me to imagine that the above dyad may serve as a content-level actuality2.

0242 Here is a picture.

0243 The content-level nested form belongs to the scrappy player.  The scrappy player will be situated by experts.  The experts provide opportunities for the one who relativizes all the jurisdictions of the experts.  I call the perspective level normal context, “the relativist one3c“.

0244 The full three-level interscope is developed in Looking at Steve Fuller’s Book (2020) “A Player’s Guide To the Post-Truth Condition”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog for July 2024, as well as in Part I of the e-book, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0245 Ah, does that mean that the psychometric sciences are implicated in the current post-truth condition?

You bet.

The next move is to construct an expert level that situates the scrappy player.

0246 Note how what I say2a has been modified to phenomena2a available to postmodern expert1b.  Experts3bformalize1b phenomena2a in the process of constructing psychometric models of value2b.  Various disciplinary languages3b (relation, thirdness) are used in turning the phenomena of what people say2a (what is, firstness) into observations and measurements1b suitable to modeling as value2b (what ought to be, secondness).

These disciplinary languages derive from capitalist and socialist ideologies, reformatted to sound like the natural and the social sciences.

Yes, capitalist and socialist theorists learn to speak in the style of the empirio-schematic judgment.  These advocatessound like natural scientists and they define their academic turf as “scientific”.  Perhaps, it is only make believe.  But, the empirio-normative judgment2c takes it to be real1c.

Compare the expert level with the empirio-schematic judgment, unfolded into a situation-level nested form.

Indeed, the comparison is fecund.  Both capitalist and socialist theorists speak the same style of scientific disciplinary discourse.  No wonder that the proposed models2b never really make sense to the scrappy player3a.  Capitalism3b and socialism3b come from different theoretical possibilities1b.

0247 What do capitalist and socialist ideologies3b have in common?

During the Third Battle among the Enlightenment Gods, the Cold War among Materialist Ideologies, capitalism and socialism fight over the same noumenon, the thing itself that can be modeled as value.  Now, in the Fourth Battle with the Enlightenment Gods, Empirio-Normative Domination of Subject Populations, capitalist and socialist theorists unite in the production of value2b.  They do so in the imitation of natural science.  And, that is what they have in common.

02/25/25

Can Biosemiotics Explain The Psychometric Sciences? (Part 4 of 4)

0248 Here is the interscope for the post-truth condition.

Take a look at the above figure and see whether you can identify what the noumenon must be.

Yes, the noumenon must be what I think2a.

0249 In the following figure, the noumenon is in red.

Its phenomena appear in green.

The resulting models appear in light blue.

0250 This raises a question, “How does a system, where experts3b situate scrappy players3a, substitute expert-determined values2b for the noumenon2a?”  

Sharov and Tonnessen answer in the first sentence of the abstract for chapter two of Semiotic Agency.  Signs are semiotic tools.

In this instance, a sign-vehicle residing on the perspective level (SVi) stands for a content-level sign-object (SOi) in regards to a content-level sign-interpretant (SIi).

Specifically, a system-generated empirio-normative judgment2c (SVi) stands for what I think2a (SOi) in regards to my (the scrappy player’s) intellect3a operating on my will1a (SIi).

0251 Here is a picture.

0251 What does this imply?

Well, a system-generated empirio-normative judgment2c (SVi) influences my reason3a,1a (SIi) in such a fashion as to impact my wishes, my habits and my choices2a (SOi).

I may not even realize that the interventional sign-relation is being used by some agent3c on the perspective level,taking the opportunity1c to project2c an expert-fashioned psychometric value2b my way.  I encounter the interventional sign-vehicle2c (SVi) without realizing that it is a semiotic tool, aiming to trigger my intellect3a and my will1a (SIi) in such a way as to alter what I think2a (SOi).

0252 How crazy is that?

But, that is not the implication that I am looking for.

The implication is this: What I think2a is a noumenon.  The empirio-normative judgement2c aims to influence my intellect3a and will1a in order to alter my wishes, habits and choices2a.  So, the dyad, choice [habit] wish, is a model that the perspective-level judgment2c tries to lay over what I think2a.

0253 The dyad, choice [habit] wish is a simplification of Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay.  Its simplicity adds to its plausibility.  If I make a habit of treating my wishes as if they are my choices, the the model successfully substitutes for what I think2a.

And, what I say2a serves as phenomena for the psychometric sciences to observe and measure.

0254 Clearly, the psychometric sciences use the interventional sign-relation as a tool.

Biosemiotics says that signs are tools.

0255 One science accounts for the other.

In the process, two features of science come to consciousness.

The psychometric sciences represent the tendency of science to manipulate and control the subject of inquiry.

Reason3a,1a is the normal context of the intellect3a operating on the will1a.

Biosemiotics represents the tendency of science to pursue the truth.

Reason3a,1a is the normal context of the intellect3a seeking the truth1a.

02/24/25

Looking at Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen’s Book (2021) “Semiotic Agency” (Part 23 of 24) 

0256 The book before me is Semiotic Agency: Science Beyond Mechanism, by biosemioticians Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnnessen.  The book is published in 2021 by Springer and logs in at volume 25 of Springer’s Series in Biosemiotics.  Series editors have Razie Mah’s permission for use of the ongoing disquisition, with attribution of said blogger.

0257 At this juncture, I have covered Parts I and III of Semiotic Agency.

0258 These sections cover tremendous territory, in a sweeping fashion.  By far and away, the diagram of Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay is the most striking accomplishment of this examination.  The S&T noumenal overlayframes biosemiotics as a historical branch of phenomenology.  The S&T noumenal overlay is what the noumenon should be if the biosemiotic noumenon is what all biological systems and processes have in common.  Finally, the S&T noumenal overlay embodies the specifying sign-relation.

0259 The task before me?

How am I to delineate a path forward?

0260 Plus, as always in such matters, a new development cannot be ignored.  Alexei Sharov publishes a new book in 2024.

0261 So, let me first attend to the remainder of Semiotic Agency.

0262 Part II consists in three chapters.  I list these chapters in reverse order.

Part IV consists in three chapters that complement the chapters in Part II.  I list these chapters in forward order.

0263 The last chapter anticipates the recent book, Pathways to the Origin and Evolution of Meanings in the Universe,edited by Alexei Sharov and George Mikhailovsky, published in 2024 by Scrivener Publishing (Beverly, MA) as a contribution to Astrobiology Perspectives on Life in the Universe Series (under the auspices of Wiley Press).

Here is a list of the four parts of this substantial book.

02/22/25

Looking at Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen’s Book (2021) “Semiotic Agency” (Part 24 of 24) 

0264 What do I conclude?

By the time that the authors finish Parts II and IV of Semiotic Agency, the range of applications expands into Parts I-IV of Pathways to the Origin and Evolution of Meanings of the Universe.

0265 Is such an expansion warranted?

From my examination of Parts I and III of Semiotic Agency, I may say, “Yes.  Biosemiotics entails a re-articulation of biology and the social sciences.  Biosemiotics also reveals the nature of phenomenology, cybernetics and the psychometric sciences.”

0266 The re-articulation of biology and the social sciences in the light of biosemiotics is just beginning.  In looking at Part I and III of Semiotic Agency, I could sense the breadth of the project.

0267 The problem concerns the status of the noumenon.

Natural scientists never worry about the noumenon, because the noumenon should be obvious. Indeed, triumphalist scientists want to paper over each natural noumenon with a successful model.  Social scientists observe and measure social phenomena then pull the associated noumena from holes in the ground.  Phenomenologists promote intuitive methods for guessing what a noumenon must be.  Sharov and Tonnessen re-format the triadic specifying sign-relationinto a dyadic structure amenable to empirio-schematic inquiry.  I call their discovery, “the Sharov and Tonnessen noumenal overlay”.

0268 The authors call it “semiotic agency”.

0269 Semiotic agency, depicted as a dyad (agency) within a dyad (semiotic agency), forces scientists to re-examine all that has gone before.

And, that is quite an accomplishment.

0270 The task before me remains.  A sea of biosemiosis lies before me.  The question is how to traverse the waters. How to set sail?

In order to examine Parts II and IV of Semiotic Agency (2021) and Parts I, II, III and IV of Pathways (2024) I plan to take certain steps, listed in the following script.

This script allows me to examine here and there, like a bumbling bee in a spring field, not certain about a proper path, and inadvertently pollinating along the way.

I begin by looking at the chapters on the origins of life.

02/21/25

Biosemiotics and the Origins of Life on Earth (Part 1 of 8)

0271 What does biosemiotics have to say about abiogenesis, the origin of life from non-living matter?

0272 Two texts are before me.

0273 Semiotic Agency: Science Beyond Mechanism is written by biosemioticians Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen.  Semiotic Agency is published in 2021 by Springer and logs in at volume 25 of Springer’s Series in Biosemiotics.  Series editors have Razie Mah’s permission for use of the following disquisition, with attribution of said blogger.

The text is open to chapter five, titled, “Origins of Life”, and is found on pages 123-149.  This chapter closes Part II of Semiotic Agency.  The title of Part II is “Agency in Organisms and Beyond.”

0274 Pathways to the Origin and Evolution of Meaning in the Universe is edited by Alexei Sharov and George Mikhailovsky (2024, Scrivener Press, Beverly MA).

The text is open to chapter nine, titled “Chemical Origins of Life, Agency and Meaning” (pages 189-210).  This chapter opens Part II, titled “Meanings in the Evolution of Life”.  The chapter’s author is Alexei Sharov.

0275 First and foremost, chemistry-based scenarios for the origins of life have proven futile.  Why?  For one, it is difficult to imagine a chemical system constituting a semiotic agent.  Sure, a biological agent can be reduced to a chemical soup, but a chemical soup cannot unreduced to a biological being.

Is this the reason why proposals of life emerging from a primordial soup consistently fail?

0276 The key word in the above paragraph is “emerging”.

0277 So why not turn to Mariusz Tabaczek, who writes two books, titled Emergence (2019) and Divine Action and Emergence (2021) that are reviewed in Razie Mah’s blog for April and May, 2024?  These and other examinations go into Razie Mah’s two-part e-book, Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024), available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0278 Tabaczek criticizes Terrence Deacon, even as he translates Deacon’s conceptual apparatus into a classical Aristotelian framework.  Why?  If Deacon borrows ideas from Aristotle and re-tools them for his own approach to emergent systems, then why not articulate Deacon’s approach using Aristotle’s terms?

0279 The answer turns out to be more than academic.

Recall the Positivist’s judgment for the natural sciences?

The noumenon (the thing itself) and the model (what ought to be for the empirio-schematic judgment) are two contending sources of illumination.  Deacon stands with the model, then uses modified versions of Aristotle’s vocabulary in order to project his model onto the noumenon.  In contrast, Tabaczek stands with the noumenon, where Aristotle’s terminology is at home.  He sees Deacon’s projection from the model back onto the noumenon and does not think too highly of the imposition.

02/20/25

Biosemiotics and the Origins of Life on Earth (Part 2 of 8)

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 ingredients2a, 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 equilibrium1a.

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 energy3b brings the actuality of the embodiment of the captured energy2b into relation with the potential of the various constraints and biases imposed on the content-level nested form1b.

For the example of the hydroelectric dam3b, water is channeled in such a fashion as to drive a turbine1b that produces alternate (and sometimes, direct) voltage in a wire cable2b.  The emergent being is electrical “current”2b.

0284 On the perspective-level, a morphodynamic process3c, capable of utilizing the energy captured by the emergent being1c, generates a persisting form2c.  The persistent form is like an end point of the emergence2c, because it2c not only dissipates the potential1c of the emergent being2b but it2c “forms” something2c in the process3c.  Here, Deacon’s terminology sounds oblique and, perhaps, misleading.  The dissipative power2c persists as a form2c, yet “dynamic form” labels the normal context3c.  Also, the potential of the emergent being1c is a “simplification”, of sorts.  But, is “simplification1c” a satisfying term?

For example, a morphodynamic process3c takes the potential of the alternative electric voltage… or is it current?… in a wire connected (however distantly) to the aforementioned turbine1c and performs some sort of work, such as heating my morning toast2b.

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