Up to this point, we have treated biological “signals” with suspicion—not because the phenomena themselves are doubtful, but because the language used to describe them may be doing too much work.
We have seen how:
value-based dynamics can explain coordination and selection
reliable correlations can produce the appearance of meaning
and observer descriptions can reframe functional associations as communication
The question now is not whether meaning appears.
It clearly does.
The question is:
what would have to be true for semiosis to actually be involved?
Moving beyond appearance
If meaning is to be more than an interpretive overlay, it must correspond to something real in the organisation of the system.
In other words:
semiosis must be a property of the system itself, not just of the observer’s description.
This sets a higher bar than correlation or responsiveness.
Many systems exhibit:
consistent patterns
differential responses
and stable associations
But these features alone do not establish semiosis.
They establish value-mediated coordination.
Semiosis requires something more structured.
A system of distinctions
At a minimum, semiosis presupposes a system in which:
differences are not merely observed, but organised
relations between forms are internally structured
and elements function within a network of contrasts
Meaning arises not from isolated correlations, but from relations among distinctions.
This is the domain in which signs operate.
A sign does not stand alone. It functions because it occupies a position within a system where:
it contrasts with other possibilities
it participates in a set of oppositions
and its identity is defined relationally
Without such a system, there is no semiotic structure—only patterns of response.
Form and function within a semiotic system
For semiosis to be present, a form must function as something within a system of meanings.
This implies:
the form is not just a feature that elicits a response
but a unit that derives its role from its place in a structured whole
In such a system:
a given form can be selected from among alternatives
and its selection carries relational consequences within the system
Meaning, then, is not a property attached to a form in isolation. It is a function of its position within a structured set of options.
Not just correlation, but organisation
Value-based systems can generate strong and reliable correlations:
certain traits co-occur with certain outcomes
certain responses follow certain stimuli
But semiosis requires more than correlation.
It requires that these relations be:
organised into a system of differences
available as alternatives within that system
and interpretable only in relation to those alternatives
In other words, semiosis involves structured choice, not just patterned response.
The role of alternatives
A crucial feature of semiotic systems is the presence of alternatives that could have been realised but were not.
Meaning depends on:
what is said versus what could have been said
what form is chosen versus other available forms
what relation is instantiated versus other possible relations
Without a system of alternatives, there is no contrast. Without contrast, there is no meaning.
This introduces a layer that goes beyond value-based selection.
It is not merely that one outcome is more likely than another. It is that:
the system is organised in terms of differences that are themselves meaningful.
Semiotic structure vs responsive dynamics
We can now contrast two types of system:
Value-based dynamics:
operate through differential uptake
stabilise patterns through selection
require no internal representation of distinctions
generate coordination without meaning
Semiotic systems:
operate through structured relations among forms
organise distinctions into systems of contrasts
allow forms to function as signs within that system
depend on the availability of alternatives and their relations
Both may involve patterns of response.
But only the latter involves semiosis.
Why this distinction matters
If semiosis is to be invoked in biology, it must be shown that:
the system is organised semiotically, not just dynamically
distinctions function within a structured network of contrasts
and forms derive their roles from that structure, not merely from correlations
Otherwise, what is being described is not semiosis, but value-mediated coordination.
Re-evaluating biological “signals”
With these criteria in place, we can return to familiar cases:
mating displays
alarm calls
colouration patterns
behavioural cues
The question is no longer:
do these features correlate with something and elicit responses?
That much is already established.
The question is:
do they participate in a system of distinctions in which their function is defined semiotically?
If not, then describing them as signals may be a convenient shorthand—but not a literal account of semiosis.
The burden of proof
The default assumption in many biological contexts is that signalling is occurring.
From the perspective developed here, the burden is reversed.
It is not enough to show:
correlation
responsiveness
or functional relevance
To establish semiosis, one must demonstrate:
structured relations among forms
systemic organisation of distinctions
and the functional role of those forms within a semiotic system
Without this, the invocation of meaning remains ungrounded.
Transition
Having clarified what semiosis would require, we are now in a position to revisit the biological cases that motivated this discussion.
Do any of them meet these criteria?
Or are they better understood as instances of value-based coordination that merely appear semiotic from an external perspective?
In the next post, we examine some of the more challenging cases—those that seem closest to genuine signalling—and test them against this framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment