Abstract
How semiotic freedom emerges in the evolution and development of organisms through semiotic scaffolding is a core problem for biosemiotics. There is a paradox in explaining this semiotic emergence: reduction in (semiotic) freedom leads to the creation of new semiotic freedom. Semiotic emergence is a species of dynamic emergence. Accordingly, the paradox of semiotic emergence is a species of the paradox of dynamic emergence. The latter paradox claims that reducing lower-level freedom generates new freedom at a higher level. The solution to the paradox lies in clarifying the ambiguity in the term freedom. The conceptual inconsistency in the paradox comes from confusing two types of freedom. One type of freedom means the possibility a system could have, while the other refers to the capacity of a system to access a specific (range of) state(s). There is an inverse relation between the two types of freedom. With the clarification, the conceptual inconsistency is explained away. This understanding of semiotic emergence may help us further understand core ideas in biosemiotics and provide a conceptual foundation for empirical studies of biosemiotics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A reviewer helps me reformulate the description of E. Coli’s modes of action. Thanks very much for it.
Higuera (2016) provides an excellent philosophical analysis of the emergence of semiosis within the metaphysical framework of emergence. I agree with his arguments but still prefer the concept of dynamic emergence because semiotic emergence is naturalistically explainable while irreducible.
A reviewer helps me rephrase the description. I appreciate it very much.
It may be misleading to use the concept of freedom in the context of inanimate dynamics. The concept is usually used in the living context. It refers to living organisms’ ability to act at the macro-scale. The notions of freedom for morphodynamics and teleodynamics (living dynamics) differ. For morphodynamics, a dynamic system can access macro scale presence, which was previously almost impossible. What is novel for organisms is their semiotic freedoms. Nevertheless, they share the common ground that the probabilities of accessing previously highly improbable states are highly enhanced. So, I still employ the concept and name it freedom2 to highlight the common ground. Thanks for the reviewer and several audiences reminding me of this.
References
Bedau, M. (1997). Weak emergence. Philosophical Perspectives, 11, 375–399.
Bedau, M. (2002). Downward causation and the autonomy of weak emergence. Principia, 6(1), 5–50.
Bishop, R., Silberstein, M., & Pexton, M. (2021). Emergence in Context. Oxford University Press.
Bruni, L. E. (2008). Semiotic freedom: Emergence and teleology in biological and cognitive interfaces. The American Journal of Semiotics, 24(1/3), 57–73.
Cuonzo, M. (2014). Paradox. The MIT Press.
Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species: Co-evolution of language and the brain. W.W. Norton.
Deacon, T. (2003). The hierarchical logic of emergence: Untangling the interdependence of evolution and self-organization. In B. Weber & D. Depew (Eds.), Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered (pp. 273–308). The MIT Press.
Deacon, T. (2006). Reciprocal linkage between Self-organizing processes is sufficient for self-reproduction and evolvability. Biological Theory, 1(2), 136–149.
Deacon, T. (2008). Emergence: The hole at the wheel’s hub. In P. Clayton & P. Davies (Eds.), The re-emergence of emergence: The emergentist hypothesis from science to religion (pp. 110–150). Oxford University Press.
Deacon, T. (2012). Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. W.W. Norton.
Deacon, T. (2015). Steps to a science of biosemiotics. Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, 19(3), 293–311.
Deacon, T. (2020). Teleodynamics: specifying the principles of intrinsically end-directed processes. In Proceedings of the IAISAE 2020, International Conference on Thermodynamics 2.0 (pp. 1–7). Worcester.
Deacon, T. (2021). How molecules become signs. Biosemiotics, 14, 537–559.
Deacon, T. (2023). A thermodynamic basis for teleological causality. Philosophical Transactions A, 381, 1–13.
Depew, D. J., & Weber, B. H. (1995). Darwinism evolving: System dynamics and the genealogy of natural selection. The MIT Press.
Favareau, D. (2015). Symbols are grounded not in things, but in scaffolded relations and their semiotic constraints. Biosemiotics, 8, 235–255.
Gibbs, W. (2001). Cybernetic cells. Scientific American, 285, 52–57.
Gillet, C. (2016). Reduction and Emergence in Science and Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2016). Individuality, subjectivity, and minimal cognition. Biology & Philosophy, 31, 775–796.
Higuera, C. J. R. (2016). Just how emergent is the emergence of semiosis. Biosemiotics, 9, 155–167.
Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. Indiana University Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2007). Semiotic Scaffolding of Living Systems. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to Biosemiotics. The New Biological Synthesis (pp. 149–166). Springer.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton University Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2010). Semiotic freedom: An emerging force. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.), Information and the nature of reality: From physics to metaphysics (pp. 185–204). Cambridge University Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2014). The smiome: From genetic to semiotic scaffolding. Semiotica, 198, 11–31.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2015). Semiotic scaffolding of multicellularity. Biosemiotics, 8, 159–171.
Hoffmeyer, J., & Emmeche, C. (1991). Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In M. Anderson & F. Merrell (Eds.), On Semiotic Modeling (pp. 117–166). De Gruyter Mouton.
Juarrero, A. (1998). Causality as constraint. In G. Vijver, S. Salthe, & M. Deplos (Eds.), Evolutionary systems: Biological and Epistemological Perspectives on Selection and Self-Organization (pp. 233–242). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kauffman, S. (1993). The origin of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, S., Logan, R. K., Goebel, R., Hobill, D., & Shmulevich, I. (2008). Propagating organization: An enquiry. Biology & Philosophy, 23, 27–45.
Kim, J. (1999). Making sense of emergence. Philosophical Studies, 95, 3–36.
Kull, K. (2018). Choosing and learning: Semiosis means choice. Sign Systems Studies, 46(4), 452–466.
Kull, K., Emmeche, C., & Hoffmeyer, J. (2011). Why biosemiotics? An introduction to our view on the biology of life itself. In C, Emmeche & K. Kull (Eds). Towards a semiotic biology: life is the action of sign (pp. 1–21). London: Imperial College Press.
O’Connor, T. (2021). Emergent Properties. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/properties-emergent/. Accessed 10 Sept 2023.
Pattee, H. H. (1973). The Physical Basis and Origin of Hierarchical Control. In H. H. Pattee (Ed.), Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems (pp. 71–108). Braziller.
Rueger, A. (2000). Physical emergence, diachronic and synchronic. Synthese, 124(3), 297–322.
Salthe, S. (1985). Evolving hierarchical systems. Columbia University Press.
Sebeok, T. A. (1988). Communication, language and speech: Evolutionary considerations. In: Herzfeld, Michal (Eds). I Think I Am a Verb. Topics in Contemporary Semiotics. Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3490-1_2
Sharov, A. (2014). Evolutionary constraints or opportunities? Bio Systems, 123, 9–18.
Sharov, A., & Tønnessen, M. (2021). Semiotic Agency: Science Beyond Mechanism. Springer.
Shoemaker, S. (2007). Physical Realization. Oxford University Press.
Ulanowicz, R. (1994). The propensities of evolving systems. In Khalil, E. L., & Boulding, K. E. (Eds), Social and natural systems (pp. 217–233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Duijn, M., Keijzer, F., & Franken, D. (2006). Principles of minimal cognition: Casting cognition as sensorimotor coordination. Adaptive Behavior, 14(2), 157–170.
Von Uexküll, J. (1940). The theory of meaning. In D. Favareau (Ed.), Essential Readings in Biosemiotics: Anthology and commentary (pp. 90–114). Springer.
Wilson, J. (2010). Non-reductive physicalism and degrees of Freedom. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, 279–311.
Wilson, J. (2015). Metaphysical Emergence: Weak and Strong. In Tomasz Bigaj & Christian Wüthrich (Eds.), Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics (pp. 251–306). Brill Rodopi.
Wilson, J. (2021). Metaphysical Emergence. Oxford University Press.
Winning, J., & Bechtel, W. (2019). Being emergence VS pattern emergence. In S. C. Gibb, R. F. Hendry, & T. Lancaster (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Emergence (pp. 134–144). Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Liqian Zhou wrote 100% of the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, L. More Constraints, More Freedom: Revisit Semiotic Scaffolding, Semiotic Freedom, and Semiotic Emergence. Biosemiotics 16, 395–413 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-023-09548-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-023-09548-5