Skip to main content
Log in

Biosemiotics, the Extended Synthesis, and Ecological Information: Making Sense of the Organism-Environment Relation at the Cognitive Level

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues that the Extended Synthesis, ecological information, and biosemiotics are complementary approaches whose engagement will help us explain the organism-environment interaction at the cognitive level. The Extended Synthesis, through niche construction theory, can explain the organism-environment interaction at an evolutionary level because niche construction is a process guided by information. We believe that the best account that defines information at this level is the one offered by biosemiotics and, within all kinds of biosemiotic information available, we believe that ecological information (information for affordances) is the best candidate for making sense of the organism-environment relation at the cognitive level. This entanglement of biosemiotics, ecological information and the Extended Synthesis is promising for understanding the multidimensional character of the organism-environment reciprocity as well as the relation between evolution, cognition, and meaning.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There are more approaches and ideas at the core of the EES, such as evolutionary-developmental biology (evo-devo), but due to space constraints we will focus on niche construction and ecological inheritance as these provide the most useful aspects of the EES for emphasizing the complementarities of the EES, BE, and EP.

  2. See section 5.1 for further elaboration of this point.

  3. The issue of explaining which affordances should we choose to take advantage of over some other affordances that are equally available in our surroundings is a current debate within EP (see for example Withagen et al. 2012 or Rietveld and Kiverstein 2014). Here we merely point to the idea that BE offers some reasons to become a candidate for explaining this in biosemiotic terms.

References

  • Barandiaran, X.E., Di Paolo, E. and Rohde, M. (2009). Defining agency. Individuality, normativity, assymetry and spatio-temporality in action. Adaptive Behavior, 17 (4) 367–386 in Rohde, M. and Ikegami, T., editors, special issue on Agency in Natural and Artificial Systems.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2009). A short history of biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 2(2), 221–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, F. (1974). William Johannsen and the genotype concept. Journal of the History of Biology, 7, 5–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Colombetti, G. (2014). The feeling body: Affective science meets the enactive mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Costall, A. (1995). Socializing affordances. Theory & Psychology, 5(4), 467–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976/2006). The selfish gene. 30th (Anniversary ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jesus, P. (2016a). Autopoietic enactivism, phenomenology and the deep continuity between life and mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 15(2), 265–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jesus, P. (2016b). From enactive phenomenology to biosemiotic enactivism. Adaptive Behavior, 24(2), 130–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jesus, P. (2018). Thinking through enactive agency: sense-making, bio-semiosis and the ontologies of organismic worlds. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-018-9562-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3, 357–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Paolo, E. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4, 429–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmeche, C. (2003). Biosemiotics, in: J. Wentzel Vrede van Huyssteen (ed.): Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, pp. 63–64. New York: Macmillan.

  • Favareau, D. (2007). The evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In Introduction to biosemiotics, pp. 1–68. New York: Springer.

  • Fisher, A. R. (1930). Genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Froese, T. (2011). From second-order cybernetics to enactive cognitive science: Varela’s turn from epistemology to phenomenology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(6), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. (2011). The enactive approach: Theoretical sketches from cell to society. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979/2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

  • Heras-Escribano, M., & de Pinedo, M. (2016). Are affordances normative? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 565–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heras-Escribano, M., & De Pinedo-García, M. (2018). Affordances and landscapes: Overcoming the nature-culture dichotomy through niche construction theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02294.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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. (2012) The natural history of intentionality. A biosemiotic approach. In T. Schilhab, F. Stjernfelt, & T. Deacon (Eds.), The symbolic species evolved. (Biosemiotics 6), pp. 97–116. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Huxley, J. S. (1942). Evolution: The modern synthesis. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2001/2011). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, D. M., & Michaels, C. F. (2002). On the apparent paradox of learning and realism. Ecological Psychology, 14, 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, D., & Michaels, C. (2007). Direct learning. Ecological Psychology, 19, 321–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2009). Biosemiotics: To know what life knows. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 16(3–4), 81–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., & Odling-Smee, J. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: Its structure, assumptions and predictions. In Proc. R. Soc. B, Vol. 282, N° 1813.

  • Laland, K. N., Matthews, B., & Feldman, M. W. (2016). An introduction to niche construction theory. Evolutionary Ecology, 30, 191–202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C. (1985). The organism as the subject and object of evolution. In R. Levins & R. C. Lewontin (Eds.), The Dialectical Biologist (pp. 85–106). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins, R., & Lewontin, R. (1985). The dialectical biologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, D. (2010). A critical companion to zoosemiotics: People, paths, ideas (Vol. 5). Berlin. Germany: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1998). Evolutionary genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menary, R. (2016). Pragmatism and the Pragmatic Turn in Cognitive Science. In A. K. Engel, K. J. Friston, & D. Kragic (Eds.), The Pragmatic Turn: Toward Action-Oriented Views in Cognitive Science (pp. 215–234). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, C. F., & Carello, C. (1981). Direct perception. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattee, H. H. (2005). The physics and metaphysics of biosemiotics. Journal of Biosemiotics, 1(1), 281–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1967). Annotated catalogue: The papers of Charles S. Peirce [R. S. Robin (Eds.)]. Boston: The University of Massachusetts Press.

  • Pigliucci, M., & Muller, G. (Eds.). (2010). Evolution: The extended synthesis. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M., Shockley, K., Fajen, B. R., Riley, N. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2008). Ecological psychology: Six principles for an embodied-embedded approach to behavior. In P. Calvo, & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science. An embodied approach, pp. 161–187, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Phillips, T. C., Laland, K. N., Shuker, D. M., Dickins, T. E., & West, S. A. (2014). The niche construction perspective: A critical appraisal. Evolution, 68(5), 1231–1243.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Biosemiotics: Its roots, proliferation, and prospects. Semiotica, 134(1/4), 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. R., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2010). Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, A. (2014). The affordance landscape: The spatial metaphors of evolution. In Pearce. T., Berger, G. & Desjardins. E. (eds). Entangled Life: Organism and environment in the biological and social sciences, pp. 213–236. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 683–703.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, A., & Varela, F. J. (2002). Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1(2), 97–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Withagen, R., de Poel, H. J., Araújo, D., & Pepping, G.-J. (2012). Affordances can invite behavior: Reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 250–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partly funded by a Juan de la Cierva-Formación Fellowship (Gobierno de España), the Fondecyt Postdoctorado 3170685 (Chile), a project granted by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Gobierno de España (FFI2016-80088-P), and the FiloLab Group of Excellence, Universidad de Granada (Spain).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Heras-Escribano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heras-Escribano, M., de Jesus, P. Biosemiotics, the Extended Synthesis, and Ecological Information: Making Sense of the Organism-Environment Relation at the Cognitive Level. Biosemiotics 11, 245–262 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9322-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9322-2

Keywords

Navigation