If the language of signalling introduces more than is required, and Darwin’s account proceeds without meaning, then the question becomes unavoidable:
what, exactly, is doing the explanatory work in these systems?
The answer, we suggest, is value.
Not value as judgement, or evaluation in a human sense, but value as a non-semiotic dynamic of differential uptake—a way in which some possibilities are preferentially actualised over others.
From response to selection
Let us return to the basic structure:
variation is present
organisms respond differentially
some outcomes are reproduced more than others
This is often described in terms of signalling and information.
But it can be described more directly as:
a system in which certain configurations are taken up and others are not.
The key is not what anything means, but what is taken up.
Differential uptake
At the centre of this account is a simple but powerful idea:
not all possibilities are equally likely to be actualised.
In biological systems:
some traits attract more mating opportunities
some behaviours are more likely to be reinforced
some responses are more likely to occur
This unevenness is not random.
It is structured.
And that structure is what we are calling value.
Value without meaning
Crucially, value does not require semiosis.
A system can exhibit:
stable preferences
consistent patterns of response
long-term regularities
without any element of:
representation
standing-for
or interpretation
What is required is:
a bias in uptake
and a mechanism for reinforcing that bias
This is enough to generate:
coordination
selection
and stabilisation
The peacock, again
Seen from this perspective, the peacock’s tail is not a message.
It is:
a feature that is differentially taken up
within a system of reproductive preference
Females do not need to interpret the tail.
They need only:
respond to it in ways that affect mating outcomes
Those responses, repeated over time, shape the distribution of traits.
The system stabilises around those patterns.
No representation required
At no point does this process require that:
the tail represents fitness
the female recognises that representation
or a relation of meaning is established
The explanatory chain is complete without these elements.
Introducing them does not extend the explanation—it redescribes it.
Value as structuring force
Value, in this sense, is not an added layer.
It is the structuring force of the system.
It determines:
which possibilities are more likely to be actualised
which patterns persist
and which configurations become stable over time
It operates through:
reinforcement
selection
and feedback
Not through meaning.
Coordination without communication
One of the most important consequences of this view is that:
coordination does not require communication.
Organisms can:
align their behaviours
stabilise interaction patterns
and produce coherent outcomes
without exchanging meanings.
What is required is not communication, but coupled value dynamics.
Reinterpreting “information”
From this perspective, the language of information can be reconsidered.
When we say:
a trait carries information
we may simply be observing that:
it is reliably associated with certain outcomes
and reliably taken up in certain ways
This reliability can be fully accounted for by value:
stable correlations
reinforced responses
repeated selection
No semiotic content need be invoked.
The economy of explanation
There is a principle at work here.
If a system can be explained in terms of:
differential uptake
and value-based selection
then the introduction of meaning is unnecessary.
And unnecessary elements should be treated with caution.
Not because they are false, but because they may obscure the mechanisms that actually generate the phenomena.
Value across domains
This notion of value is not confined to sexual selection.
It extends across biological systems:
predator–prey interactions
foraging behaviours
social coordination
neural selection processes
In each case, patterns emerge because:
some possibilities are preferentially actualised
and those preferences are stabilised over time
Value is the common dynamic.
Recentring the explanation
What this post proposes is a shift in explanatory focus:
away from meaning
toward value
Not as a denial of semiosis, but as a clarification of where it is—and is not—required.
In many biological cases, value does the work that is attributed to signalling.
Transition
If value is sufficient to explain coordination and selection, then the persistence of the language of signalling requires explanation.
Why do these systems so readily appear meaningful?
Why does value so easily get redescribed as communication?
To answer this, we return to the appearance of meaning itself—and examine how reliability, correlation, and response generate the illusion of semiosis.
No comments:
Post a Comment