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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
See section 5.1 for further elaboration of this point.
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.
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.
Barbieri, M. (2009). A short history of biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 2(2), 221–245.
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Churchill, F. (1974). William Johannsen and the genotype concept. Journal of the History of Biology, 7, 5–30.
Colombetti, G. (2014). The feeling body: Affective science meets the enactive mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Costall, A. (1995). Socializing affordances. Theory & Psychology, 5(4), 467–481.
Dawkins, R. (1976/2006). The selfish gene. 30th (Anniversary ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Jesus, P. (2016a). Autopoietic enactivism, phenomenology and the deep continuity between life and mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 15(2), 265–289.
De Jesus, P. (2016b). From enactive phenomenology to biosemiotic enactivism. Adaptive Behavior, 24(2), 130–146.
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.
Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species. London: Penguin.
Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3, 357–370.
Di Paolo, E. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4, 429–452.
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.
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.
Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. (2011). The enactive approach: Theoretical sketches from cell to society. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19(1), 1–36.
Gibson, J. J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
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.
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.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.
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.
Ingold, T. (2001/2011). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
Jacobs, D. M., & Michaels, C. F. (2002). On the apparent paradox of learning and realism. Ecological Psychology, 14, 127–139.
Jacobs, D., & Michaels, C. (2007). Direct learning. Ecological Psychology, 19, 321–349.
Kull, K. (2009). Biosemiotics: To know what life knows. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 16(3–4), 81–88.
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.
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.
Levins, R., & Lewontin, R. (1985). The dialectical biologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Martinelli, D. (2010). A critical companion to zoosemiotics: People, paths, ideas (Vol. 5). Berlin. Germany: Springer.
Maynard Smith, J. (1998). Evolutionary genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Michaels, C. F., & Carello, C. (1981). Direct perception. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pattee, H. H. (2005). The physics and metaphysics of biosemiotics. Journal of Biosemiotics, 1(1), 281–301.
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.
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.
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.
Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Biosemiotics: Its roots, proliferation, and prospects. Semiotica, 134(1/4), 61–78.
Stewart, J. R., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2010). Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
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.
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
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).
About this article
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
- Extended synthesis
- Ecological information