Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-Level Semiosis: a Paradigm of Emergent Innovation

  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this introductory article to the special issue on Multi-level semiosis we attempt to stage the background for qualifying the notion of “multi-levelness” when considering communication processes and semiosis in all life forms, i.e. from the cellular to the organismic level. While structures are organized hierarchically, communication processes require a kind of processual organization that may be better described as being heterarchical. Theoretically, the challenge arises in the temporal domain, that is, in the developmental and evolutionary dimension of dynamic semiotic processes. We discuss the importance of this fundamental difference in order to explain how levels, domains and orders of magnitude, on the one hand, and synchronic and diachronic processes, on the other, contribute to the overall organization of every living being. To account for such multi-level organization, semiotic freedom is assumed to be a scalar property that endows living systems at different levels and domains with the capacity to ponder selectively the overall structural coherence and functional compatibility of their heterarchical processing, which is increasingly less conditioned by the underlying molecular determinism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Affifi R. (2016). The semiosis of "side effects" in genetic interventions. Biosemiotics. doi:10.1007/s12304-016-9274-3.

  • Auletta, G., Ellis, G. F. R., & Jaeger, L. (2008). Top-down causation by information control: from a philosophical problem to a scientific research programme. Journal Royal Society Interface, 5, 1159–1172.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, W. (2006). Discovering cell mechanisms: The creation of modern cell biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijma, P., Muir, W. M., & Van Arendonk, J. A. M. (2007). Multi-level selection 1: quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics, 175, 277–288.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt, I. (2007). Typology now: homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 709–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L. E. (2007). Cellular semiotics and signal transduction. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics: The new biological synthesis (pp. 365–408). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L. E. (2015). Heterarchical Semiosis: From signal transduction to narrative intelligibility. In P. P. Trifonas (Ed.), International handbook of semiotics (pp. 1079–1097). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L. E., & Giorgi, F. (2015). Towards a heterarchical approach to biology and cognition. Progress Biophysics Molecular Biology, 119(3), 481–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, J. H., Heidelberger, R., & Waxham, M. N. (2014). From molecules to network: An introduction to cellular and molecular neuroscience. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, E. (2013). The multiple realizability of biological individuals. Journal of Philosophy, 110(8), 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, E. (2016). A level-of-selection approach to evolutionary individuality. Biology and Philosophy, 31, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10539-016-9540-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dbouk, H. A., Mroue, R. M., El-Sabban, M. E., & Talhouk, R. S. (2009). Connexins: a myriad of functions extending beyond assembly of gap junction channels. Cell Communication and Signaling, 7, 4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Defranco, B. H., Nickel, B. M., Baty, C. J., Martinez, J. S., Gay, V. L., Sandulache, V. C., Hackam, D. J., & Murray, S. A. (2008). Migrating cells retain gap junction plaque structure and function. Cell Communication & Adhesion, 15(3), 273–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, F., & Auletta, G. (2016). Semiotic tools for multi-level cell communication. Biosemiotics. doi:10.1007/s12304-016-9272-5.

  • Günther, G. (1973). Life as poly-contextuality. Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, Festschrift für Walter Schulz, Pfullingen, pp. 187–210. http://www.vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/gg_life_as_polycontexturality.pdf. accessed 23.10.16.

  • Hanschen, E. R., Shelton, D. E., & Michod, R. E. (2015). Evolutionary transitions in individuality and recent models of multicellularity. In I. Ruiz-Trillo & A. M. Nedelcu (Eds.), Evolutionary transitions to multicellular life, advances in marine genomics 2 (pp. 165–188). Dordrecht: Springer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havel, I. M. (2001). Causal domains and emergent rationality. In B. Brogaard and B. Smith (Eds.), Rationality and irrationality. (pp. 129–151) Proc. 23rd International Wittgenstein Symposium. Vienna: öbv & hpt.

  • Heylighen, F. (1999). Evolutionary transitions: how do levels of complexity emerge? Complexity, 6(1), 53–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlavacek, W. S., Faeder, J. R., Blinov, M. L., Perelson, A. S., & Goldstein, G. (2003). The complexity of complexes in signal transduction. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 84, 783–794.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (1998). Bridges between development and evolution. Biology and Philosophy, 13(1), 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. (2009). Two’s company, Three is complexity. New York: One world Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kholodenko, B. N. (2006). Cell signalling dynamics in time and space. Nature Reviews of Molecular Cell Biology, 7(3), 165–176.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klingenberg, C. P. (2005). Developmental constraints, modules, and evolvability. In B. Hallgrimsson & B. K. Hall (Eds.), Variation: A central concept in biology (pp. 219–247). Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2015). Semiosis stems from logical incompatibility in organic nature: why biophysics does not see meaning, while biosemiotics does. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 119, 616–621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kilstrup M. (2016). The forbidden signs. Biosemiotics. doi:10.1007/s12304-016-9277-0.

  • Maliet, O., Shelton, D. E., & Michod, R. E. (2015). A model for the origin of group reproduction during the evolutionary transition to multicellularity. Biology Letters, 11, 2015.0157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, F., & Varela, J. (1980). Boston studies in the philosophy of science. In R. S. Cohen & M. W. Wartofsky (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living (Vol. 42, D). Dordecht: Reidel Publishing Co.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch, W. (1945). A heterarchy of values determined by the topology of nervous nets. Bulletin Mathematical Biophysics, 7, 89–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovádi, J., & Saks, V. (2004). On the origin of intracellular compartmentation and organized metabolic systems. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, 256, 5–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, A. M., O’Neill, S. L., & Kurre, P. (2009). Cellular microvesicle pathways can be targeted to transfer genetic information between non-immune cells. PLoS ONE, 4(7), e6219.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Švorcová J. (2016). Distributed heredity and development: a heterarchical perspective. Biosemiotics. doi:10.1007/s12304-016-9276-1.

  • Traulsen, A., & Nowak, M. A. (2005). Evolution of cooperation by multi-level selection. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA, 103, 10952–10955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Goldammer, E., Joachim, P., Newbury, J. (2003). Heterarchy – hierarchy: Two complementary categories of description. http://www.vordenker.de/heterarchy/a_heterarchy-e.pdf. Accessed 23.10.16.

  • Wartlick, O., Kicheva, A., & González-Gaitán, M. (2009). Morphogen gradient formation. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 1(3), a001255.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • West, S. A., Fisher, R. M., Gardner, A., & Kiers, E. T. (2015). Major evolutionary transitions in individuality. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, USA, 112, 10112–10119.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, W. C. (1994). The ontology of complex systems: levels of organization, perspectives, and causal thickets. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 20, 207–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aalborg University, Copenhagen, SV, Denmark

    Luis Emilio Bruni

  2. University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Franco Giorgi

Authors
  1. Luis Emilio Bruni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franco Giorgi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Emilio Bruni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bruni, L.E., Giorgi, F. Multi-Level Semiosis: a Paradigm of Emergent Innovation. Biosemiotics 9, 307–318 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-016-9279-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-016-9279-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation