1. Biosemiotics must be grounded in an organizational approach to functionality John Collier Philosophy and Ethics University of KwaZulu-Natal www.ukzn.ac.za/philund/collier

2. Semiotics, Information and Logic Semiotics = Logic (Peirce, Kull) Information Theory = Logic (Chaitin, Collier) So, Semiotics = Information Theory These broad strokes aren’t very helpful! Biosemiotics is the idea that biological systems use signs that give information about referents, the signs being interpreted within a context.

3. Status of Biosemiotics 1 1. An empirical hypothesis that stands on its own, irrespective of its relations to other theories and methods. Specific methods and a core theory specify what it is to be a biosemiotic system. It is an empirical question what real systems (if any) fit this general model.

4. Status of Biosemiotics 2 2. A perspective for understanding biological systems. A technology with no empirical content Adds colour and potential for insight But not explicitly required for science

5. Status of Biosemiotics 3 3. Some combination of the empirical and perspectival There are numerous possibilities here, and they may change as biosemiotics matures. However, from a scientific perspective the important issue is whether biosemiotics has empirical content not reducible to other theories. The most likely competitor is Biological Information Theory (BIT)

6. Information Models Communications theory (Shannon) Network theory (Ulanowicz, Barwise and Seligman, many others) Control theory (widespread) Including 1 st and 2 nd order cybernetics Infodynamics/Morphodynamics (Salthe, Collier) All of these can be incorporated under the theory of information flow (Barwise and Seligman)

7. Information Flow Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems, Barwise and Seligman Defines a channel as an ordered set of morphisms between two classifications and the tokens that fall under them such that the tokens of the second can recover the classification of the first (the logic is not typically symmetric). A channel therefore encodes information in one classification and conveys it to a set of signs in another classification.

8. Information Flow

9. 1 st Order Cybernetics Given a distributed network, the mutual information among nodes defines the properties of the relations in the network (Ulanowicz) Feedback and feedforward allow for control of the information flow through the nodes. These are specific network organizations

10. Feedback Typical feedback loop

11. 2 nd Order Cybernetics This involves controlling the controller. Any system can be controlled at the second order, but the problem is to find the appropriate controller to produce a specific function. The second order controller can be thought of as a concept (Hooker, Evans and Penfold) However, if it is a concept, it is not context sensitive, but many biological processes are context sensitive.

12. Biological Information Theory Information theory is a useful technology for representing biological systems. More than that, biological processes involve not only matter and energy flows, but also information flows. The energy and information budgets are to some extent independent. Thus information theory is more than just instrumentally useful, but has a substantive application within biological systems (Collier 2008)

13. Limits of BIT Biological information theory is purely syntactic; it has no semantics in itself. BIT says nothing about function. BIT is context sensitive, but only to the coding system, not to how it is embedded. We need to consider other information flows and so on to get the further context sensitivity. This has no definite end.

14. Biological Functionality 1 1.Teleological account (Wright, Mayr, Millikan, Neander) The function of T is to F if an only if T exists because it Fs. A trait T, on this account, is functional if and only if T is an adaptation due to its Fing (T was selected because it Fs).

15. Biological Functionality 2 2. Autonomy account (Kant, Maturana and Varela, Rosen, Bickhard, Christensen, Collier) Biological autonomy is the organization that constitutes a biological system’s persistence. Biological function of a trait is its contribution to biological autonomy. So, biological function is likely to be selected for, if it is stronger than other biological functions.

16. Biological Functionality 3 Both accounts of biological function are grounded in contributions to persistence (survival). Biological function can fail (e.g., the heart was selected to pump blood, and that is its organizational role, but it can fail to perform this function, undermining survival).

17. Biological Functionality 4 The etiological account fails to account for functionality that is not functional enough to survive; the organizational account can handle this. We can recognize function without knowing etiology (mostly); the organizational account can handle this. The autonomy account is superior to the etiological account.

18. Biosemiotics and Function Barbieri thinks all we need are biological codes to get meaning, but this is strictly reference, without contextual interpretation. Stefan Artmann has suggested supplementing the code with an etiological account of its function. However, this does not invoke internal context directly, but only relative fitness based on trait-environment relations. On the organizational account, functionality is internal to the system. If the organizational account is correct, biological function implies semantic values, and thus semiotic function, since all functionality must be interpreted in terms of the viability implied by autonomous organization. Therefore, the autonomy account is required for biosemiotics.

19. Biosemiotic Function example 1 Suppose we have smell A (icon) of something dangerous (interpretant), then it is incumbent to avoid (object). For good biological reasons, this sort of interpretation has very short chains. Chains related to survival are typically longer.

20. Smell A (sign/icon) Death (interpretant) Avoid (object)

21. Biosemiotic Function example 2 Suppose we have smell B (icon) that indicates food (interpretant) that can be eaten (object). This itself is a sign (icon) that falls under survival (interpretant) indicating it should be accepted (object). Typically there will be longer chains both for the interpretant and often the icon.

22. Smell B Food Eat Survival Accept

23. Summary 1 BIT does not account for function or semantics, but does account for information flow, networks, control, higher order control, and the dynamics of biological form. The operations of BIT are all included under the theory of information flow. The theory of information flow requires types classifying tokens. This is best achieved with a code (or, more generally, a physical information system, Collier 1986, 2008)).

24. Summary 2 In some cases functional systems make an internal distinction that have semantic value (e.g., the immune system, various forms of signaling, the genetic code), implying semiotic values. These signals are typically context dependent, and must be interpreted. On the autonomy account of function, all functionality implies semantic values, and hence semiotic values, the most basic of which (final interpretant) are signs for survival and signs of death.

25. Thank you John Collier More at: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/undphil/collier Or google john collier complexity