Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Protosemiosis: Agency with Reduced Representation Capacity

  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Life has semiotic nature; and as life forms differ in their complexity, functionality, and adaptability, we assume that forms of semiosis also vary accordingly. Here we propose a criterion to distinguish between the primitive kind of semiosis, which we call “protosemiosis” (following Prodi) from the advanced kind of semiosis, or “eusemiosis”. In protosemiosis, agents associate signs directly with actions without considering objects, whereas in eusemiosis, agents associate signs with objects and only then possibly with actions. Protosemiosis started from the origin of life, and eusemiosis started when evolving agents acquired the ability to track and classify objects. Eusemiosis is qualitatively different from protosemiosis because it can not be reduced to a small number of specific signaling pathways. Proto-signs can be classified into proto-icons that signal via single specific interaction, proto-indexes that combine several functions, and proto-symbols that are processed by a universal subagent equipped with a set of heritable adapters. Prefix “proto” is used here to characterize signs at the protosemiotic level. Although objects are not recognized by protosemiotic agents, they can be reliably reconstructed by human observers. In summary, protosemiosis is a primitive kind of semiosis that supports “know-how” without “know-what”. Without studying protosemiosis, the biosemiotics theory would be incomplete.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For citations of Peirce we use abbreviations: CP = Collected papers, EP = Essential Peirce, and W = Writings.

  2. Note that Peirce’s notion of object is not related to agents who interact with them. He used only the meta-agent perspective assuming that objects are the same for every agent.

  3. Detailed analysis of the term “agent” can be found in (Sharov 2010).

  4. Known epigenetic mechanisms can support adaptive learning within individual cells as follows from a hypothetical model (Sharov 2013).

  5. The notion of fitness in neo-Darwinism (i.e., the relative rate of self-reproduction) provides a quantitative measure of natural self-interest but it does not capture its functional aspects. For example, mules cannot reproduce and their fitness is zero, but yet they are alive and capable of goal-directed actions at both molecular and behavioral levels. In fact, mules have inherited their goals and capacity for interpreting signs from their self-reproducing parents. But self-reproduction is necessary for the continuation of life lineages and for adaptive evolution.

  6. By categorization we mean recognition and differentiation of objects by agents based on a large set of perceived properties, which cannot be reduced to a small number of logical gates (e.g., “AND”, “OR”) and contributes to the functional goal-directed activity of the agent (Sharov 2013).

  7. It should not to be confused with the linguistic notion of proto-language (which is better called “ancestral language”).

References

  • Alexander, V. (2013). Creativity: self-referential mistaking, not negating. Biosemiotics, 6(2), 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, D. J. (1989). Modeling brain function: the world of attractor neural networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M., Deely, J., Krampen, M., Ransdell, J., Sebeok, T. A., & von Uexküll, T. (1984). A semiotic perspective on the sciences: steps toward a new paradigm. Semiotica, 52(1/2), 7–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2003). The organic codes: an introduction to semantic biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2008). Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life. Naturwissenschaften, 95(7), 577–599.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2009). Three types of semiosis. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettenbrock, K., Sauter, T., Jahreis, K., Kremling, A., Lengeler, J. W., & Gilles, E. D. (2007). Correlation between growth rates, EIIACrr phosphorylation, and intracellular cyclic AMP levels in Escherichia coli K-12. Journal of Bacteriology, 189(19), 6891–900.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard, M. H. (1993). Representational content in humans and machines. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 5, 285–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard, M. H. (1998). Levels of representationality. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 10(2), 179–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard, M. H. (2001). Function, anticipation, representation. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Computing anticipatory systems. CASYS 2000 - fourth international conference (pp. 459–469). Melville: American Institute of Physics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brier, S., & Joslyn, C. (2013). What does it take to produce interpretation? informational, peircean and code-semiotic views on biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 6(1), 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L. E. (2008). Cellular semiotics and signal transduction. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis (pp. 365–407). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, P. V. (2002). Habit formation as symmetry breaking in the early universe. Sign Systems Studies, 30(1), 347–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: the Co-evolution of language and the brain (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deely, J. N. (1990). Basics of semiotics (series: advances in semiotics). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, G. E. (2010). Origin and evolution of the ribosome. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 2(9), a003483.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • García, Á. L. (2005). The grammar of genes: How the genetic code resembles the linguistic code. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B: Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (1998). Surfaces inside surfaces. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 5(1), 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2007). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis (pp. 149–166). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J., & Emmeche, C. (1991). Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In M. Anderson & F. Merrell (Eds.), On semiotic modeling (pp. 117–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawade, Y. (2009). On the nature of the subjectivity of living things. Biosemiotics, 2(2), 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krampen, M. (1981). Phytosemiotics. Semiotica, 36(3/4), 187–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2009). Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: the semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 8–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodish, H., Berk, A., Zipursky, S. L., Matsudaira, P., & Darnell, J. (2000). Molecular cell biology (4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, N. E. (2000). Type I restriction systems: sophisticated molecular machines (a legacy of Bertani and Weigle). Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 64(2), 412–434.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pattee, H. H. (2008). Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages. Biosemiotics, 1(2), 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vols.1-8. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Peirce, C. S. (1998). The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings (Vol. 2). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  • Phatnani, H. P., & Greenleaf, A. L. (2006). Phosphorylation and functions of the RNA polymerase II CTD. Genes and Development, 20(21), 2922–2936.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pingoud, A., & Jeltsch, A. (2001). Structure and function of type II restriction endonucleases. Nucleic Acids Research, 29(18), 3705–3727.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. L., Wadhams, G. H., & Armitage, J. P. (2011). Signal processing in complex chemotaxis pathways. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 9(3), 153–165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Premack, D. G., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prodi, G. (1988). Material bases of signification. Semiotica, 69(3/4), 191–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prodi, G (2010 [1988]) Signs and codes in immunology. In D. Favareau (Ed.), Essential Readings in Biosemiotics (pp. 328–335). Dordrecht: Springer

