Abstract
This article argues that many, if not most, behavior descriptions and sequencing are in essence an interpretation of signs, and are evaluated as sequences of signs by researchers. Thus, narrative analysis, as developed by Barthes and others, seems best suited to be used in behavioral/biosemiotic studies rather than mathematical modeling, and is very similar to some classic ethology methods. As our brain interprets behaviors as signs and attributes meaning to them, narrative analysis seems more suitable than mathematical modeling to describe and study behavior. Mathematical models are, on many occasions, extremely reductionist and simplifying because of computational and/or numerical representation limitations that lead to errors and straitjacketing interpretations of reality. Since actual animals (and our analysis of their behavior) are not as optimal in real life as our mathematical models, here it is proposed that we should consider logical/verbal models and semantic interpretations as equally or even better suited for behavioral analysis, and refrain from enforcing mathematical modeling as the only (right) way to study and understand biological problems, especially those of a behavioral and biosemiotic nature.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amalric M, Dehaene S (2018) Cortical circuits for mathematical knowledge: evidence for a major subdivision within the brain’s semantic networks. Philos Trans R Soc B 373(1740):20160515. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0515
Bakeman R, Gottman JM (1997) Observing interaction. An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Barbieri M (2011) A mechanistic model of meaning. Biosemiotics 4:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9103-z
Barbieri M (2015) Code biology. A new science of life. Springer, Heidelberg
Barthes R (1966) Introduction à l’analyse structurale des récits. Communications 8:1–27
Berman GJ (2018) Measuring behavior across scales. BMC Biol 16:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-018-0494-7
Bozinovic F, Martínez Del Rio C (1996) Animals eat what they should not: why do they reject our foraging models? Rev Chil Hist Nat 69:15–20
Chandler D (2007) Semiotics. The basics. Routledge, London
Francescoli G (2017) A semiotic interpretation of the Innate Releasing Mechanism concept and other ethological triadic relations. Biosemiotics 10:461–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-017-9306-7
Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546
Kaplan JT, Gimbel SI, Dehghani M, Immordino-Yang MH, Sagae K et al (2017) Processing narratives concerning protected values: a cross-cultural investigation of neural correlates. Cereb Cortex 27:1428–1438
Lehner N (1979) Handbook of ethological methods. Garland STPM Press, New York
Markoš A, Grygar F, Kleisner K, Neubauer Z (2008) Towards a Darwinian biosemiotics. Life as mutual understanding. In: Barbieri M (ed) Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 235–255
McLinn CM, Stephens DW (2006) What makes information valuable: signal reliability and environmental uncertainty. Anim Behav 71:1119–1129
Nicholas G (2018) It’s taken thousands of years, but Western science is finally catching up to traditional knowledge. The Conversation, February 14. https://theconversation.com/its-taken-thousands-of-years-but-western-science-is-finally-catching-up-to-traditional-knowledge-90291
Queiroz J, El-Hani CN (2006) Semiosis as an emergent process. Trans Charles S. Peirce Soc 42:78–116
Santaella L (2005) Abduction: the logic of guessing. Semiotica 153:175–198
Sih A, Bell AM, Chadwik Johnson J, Ziemba RE (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an integrative overview. Q Rev Biol 79:241–277
Tinbergen N (1953) L’étude de l’instinct. Payot, Paris
Vallortigara G (2018) Comparative cognition of number and space: the case of geometry and of the mental number line. Philos Trans R Soc B 373:20170120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0120
von Uexküll J (1926) Theoretical biology. Harcourt, Brace, New York
Wagner RH, Danchin E (2010) A taxonomy of biological information. Oikos 119:203–209
Zorzi M, Testolin A (2018) An emergentist perspective on the origin of number sense. Philos Trans R Soc B 373:20170043. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0043
Acknowledgements
GF wants to thank CSIC (Universidad de la República, Uruguay) for support through the Dedicación Total program and ANII (Uruguay) for support through the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Francescoli, G. Are Verbal-Narrative Models More Suitable than Mathematical Models as Information Processing Devices for Some Behavioral (Biosemiotic) Problems?. Biol Theory 14, 171–176 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-019-00323-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-019-00323-9