Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for a Transdisciplinary Theory of Consciousness, Cognition, Meaning and Communication

Chapter
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 8)

Abstract

The modern evolutionary paradigm combined with phenomenology forces us to view human consciousness as a product of evolution as well as accept humans as observers from the ‘inside of the universe’. The knowledge produced by science has first-person embodied consciousness combined with second-person meaningful communication in language as a prerequisite for third-person fallibilist scientific knowledge. Therefore, the study of consciousness forces us theoretically to encompass the natural and social sciences as well as the humanities in one framework of unrestricted or absolute naturalism, viewing the conscious lifeworld with its intentionality as well as the intersubjectivity of culture as a part of nature. But the sciences are without concepts of qualia; will and meaning and the European phenomenological-hermeneutic ‘sciences of meaning’ do not have an evolutionary foundation. It is therefore interesting that C.S. semiotics—in its modern form of a biosemiotics—was based on an evolutionary thinking and ecology of sign webs. But Cybersemiotics shows that it is also necessary to draw on our knowledge, from science and the technologically founded information sciences, systems theory and cybernetics to obtain a true transdisciplinary theory.

Keywords

Dark Matter Causal Power Conscious Awareness Sense Experience Autopoietic System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arrabales, R., Ledezma, A., & Sanchis, A. (2010). ConsScale: A pragmatic scale for measuring the level of consciousness in artificial agents. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17(3–4), 131–164.Google Scholar
  2. Barbieri, M. (2001). The organic codes: The birth of semantic biology. Ancona: PeQuod. (Republished in 2003 as The organic codes. An introduction to semantic biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  3. Barbieri, M. (2011). Origin and evolution of the brain. Biosemiotics, 4, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrow, J. D. (2007). New theories of everything. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barrow, J. D., Davies, P. C. W., & Harper, C., Jr. (Eds.). (2004). Science and ultimate reality. Quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bateson, G. (1973). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. St. Albans: Paladin.Google Scholar
  7. Bennet, M., & Hacker, P. (2007). The philosophical foundation of neuroscience. In M. Bennet, D. Dennet, P. Hacker, & J. Searle (Eds.), Neuroscience and philosophy: Brain, mind and language. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bennet, M., Dennet, D., Hacker, P., & Searle, J. (2007). Neuroscience and philosophy: Brain, mind and language. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bertone, G. (2010). Particle dark matter: Observations, models and searches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Boden, M. A. (1990). Escaping from the Chinese room. In M. A. Boden (Ed.), The philosophy of artificial intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Brier, S. (1999). Biosemiotics and the foundation of cybersemiotics. Reconceptualizing the insights of ethology, second order cybernetics and Peirce’s semiotics in biosemiotics to create a non-Cartesian information science. Semiotica, 127(1/4), 169–198.Google Scholar
  13. Brier, S. (2000a). Biosemiotic as a possible bridge between embodiment in cognitive semantics and the motivation concept of animal cognition in ethology’. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 7(1), 57–75.Google Scholar
  14. Brier, S. (2000b). Transdisciplinary frameworks of knowledge. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(5), 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brier, S. (2001). Cybersemiotics and Umweltslehre’. Semiotica, 134–1(4), 779–814.Google Scholar
  16. Brier, S. (2008a). Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough. Toronto: University of Toronto. New edition 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Brier, S. (2008b). The paradigm of Peircean biosemiotics. Signs, 2008, 30–81.Google Scholar
  18. Brier, S. (2008c). Bateson and Peirce on the pattern that connects and the sacred. Chapter 12. In J. Hoffmeyer (Ed.), A legacy for living systems: Gregory Bateson as a precursor for biosemiotic thinking, biosemiotics 2 (pp. 229–255). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Brier, S. (2008d). A Peircean panentheist scientific mysticism. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 27, 20–45.Google Scholar
  20. Brier, S. (2009a). Cybersemiotic pragmaticism and constructivism. Constructivist Foundations, 5(1), 19–38.Google Scholar
  21. Brier, S. (2010a). Cybersemiotics and the question of knowledge. Chapter 1. In G. Dodig-Crnkovic & M. Burgin (Eds.), Information and computation. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  22. Brier, S. (2010b). Cybersemiotics: An evolutionary world view going beyond entropy and information into the question of meaning’. Entropy, 2010, 12.Google Scholar
  23. Cartwright, N. (1997). Why physics? Chapter 5. In R. Penrose (Ed.).Google Scholar
  24. Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.Google Scholar
  25. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Churchland, P. (2004). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. In J. Heil (Ed.), Philosophy of mind: A guide and anthology (pp. 382–400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Clayton, P. D. (2004). Emergence: Us from it. In J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, & C. Harper Jr. (Eds.), Science and ultimate reality. Quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity (pp. 577–606). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Colling, F. (2003). Konstruktivisme. Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  29. Cowley, S. J., Major, J. C., Steffensen, S. V., & Dinis, A. (2010). Signifying bodies, biosemiosis, interaction and health. Braga: The Faculty of Philosophy of Braga Portuguese Catholic University.Google Scholar
  30. Davies, P. C. (2004). John Archibald Wheeler and the clash of ideas. In J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, & C. Harper Jr. (Eds.), Science and ultimate reality. Quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity (pp. 3–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  33. Deacon, T. W. (2007). Shannon – Boltzmann – Darwin: Redefining information (Part I). Cognitive Semiotics, 1, 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Deacon, T. W. (2008). Shannon – Boltzmann – Darwin: Redefining information (Part II). Cognitive Semiotics., 2, 169–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
  36. Dennett, D. C. (2007). Philosophy as naïve anthropology. In M. Bennet, D. Dennet, P. Hacker, & J. Searle (Eds.), Neuroscience and philosophy: Brain, mind and language. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2010). The cybersemiotics and info-computationalist research programmes as platforms for knowledge production in organisms and machines. Entropy, 12(4), 878–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dodig-Crnkovic, G., & Müller, V. (2011). A dialogue concerning two world systems: Info-computational vs. mechanistic. In G. Dodig-Crnkovic & M. Burgin (Eds.), Information and computation (Series in information studies). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  39. Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Donald, M. (2001). A mind so rare: The evolution of human evolution. New York/London: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  41. Drummon, J. J. (2003). The structure of intentionality. In D. Welton (Ed.), The new Husserl: A critical reader (pp. 65–92). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Edelmann, G. M. (2000). A universe of consciousness: How matter becomes imagination. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Ellis, G. F. R. (2004). True complexity and its associated ontology. In J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, & C. Harper Jr. (Eds.), Science and ultimate reality. Quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity (pp. 607–636). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Emmeche, C. (1998). Defining life as a semiotic phenomenon. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 5(1), 33–42.Google Scholar
  45. Emmeche, C. (2004). A-life, organism and body: The semiotics of emergent levels. In M Bedeau, P Husbands, T Hutton, S Kumar, & H Suzuki (Eds.), Workshop and tutorial proceedings. Ninth international conference on the simulation and synthesis of living systems (Alife IX) (pp. 117–124), Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  46. Esposito, J. L. (1980). Evolutionary metaphysics: The development of Peirce’s theory of the categories. Athens: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Favareau, D. (Ed.). (2010). Essential readings in biosemiotics: Anthology and commentary. Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: NLB.Google Scholar
  49. Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.). New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
  50. Harman, G. (1990). The intrinsic quality of experience. Philosophical Perspective, 4, 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Heelan, P. A. (1983). Space-perception and the philosophy of science. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Heelan, P. A. (1987). Husserl’s later philosophy of natural science. Philosophy of Science, 1987(53), 368–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hinde, R. (1970). Animal behaviour: A synthesis of ethology and comparative behavior (International student edition). Tokyo: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  54. Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
  55. Hoffmeyer, J. (2010). A biosemiotic approach to health. In S. J. Cowley, J. C. Major, S. V. Steffensen, & A. Dinis (Eds.), Signifying bodies, biosemiosis, interaction and health (pp. 21–41). Braga: The Faculty of Philosophy of Braga Portuguese Catholic University.Google Scholar
  56. Hofstadter, D. (2007). I am a strange loop. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  57. Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European science and transcendental phenomenology (D. Carr, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Husserl, E. (1997). Fænomonologiens ide. København: Hans Reitzels forlag (Die Idee der Phenomenologie).Google Scholar
  59. Husserl, E. (1999). Cartesianske meditationer. København: Hans Reitzels forlag (Cartesianische Meditationen).Google Scholar
  60. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophy Quarterly, 32, 127–136.Google Scholar
  61. Kant, E. (1909). Fundamental principle of the metaphysics of morals (T. K. Abbott, Trans.). London: Forgotten Books, 1938.Google Scholar
  62. Ketner, K. L. (2009). Charles Sanders Peirce: Interdisciplinary scientist. In E. Bisanz (Ed.), Charles S. Peirce: The logic of interdisciplinarity (pp. 35–57). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd enlarged ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. New York: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor network theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and the qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophy Quarterly, 64, 1983.Google Scholar
  68. Lorenz, K. (1970–1971). Studies in animal and human behaviour I and II. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  69. McGinn, C. (2000). The mysterious flame: Conscious minds in a material world. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  70. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2002. (Originally published as Phenomenologie de la Perception. Paris: Callimard, 1945, English 1962).Google Scholar
  71. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1963/2008). The structure of behavior. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2003). Nature: Course notes from the Collège de France. Evanston: North Weston University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. Albany: State of New York University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Intelex CD-ROM edition (1994), reproducing Vols. I–VI, C. Hartshorne, & P. Weiss (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931–1935; Vols. VII–VIII, A.W. Burks (Ed.); same publisher, 1958. Citations give volume and paragraph number, separated by a period like (Peirce CP 5. 89).Google Scholar
  77. Peirce, C. S. (1980). New elements of mathematics. Amsterdam: Walter De Gruyter Inc.Google Scholar
  78. Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor’s new mind: Concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the mind: A search for the missing science of consciousness. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Penrose, R. (1997). The large, the small and the human mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  82. Schrödinger, E. (1967/2006). What is life and mind and matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Searle, J. (1989). Minds, brains and science. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  85. Searle, J. (1997). The mystery of consciousness. New York: New York Review of Books.Google Scholar
  86. Searle, J. (2007). Putting consciousness back in the brain. In M. Bennet, D. Dennet, P. Hacker, & J. Searle (Eds.), Neuroscience and philosophy: Brain, mind and language. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Sebeok, T. A., & Danesi, M. (2000). The forms of meaning: Modeling systems theory and semiotic analysis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sharov, A. A. (2010). Functional information: Towards synthesis of biosemiotics and cybernetics. Entropy, 12(5), 1050–1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sonesson, G. (2009). New considerations on the proper study of Man – And, marginally, some other animals. Cognitive Semiotics, 2009(4), 34–169.Google Scholar
  90. Spiegelberg, H. (1965). The phenomenological movement: A historical introduction (2 Vols., p. 765). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  91. Stapp, H. P. (2007). The mindful universe. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  92. Steffensen, S. V., & Cowley, S. (2010). Signifying bodies and health: A non-local aftermath. In S. J. Cowley, J. C. Major, S. V. Steffensen, & A. Dinis (Eds.), Signifying bodies, biosemiosis, interaction and health (pp. 331–355). Braga: The Faculty of Philosophy of Braga Portuguese Catholic University.Google Scholar
  93. Thompson, E. (Ed.). (2003). The problem of consciousness: New essays in the phenomenological philosophy of mind. Alberta: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
  94. Tinbergen, N. (1973). The animal in its world (pp. 136–196). London: Allan & Unwin.Google Scholar
  95. Vihalemm, R. (2007). Philosophy of chemistry and the image of science. Foundations of Science, 12(3), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. von Uexküll, J. (1982). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.Google Scholar
  97. von Uexküll, J. (1934). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. A picture book of invisible worlds. In C. H. Schiller (Ed.) (1957), Instinctive behavior. The development of a modern concept (pp. 5–80). New York: International Universities Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  98. Weber, M. (1920). The protestant ethic and “The Spirit of Capitalism” (S. Kalberg, Trans.) (2002). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  99. Wheeler, J. A. (1994). At home in the universe. New York: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  100. Wheeler, J. A. (1998). Geons, black holes & quantum foam: A life in physics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  101. Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  102. Wilson, E. O. (1999). Consilience. The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage Books, Division of Random House, Inc.Google Scholar
  103. Zlatev, J. (2009a). The semiotic hierarchy: Life, consciousness, signs and language. Cognitive Semiotics, 2009(4), 170–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zlatev, J. (2009b). Levels of meaning, embodiment, and communication. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 16(3–4), 149–174.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International Business CommunicationCopenhagen Business SchoolCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations