Is The Cell A Semiotic System?

  • Marcello Barbieri

Abstract

Semiotics is the study of signs and initially it was thought to be concerned only with the products of culture. Mental phenomena, however, exist also in animals, and cultural semiotics came to be regarded as a special case of biological semiotics, or biosemiotics, a science that started by studying semiotic phenomena in animals and then it was gradually extended to other living creatures. Eventually, the discovery of the genetic code suggested that the cell itself has a semiotic structure and the goal of biosemiotics became the idea that all living creatures are semiotic systems. This conclusion, however, is valid only if we accept that the genetic code is a real code, but an influential school of thought, known as physicalism, has apparently convinced many people that it is only a metaphor, a mere linguistic expression that we use in order to avoid long periphrases. The argument is that the genetic code would be real only if it was associated with the production of meaning, but modern science does not deal with meaning and is bound therefore to relegate the genetic code among the metaphorical entities.

In this paper it is shown that there is no need to avoid the issue of meaning and to deny the reality of the genetic code. On the contrary, it is shown that organic meaning can be defined with operative procedures and belongs to a new class of fundamental natural entities that are as objective and reproducible as the physical quantities. It is also shown that the presence of molecular adaptors gives us an objective criterion for recognizing the existence of organic codes in Nature, and that criterion proves that the genetic code has all the qualifying features of a real code. It also proves that the genetic code is not alone in the cellular world, and that many other organic codes appeared in the history of life, especially in eukaryotic cells.

The conclusion that the cell is a semiotic system, in short, is based on the experimental evidence provided by the adaptors, but also requires a new theoretical framework where concepts like sign, meaning and code are not put aside as metaphorical entities but are defined by operative procedures and are recognized as fundamental components of the living world

Keywords

Semiotics biosemiotics information meaning organic codes ribotype physicalism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberts, B., Bray, D., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Watson, J.D. (1994). Molecular Biology of the Cell.3rd edition. Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Barbieri M. (1981). The Ribotype Theory on the Origin of Life. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 91, 545–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbieri M. (1985). The Semantic Theory of Evolution. Harwood Academic Publishers, London and New York.Google Scholar
  4. Barbieri M. (1998). The Organic Codes. The basic mechanism of macroevolution. Rivista di Biologia- Biology Forum, 91, 481–514.Google Scholar
  5. Barbieri M. (2003). The Organic Codes. An Introduction to Semantic Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Barbieri M. (2003b). Biology with Information and Meaning. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 25, 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbieri M. (2004). The Definitions of Information and Meaning. Two possible boundaries between physics and biology. Rivista di Biologia-Biology Forum, 97, 91–110.Google Scholar
  8. Berridge, M. (1985). The molecular basis of communication within the cell. Scientific American, 253, 142–152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Boniolo G. (2003). Biology without Information. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 25, 255–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chargaff, E. (1963). Essays on Nucleic Acids. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Florkin, Marcel (1974). Concepts of molecular biosemiotics and molecular evolution. In Comprehensive Biochemistry, vol.29 part A (Comparative Biochemistry, Molecular Evolution), Marcel Florkin and Elmer H. Stotz (eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1–124.Google Scholar
  12. Gabius H.-J. (2000). Biological Information Transfer Beyond the Genetic Code: The Sugar Code. Naturwissenschaften, 87, 108–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gabius H.-J, André S., Kaltner H., and Siebert H.-C. (2002). The sugar code: functional lectinomics. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1572, 165–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gamble M.J. and Freedman L.P. (2002). A coactivator code for transcription. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 27 (4), 165–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffith, P.E. (2001). Genetic Information: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory. Philosophy of Science, 68, 394–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffith, P.E. and Knight, R.D. (1998). What is the developmental challenge? Philosophy of Science, 65, 276–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jenuwein T. and Allis D. (2001). Translating the Histone Code. Science, 293, 1074–1080.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johannsen, W. (1909). Elemente der exacten Erblichkeitslehre. Gustav Fisher, Jena.Google Scholar
  19. Mahner, M. and Bunge, M. (1997). Foundations of Biophilosophy. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  20. Markoš, A. (2002). Readers of the Book of Life: Conceptualizing Developmental Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry E. 1995. The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Pattee, H. H. (1969). The physical basis of coding and reliability in biological evolution. In C. H. Waddington (ed.) Toward a Theoretical Biology Vol. 1, Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1969, pp. 67–93.Google Scholar
  23. Pattee, H. H. (1972). Laws and constraints, symbols and languages. In C. H. Waddington (ed.) Towards a Theoretical Biology Vol. 4,, Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1972, pp. 248–258.Google Scholar
  24. Pattee, H. H. (2001). The physics of symbols: bridging the epistemic cut, BioSystems, 60, 5–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peirce, Charles S. (1931–1958) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  26. Prodi, G. (1988). Material bases of signification. Semiotica, 69 (3/4), 191–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Readies C. and Takeichi M. (1996). Cadherines in the developing central nervous system: an adhesive code for segmental and functional subdivisions. Developmental Biology, 180, 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richards E.J. and Elgin S.C.R. (2002). Epigenetic Codes for Heterochromatin Formation and Silencing: Rounding up the Usual Suspects. Cell. 108, 489–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sarkar, S. (1996). Biological Information. A Skeptical Look at some Central Dogmas of Molecular Biology. In S. Sarkar (ed.) The Philosophy and History of Biology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 187–231.Google Scholar
  30. Sarkar, S. (2000). Information in Genetics and Developmental Biology. Philosophy of Science, 67, 208–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Payot, Paris.Google Scholar
  32. Sebeok, T. A. (1963). Communication among social bees; porpoises and sonar; man and dolphin. Language, 39, 448–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sebeok, T. A. (1972). Perspectives in Zoosemiotics. Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  34. Sebeok, T. A. (1986). The doctrine of signs. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 9, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Biosemiotics: Its roots, proliferation, and prospects. Semiotica, 134, 68.Google Scholar
  36. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27, 379–424, 623–656.Google Scholar
  37. Shapiro L. and Colman D.R. (1999). The Diversity of Cadherins and Implications for a Synaptic Adhesive Code in the CNS. Neuron, 23, 427–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strahl B.D. and Allis D. (2000). The language of covalent histone modifications. Nature, 403, 41–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sutherland, E.W. (1972). Studies on the mechanism of hormone action. Science, 177,401–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trifonov E.N. (1987). Translation framing code and frame-monitoring mechanism as suggested by the analysis of mRNA and 16s rRNA nucleotide sequence. Journal of Molecular Biology, 194, 643–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trifonov E.N. (1989). The multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 51, 417–432.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Trifonov E.N. (1996). Interfering contexts of regulatory sequence elements. Cabios, 12, 423–429.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Trifonov E.N. (1999). Elucidating Sequence Codes: Three Codes for Evolution. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 870, 330–338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turner, B.M. (2000). Histone acetylation and an epigenetic code. BioEssay, 22, 836–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turner, B.M. (2002). Cellular memory and the Histone Code. Cell, 111, 285–291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watson, J.D. and Crick, F.H.C. (1953). Genetical Implications of the Structure of Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature, 171, 964–967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woese, C.R. (2000). Interpreting the universal phylogenetic tree. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 97, 8392–8396.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcello Barbieri
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Morfologia ed Embriologia44100 FerraraItaly

Personalised recommendations