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

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, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 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. 2.

    See section 5.1 for further elaboration of this point.

  3. 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

  1. 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

  33. 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 

  34. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  38. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

  52. 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 

  53. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Heras-Escribano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

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

Keywords

  • Extended synthesis
  • Ecological information
  • Biosemiotics
  • Affordances
  • Cognition