, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 143–159 | Cite as

What Does it Take to Produce Interpretation? Informational, Peircean and Code-Semiotic Views on Biosemiotics

  • Søren BrierEmail author
  • Cliff Joslyn
Original Paper


This paper presents a critical analysis of code-semiotics, which we see as the latest attempt to create paradigmatic foundation for solving the question of the emergence of life and consciousness. We view code semiotics as a an attempt to revise the empirical scientific Darwinian paradigm, and to go beyond the complex systems, emergence, self-organization, and informational paradigms, and also the selfish gene theory of Dawkins and the Peircean pragmaticist semiotic theory built on the simultaneous types of evolution. As such it is a new and bold attempt to use semiotics to solve the problems created by the evolutionary paradigm’s commitment to produce a theory of how to connect the two sides of the Cartesian dualistic view of physical reality and consciousness in a consistent way.


Information Codes Interpretation Emergence Complex systems Evolution Consciousness Peirce semiotics Biosemiotics 


  1. Apel, Karl-Otto, tr. (1981) J.M. Krois, Charles S. Peirce From Pragmatism to Pragmaticism (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 1995).Google Scholar
  2. Barbieri, M. (2009). Three types of semiosis. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 19–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbieri, M. (2010). On the origin of language: a bridge between biolinguistics and biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 3(2), 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbieri, M. (2011). Origin and Evolution of the Brain. Biosemiotics, 4(3), 369–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertilsson, T. M. (2009). Peirce’s theory of inquiry and beyond. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Brier, S. (2001d): Cybersemiotics: An evolutionary world view going beyond entropy and information into the question of meaning. In W. Wheeler (ed.) Biosemiotics: Nature/Culture/Science/Semiosis. JISC Open Humanities Press.
  7. Brier, S. (2008a). Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough, Toronto: University of Toronto. New edition 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Brier, S. (2008b). The paradigm of Peircean biosemiotics. Signs 2008, pp. 30–81.
  9. Brier, S. (2011a). Cybersemiotics and the question of knowledge. Chapter 1 pp.: In G. Dodig-Crnkovic and M. Burgin (Ed.). Information and Computation, World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  10. Brier, S. (2011b). Ethology and the Sebeokian way from Zoosemiotics to Cyber(bio)semiotics. Deely, John, Kull, Kalevi and Petrilli, Susan (eds.): Semiotics Continues to Astonish”: the Intellectual Heritage of Thomas Albert Sebeok, Chapter 4, pp. 41–84, Paris and Den Haag: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Brier, S. (2011c). Cybersemiotics, in Glossarium-BITri : Scholar
  12. Chaitin, G. (2005). Meta Math! The Quest for Omega, New York: Pantheon BooksGoogle Scholar
  13. Deely, J. (2001). Four ages of understanding: the first postmodern survey of philosophy from ancient times to the turn of the twenty-first century (Toronto Studies in Semiotics and Communication). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  14. Deely, J. (2009). Purely objective reality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deely, J. (2011). Thomas A. Sebeok and the Semiotics of the 21st Century. In Cobley, Deely, Kull and Petrelli (2011). Semiotics Continues to Astonish: Thomas Sebeok and the Doctrine f Sigs, Berlin/Bosten: De Gruytor Mouton.Google Scholar
  16. Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2010). The cybersemiotics and info-computationalist research programmes as platforms for knowledge production in organisms and machines. Entropy, 12(4), 878–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dodig-Crnkovic, G., & Müller, V. (2011). A dialogue concerning two world systems: Info-computational vs. mechanistic. In G. Dodig-Crnkovic & M. Burgin (Eds.), Information and computation. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Series in Information Studies.Google Scholar
  18. Eigen, M. (1992). Steps towards life. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  19. Emmeche, C. (2001). Does a robot have an Umwelt? Reflections on the qualitative biosemiotic of Jakob von Uexküll. Semiotica, 134(1/4), 653–693.Google Scholar
  20. Fodor, J. A. (1981). Representations. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Grice, P (1957) Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377–388.Google Scholar
  22. Hauser, N. (2010). Peirce’s phenomenology and semiotics. In P. Cobley (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Semiotics (pp. 89–100). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hunter, L. (2009). The processes of life: An introduction to molecular biology. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  24. Joslyn, C. (2000). Levels of control and closure in complex semiotic systems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901, 67–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joslyn, C. (2001). The semiotics of control and modeling relations in complex systems. Biosystems, 60(1–3), 131–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kampis, G. (1991). Self-modifying systems. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  27. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). Origins of order. Oxford: Oxford U Press.Google Scholar
  28. Leontiev, A. N. (2009). The development of mind. Marxists Internet Archive P.O. Box 1541; Pacifica, CA 94044; USA. Online publication
  29. Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. New York: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Maturana, H. (1983). What is it to see? Archivos de Biologia y Medicina Experimentales, No.16, pp. 255–269.Google Scholar
  32. Maturana, H. R. (1988a). Ontology of observing: the biological foundation of self consciousness and the physical domain of existence. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 25–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maturana, H. (1988b). Reality: the search for objectivity, or the quest for a compelling argument. Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 25–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. London: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1986). Tree of knowledge: Biological roots of human understanding. London: Shambhala Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Randsdell, J. (1998). On the paradigm of experience appropriate for semiotic, (online at Arisbe).Google Scholar
  37. Ransdell, J. (1989/1997) ‘Is Peirce a Phenomenologist?’ (online at Arisbe).Google Scholar
  38. Rashevsky, N. (1938). Mathematical biophysics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  39. Rosen, R. (1991). Life itself. New York: Columbia U Press.Google Scholar
  40. Searle, J. R. (1970). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sharov, A. (2010). Functional Information: towards synthesis of biosemiotics and cybernetics. Entropy, 12, 1050–1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sonnesson, G. (2009). View from Husserl’s Lectern. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 16(3–4), 107–148.Google Scholar
  43. Spencer-Brown, G. (1972). Laws of Form, New York: Crown PublishersGoogle Scholar
  44. Speigelberg, H. (1965). The phenomenological movement: A historical introduction. The Hague: Martin Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  45. Varela, F. G., & Maturana, H. R. (1974). Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization, and a model. Biosystems, 5, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. von Bertalanffy, L. (1976/68). General system theory. Foundations, Development, Applications, New York: BrazillerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Communication, Cognition and CommunicationCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  2. 2.Pacific Northwest National LaboratorySeattleUSA
  3. 3.Portland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations