We are now in a position to state the argument of this series directly.
Across the cases we have examined:
sexual selection
behavioural coordination
the so-called “hard cases”
and neural organisation
a consistent pattern has emerged.
The phenomena that are most often described in terms of signals, information, and communication can be accounted for without invoking semiosis.
What has been shown
Step by step, we have separated two domains that are usually conflated.
On the one hand:
systems exhibit differential responsiveness
patterns are stabilised through selection
coordination emerges across interacting components
On the other hand:
meaning requires structured relations among distinctions
forms must function within a semiotic system
and relations of standing-for must be internally organised
The first is pervasive in biological systems.
The second has yet to be demonstrated in most of the cases described as signalling.
The minimal account
If we restrict ourselves to what is required to explain the phenomena, we find that:
traits correlate with conditions
organisms respond to those traits
responses affect outcomes
and those outcomes feed back into selection
This is enough to generate:
stability
predictability
and coordination
Nothing in this chain requires that:
traits represent conditions
organisms interpret those traits
or meaning is exchanged between them
What the term “signal” is doing
The term signal enters at precisely the point where description begins to expand beyond what is required.
It gathers together:
correlation
responsiveness
and functional consequence
and redescribes them as:
information
communication
and representation
In doing so, it introduces a semiotic vocabulary without establishing a semiotic structure.
The compression of explanation
One way to see this is to consider what happens when we say:
“the trait signals X”
This statement compresses multiple relations:
the trait co-occurs with X
the trait affects behaviour in relation to X
the system has stabilised around this relation
All of this is redescribed as:
the trait means X
The compression is convenient, but it obscures the underlying dynamics.
Signal as shorthand
From this perspective, “signal” can be understood as a form of shorthand.
It allows us to speak quickly about:
reliable correlations
predictable responses
and functional coordination
But as shorthand, it is ambiguous.
It can refer to:
- value-based dynamicsor
semiotic relations
without distinguishing between them.
Why this matters
The ambiguity becomes problematic when the shorthand is taken literally.
If we treat signals as inherently meaningful, we risk:
attributing representational capacities where none are required
overlooking the role of value in structuring the system
and mislocating the source of coordination
In effect, we replace a dynamic account with a semiotic one without justification.
Recentring value
Once the shorthand is unpacked, the explanatory structure becomes clear.
Biological systems are organised through:
differential uptake
reinforcement of certain patterns
and the stabilisation of those patterns over time
This is the domain of value.
Value explains:
why certain traits persist
why certain responses recur
and how coordination is maintained
It does so without invoking meaning.
The absence of semiosis
To say “signal without semiosis” is not to deny that something is happening.
It is to specify what kind of thing is happening.
What we observe in most biological cases is:
structured responsiveness
shaped by history
and stabilised through selection
This is sufficient to produce the phenomena that are described as signalling.
But it does not, in itself, constitute a semiotic system.
A shift in default assumptions
The argument of this series can now be stated as a reversal of a common assumption.
Instead of beginning with:
signalling is present unless shown otherwise
we begin with:
value-based coordination is sufficient unless semiosis is demonstrated
This shifts the burden of proof.
Semiosis is no longer the default interpretation.
It becomes a specific condition that must be established.
What remains open
This does not eliminate the possibility of semiosis in biological systems.
It sharpens the question.
If semiosis is present, it must be shown that:
distinctions are organised into a system
forms function within that system
and relations of meaning are internally structured
Only then can we say that something is not merely responded to, but understood as meaningful.
Beyond the signal
With this in place, the concept of the signal can be reconsidered.
It need not be abandoned.
But it must be used with care.
We can distinguish:
signals as shorthand for value-based coordination
from signs as elements of a semiotic system
The two are not equivalent.
Closing perspective
What began as a question about biological signalling has led to a more general point.
Systems can:
coordinate
stabilise
and produce complex patterns of interaction
without meaning.
Meaning, where it exists, is not given by correlation or response alone.
It depends on a different kind of organisation.
Until that organisation is demonstrated, it is more precise to say:
what we are observing is signal without semiosis.
Transition
One final question remains.
If much of what is called signalling can be explained without meaning, what does this imply for the broader use of concepts like information, communication, and representation across the sciences?
The concluding post will take up this question, and consider what follows from consistently separating value from meaning across domains.
No comments:
Post a Comment