  • Saussure, F d, Bally, C, Sechehaye, A, & Riedlinger, A (1986 [1916]) Course in General Linguistics. LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court

  • Schuster, P. (1993). RNA based evolutionary optimization. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 23(5–6), 373–391.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1963). Communication in animals and men. Language, 39, 448–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1976). Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs (Vol. 5, Studies in semiotics). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A. (1992). Biosemiotics: functional-evolutionary approach to the problem of the sense of information. In T. A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), Biosemiotics. The semiotic Web 1991 (pp. 345–373). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A. (2009). Coenzyme autocatalytic network on the surface of oil microspheres as a model for the origin of life. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10(4), 1838–1852.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A. (2010). Functional information: Towards synthesis of biosemiotics and cybernetics. Entropy, 12(5), 1050–1070.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A. (2013). Minimal mind. In L. Swan (Ed.), Origins of Mind (pp. 343–360). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taborsky, E. (2003). The six semiosic predicates. S.E.E.D. Semiotics Evolution, Energy, and Development, 3(2), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. von. (1982 [1940]). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.

  • Van Haastert, P. J., Van Driel, R., Jastorff, B., Baraniak, J., Stec, W. J., & De Wit, R. J. (1984). Competitive cAMP antagonists for cAMP-receptor proteins. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 259(16), 10020–10024.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vehkavaara, T. (2002). Why and how to naturalize semiotic concepts for biosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies, 30(1), 293–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vehkavaara, T. (2003). Natural self-interest, interactive representation, and the emergence of objects and Umwelt. Sign Systems Studies, 31(2), 547–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vehkavaara, T. (2006). Limitations on applying peircean semeiotic. Biosemiotics as applied objective ethics and esthetics rather than semeiotic. Journal of Biosemiotics, 1(2), 269–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vehkavaara, T. (2007). From the logic of science to the logic of the living. The relevance of Charles Peirce to biosemiotics. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics : The new biological synthesis (pp. 260–262). Springer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vo, N., & Goodman, R. H. (2001). CREB-binding protein and p300 in transcriptional regulation. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 276(17), 13505–13508.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (1957). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. In C. H. Schiller (Ed.), Instinctive behaviour: the development of a modern concept (pp. 5–80). New York: International Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witzany, G. (2010). Biocommunication and natural genome editing. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging, and by the School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere. The content of this paper is not endorsed or suggested by the funding agencies.

We thank anonymous reviewers for valuable input about this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Genetics Laboratory, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, USA

    Alexei A. Sharov

  2. School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, 33014, Tampere, Finland

    Tommi Vehkavaara

Authors
  1. Alexei A. Sharov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tommi Vehkavaara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexei A. Sharov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharov, A.A., Vehkavaara, T. Protosemiosis: Agency with Reduced Representation Capacity. Biosemiotics 8, 103–123 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9219-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9219-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation