If value can account for the coordination and stabilisation of biological systems, why does the language of meaning persist?
Why do systems governed by differential uptake so readily appear to involve signals, information, and communication?
The answer lies not in the presence of meaning, but in the appearance of meaning.
Reliability invites interpretation
Consider a simple pattern:
a trait is consistently associated with a particular condition
a response is consistently elicited by that trait
the outcome of that response is consistently beneficial or consequential
From the outside, this stability is striking.
When correlations are reliable, they begin to look intentional. When responses are consistent, they begin to look directed.
It is natural, from this perspective, to describe the trait as:
conveying information
indicating a state
or signalling a condition
But this is already an interpretive move.
From pattern to message
The transition can be described as follows:
A stable pattern of correlation is observed
The pattern is taken as informative
The information is reified as something carried by the trait
The trait is described as a message
At each step, an additional layer is introduced.
What began as:
repeated association within a system of value-based responses
is redescribed as:
a communicative relation between sender and receiver
The explanatory framework shifts from selection dynamics to semiotic exchange.
The role of the observer
A key factor in this shift is the perspective of the observer.
From our standpoint:
correlations are visible
regularities are identifiable
outcomes can be compared and interpreted
This vantage point allows us to construct a mapping:
trait → condition
Once such a mapping is established, it is easy to treat the trait as if it were carrying that condition as content.
But this is a description imposed from outside the system.
Correlation as the basis of “aboutness”
The sense that something is “about” something else often arises from reliable correlation.
If:
a feature consistently co-occurs with a condition
and consistently precedes or predicts it
then the feature begins to appear as if it refers to that condition.
This apparent “aboutness” is a product of:
statistical regularity
and functional association
It does not, by itself, establish a semiotic relation.
The shortcut to meaning
Once a pattern is stable and predictive, the conceptual leap to meaning becomes tempting:
if a feature tracks a condition
and affects behaviour in relation to that condition
then it is described as representing it
This shortcut compresses:
correlation
responsiveness
and selection
into a single notion of communication.
But in doing so, it risks conflating:
- functional associationwith
semiotic relation
Why the illusion is compelling
The appearance of meaning is not arbitrary. It is grounded in the structure of the system.
Three factors reinforce it:
Together, these create a field in which:
features seem to “carry” their consequences.
From within such a field, meaning appears as a natural explanation.
No need for interpretation
Despite this appearance, nothing in the system requires that organisms interpret signals.
What is required is:
sensitivity to features
differential responsiveness
and mechanisms that reinforce certain outcomes
These are sufficient to generate coordinated behaviour.
Interpretation, in the semiotic sense, is not a necessary component.
Appearance without semiosis
We can now state the core point clearly:
The appearance of meaning can arise from value-based dynamics alone.
Meaning-like descriptions emerge when:
correlations are stable
responses are reliable
and outcomes are functionally significant
But these conditions can be met without any semiotic system being in place.
Reframing “signals”
From this perspective, the term “signal” can be understood as a description of how things appear from a particular vantage point.
It captures:
the observer’s ability to map patterns
and to predict outcomes based on those patterns
But it does not, by itself, establish that:
something is being communicated
or that meaning is being exchanged
What is being explained?
This brings us to an important clarification.
When we describe a biological feature as a signal, we may be explaining:
why it correlates with certain outcomes
why it persists across generations
why it elicits certain responses
But we are not necessarily explaining:
how meaning is produced
or whether meaning is involved at all
The appearance of meaning is itself something that requires explanation.
Transition
If value-based dynamics are sufficient to produce the appearance of meaning, the next question is whether meaning, as a distinct phenomenon, ever plays an explanatory role in these systems.
To address this, we must now consider the opposite possibility:
that some systems do involve semiosis—and that the challenge lies in identifying when value ends and meaning begins.
No comments:
Post a Comment