BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Biosemiotics - ECPv6.17.4.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Biosemiotics
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Vienna
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20220327T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20221030T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20230326T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20231029T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230803T113000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230803T114500
DTSTAMP:20230801T042452Z
CREATED:20230624T091008Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T042452Z
UID:1484-1691062200-1691063100@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Coffee break
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/coffee-break-7/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230803T110000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230803T113000
DTSTAMP:20230809T212628Z
CREATED:20230624T091008Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230809T212628Z
UID:1485-1691060400-1691062200@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Liqian Zhou & Qiufen Sun
DESCRIPTION:More constraints\, more freedom: Revisiting semiotic scaffolding\, semiotic freedom\, and semiotic emergence\n[Slides from the presentation] \nTechnically\, constraint is defined as the reduction of degree of freedom. However\, novelties emerge in dynamic systems with constraints. Constraints make once almost impossible states become possible. That is\, constraint may raise the probability of the actual realization of possible states once being only possible but having rare chance to actually realize. When a dynamic system stabilizes to a state with certain constraints\, it provides a scaffolding for new possibilities at higher level. Therefore\, Emergence of novelties at a higher level is possible. We may say\, more constraints create more freedom. \nThis way of understanding dynamic emergence may also help us further understand Jesper Hoffmeyer’s seminal works on semiotic scaffolding\, semiotic freedom\, and semiotic emergence. Semiotic scaffolding makes semiotic freedom of living systems possible. As Hoffmeyer (2015) argues\, \n  \n“Yet\, this particular strategy potentially ignites a self-perpetuating evolutionary dynamics\, since each step taken by a species along this route potentially opens new agendas for further change: the more capable some species are of anticipating and interpreting complex and fast changing situations or events\, the more will evolution favor the development in other species of a well-adjusted set of semiotic tools.” \n  \nIn the presentation\, I will take Terrence Deacon‘s work on the origin of life and therefore of semiosis as an example to show how semiotic scaffolding and semiotic emergence can be understood in terms of the dialectics of constraint and freedom. This understanding indicates that semiotics emergence is a dynamic emergence which is a kind of weak emergence rather than strong ones. It also brings new insight to reconsider the epistemic cut. \n  \nReferences  \nBruni\, L. E. (2008). Semiotic freedom: Emergence and teleology in biological and cognitive Interfaces. The American Journal of Semiotics\, 24(1/3)\, 57-73. \nDeacon\, T. (2021). How molecules become signs. Biosemiotics\, 14\, 537-559. \nHoffmeyer\, J. (2007). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In Babieri\, M. (ed). Introduction to Biosemiotics: The New Biological Synthesis. Dordrecht: Springer\, 149-166. \n  \n 
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/zhou-sun/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230803T103000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230803T110000
DTSTAMP:20230809T212739Z
CREATED:20230624T090954Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230809T212739Z
UID:1483-1691058600-1691060400@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Hongbing Yu
DESCRIPTION:Danger Modeling: Meaning-generation in Three Dimensions\n[Slides from the presentation] \nIn the struggle for existence\, any known species of organisms must avert danger to ensure survival. To do that\, they need to identify—or model—it in ways that are specific to their species and actualized in concrete situations. This is an act of generating meaning that falls perfectly within the purview of biosemiotics. The present chapter uses human danger modeling as a case in point to discuss meaning-generation in the biosemiotic context. The rationale is a three-fold one. Firstly\, the study of danger\, understood in the aspect of meaning-generation\, makes an example of semiotic analysis\, because warning signs are among the most primordial and relevant vehicles for meaning. Secondly\, the Sebeokian concept of modeling serves as a useful tool to tackle this problem. The reason is that the concept underscores semiotic agency and promises to be a highly integrative framework for studying meaning-generation. Thirdly\, humans have evolved into such complex superorganisms that we not only live by existential modeling and semiotic modeling at same time but also deeply entangled in our own semiotic webs while probing into and creating possibilities of new meanings. This threefold rationale underlines the need for a comprehensive approach that considers meaning-generation as actualized in different dimensions. This chapter identifies three such dimensions\, namely\, the representational\, interpretational\, and existential dimension. These three dimensions form a system that corresponds roughly to the Peircean triad of semiosis.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/yu/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230803T100000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230803T103000
DTSTAMP:20230809T212835Z
CREATED:20230624T090954Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230809T212835Z
UID:1482-1691056800-1691058600@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Michael Yudanin
DESCRIPTION:Discursivity and semiotic complexity as driving the shape of animal choice and human freedom\n[Slides from the presentation] \nBiosemiotics\, it seems\, holds the key not only to understanding life but also to one of the more intractable issues that has been bewildering philosophy for a long while – the question of freedom. If we are to try and reconcile the possibility of free choice with biological facts\, we ought to explain how biochemically constructed beings\, subject to biological and thus ultimately physical causality\, can be capable of choosing between alternatives\, not randomly but deliberately\, as random choice can hardly qualify as meaningful control of an organism over itself. Moreover\, we will have to explain it while taking into consideration both the diversity of life on Earth and its evolutionary development. I will argue that Hoffmeyer\, when he attached the name of semiotic freedom to the semiotic complexity that reflects “the depth of meaning communicated or interpreted by living systems\,” is hinting at an important dependency: the degree of freedom is determined by the organism’s capacity to communicate and interpret more complex indicators (Hoffmeyer\, 2010). In the conception of freedom I will be advocating\, the capacity for choice is potentially present in all life and is realized when an organism becomes capable of both acting in the world and representing alternatives to its own consciousness\, or achieving a certain level of Hoffmeyer’s semiotic complexity. The scope of freedom here is determined by the organism’s Umwelt. Yet\, when discursive meta-cognition appears\, the Umwelt becomes vastly more dynamic\, subject more to the limits imposed by the human organism’s own intent rather than merely to the boundaries defined by physiology. This is no simple supervenience: the choices we make consciously alter the boundaries of our semiosphere\, as do the choices others make. This changes the semiotic dynamics of freedom and makes it a very interesting research subject with implications that go beyond individual and all the way to educational and other policies\, as I will try to suggest. \n  \nReferences \nHoffmeyer\, J. (2010). God and the World of Signs: Semiotics and the Emergence of Life. Zygon\, 45(2)\, 367-390.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/yunadin/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230803T093000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230803T100000
DTSTAMP:20230809T212931Z
CREATED:20230624T090954Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230809T212931Z
UID:1481-1691055000-1691056800@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Alexei Sharov
DESCRIPTION:Semiotics of potential meanings\n[Slides from the presentation] \nBecause semiosis is coextensive with living and life-dependent semiotic agents\, meanings (relations of entities to something else that is significant for agents) exist only on condition that semiotic agency exists capable of using/interpreting them. However\, meanings can be actual or potential\, depending on whether they are interpreted by semiotic agents at the given time\, or not interpreted\, respectively. An example of potential meaning is a natural resource (or its feature) that initially has not been utilized by organisms because of the lack of either sense organs or ‘knowledge’ of how to do it. Later\, when agents gained access to this resource by adaptive evolution and/or by learning\, potential meaning turns into actual meaning. \nBecause intrinsic properties of resources remain the same before and after actualization\, it makes sense to consider such potential meanings existing even before they become actual\, but retrospectively. Physics describes potentiality as a field that can be measured at any point in space by an appropriate device. Thus\, I suggest treating potential meaning as a semiotic field that can be measured by some competent semiotic agent if it is placed near the meaning carrier (which is a potential sign). By observing the activity of the agent (e.g.\, living cell) we can simultaneously detect the existence of meaning that was in a potential state before the experiment\, and the capacity of the agent to respond. Thus\, the ontology of meanings is agency-dependent and knowledge-dependent. Meaning is subjective when initially discovered\, but it can spread via communication and become objective within the community of agents. The collective knowledge is updated with the emergence of each new kind of agency: first\, actual meanings are updated in space-and-time proximity of these new agents\, and second\, potential meanings are updated in the whole universe\, as well as in the reconstructed past\, and in the projected future. \nRetrospectively\, the origin of life can be explained as a transition of some pre-existing potential meanings (e.g.\, resources and catalysts) into actual meanings that acquire goal-directedness via collective mutual support and propagation. Thus\, life most likely emerged in complex micro-environments enriched in non-redundant potential meanings. Following Deely\, I assume that such complex environments can ignite the origin of life or provide resources for already existing life. Evolution of living organisms continued actualization of some already existing potential meanings\, and these actualized natural meanings together with new artificial meanings became encoded in hereditary signs and memory for the purpose of reusing them when necessary within the lifespan and beyond (in the progeny). Memory in organisms is a repository of potential meanings (i.e.\, passive memory units that can be activated to communicate their meaning) that enables organisms to adapt on demand by activating interpretation of these potential meanings.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/sharov/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T163000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T170000
DTSTAMP:20230809T213244Z
CREATED:20230624T090826Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230809T213244Z
UID:1465-1690993800-1690995600@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Mikhail Ilyin & Nikolai Skipin
DESCRIPTION:The thresholds for extending the evolutionary synthesis: How far can we go?\n[Slides from the presentation] \nThe research project “Methodological design of extended evolutionary synthesis: interdisciplinary framework for social and life sciences” (Russian Science Foundation\, № 22-18-00383) faces the challenges of crossing interfaces between traditional scientific disciplines\, paradigms (in Kuhn’s sense)\, research programmes (in Lakatos’ sense) and even subtler exploratory projects. Our point of departure is the need to fully utilize the potential of interpretation and thus of semiotics with its interpretant as the utmost noumenal instance of cognition. It seems promising to move top-down through the layers of scientific knowledge from the humanities and social sciences towards the life sciences and further to chemistry and physics as well as to quantum mechanics and cosmology with its string theories\, etc. However adventurous this idea may seem\, the Anthropic Principle in any of its versions implies that interpretation along with observation\, calculus and patterning is universal and applicable to any state of the Observed (measured\, shaped and interpreted) Universe or its constituents. But it is even more evident that interpretation as we use it in our everyday lives – moreover in social and human research – cannot be bluntly applied to study of life forms or molecules or galaxies. We all know about fallacies of anthropomorphism and other obvious cognitive restrictions and methodological censures. \nWe also know that although Kantian antinomies cannot be resolved once and for good\, our human cognitive capacities to conclude (Urteilskäfte) allow us to find here and now pragmatic and palliative solutions. Such solutions inherently are specific and not universal. But consistent exploring of their systematic series and sequences may allow us to disclose transitory forms as well as their pragmatic and palliative mutual interaction. Typically cases and instances reveal themselves on the interfaces or thresholds between domains of our Observable Universe or thresholds of human cognition and scientific investigation. \nThe much-discussed biosemiotic threshold is a typical case of this. Different authors and schools of thought debate if interpreting and coding stay on different sides of the divide or on the opposing banks of Rubicon\, or mingle on the threshold created by the overlapping of distinctly different domains dominated either by coding alone or coding with interpreting. The paper suggests we should go further and explore a series of far-fetching reductions of interpreting and coding. This series may include copying (making an alternative sample of the original)\, reproducing (making another instance of something which is separate and selfsame)\, and finally pulsating (reappearing again and again). All those distinctly different forms can be related to each other by the usage of a common operational scheme: recursion with inversion or rather recursion with an inverse switch.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/skipin-ilyin/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T160000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T163000
DTSTAMP:20230809T213702Z
CREATED:20230624T090910Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230809T213702Z
UID:1477-1690992000-1690993800@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Morten Tønnessen
DESCRIPTION:A biosemiotic perspective on the human condition and the environmental crisis\n[Slides from the presentation] \nIn this presentation I will present the book chapter “A biosemiotic perspective on the human condition and the environmental crisis” (Tønnessen\, forthcoming). The chapter presents a biosemiotic perspective on the basic situation for human beings and that of other organisms\, with an emphasis on the subjective experience of sentient animals\, and the sign use of all lifeforms. The human condition is portrayed as traditionally conceived\, and then revisited in the new context of the current environmental crisis. In recent decades\, the expression ‘The Human Condition’ has been strongly associated with the political philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906–1975). In her book with the same name (Arendt 1958)\, she stresses that “[t]he earth is the very quintessence of the human condition”\, and yet argues that “the “human artifice of the world separates human existence from all mere animal environment”.  \nIn this sense\, in her view\, human reality is distinguished from the reality of any other living being on Earth\, despite our shared ecological circumstances. A cornerstone of the chapter is an analysis of the materiality of the environmental crisis\, and how the massive changes humans have caused in the physical environment can be understood in light of the semiotic agency of humans and other living beings. Experiential aspects of the environmental crisis are highlighted. The aim of the chapter is to improve our understanding of our species´ place in the natural world\, our historical role in causing a global crisis for life\, and how we can move forward towards a more sustainable future.  \nAs Masatake Shinohara (2020) has proposed\, “what conditions human beings in the most fundamental sense includes not only the world of the human artifact but also the world of earthly things”\, and in light of this\, “the consideration of the human condition should be fundamentally reformulated” by making the human world “open to the earthly things that vastly expand outside of the human artifice”. \n  \nReferences \nArendt\, Hannah (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. \nShinohara\, Masatake (2020). “Rethinking the Human Condition in the Ecological Collapse”. The New Centennial Review 20(2): 177–203. \nTønnessen\, Morten\, forthcoming. A biosemiotic perspective on the human condition and the environmental crisis. In Lenart Škof\, Sashinungla\, Sigridur Thorgeirsdottir (eds.)\, Elemental- Embodied Thinking for a New Era (Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures). Springer.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/tonnessen/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T160000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T163000
DTSTAMP:20230727T182907Z
CREATED:20230624T090910Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230727T182907Z
UID:1476-1690992000-1690993800@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Coffee break
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/coffee-break-6/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T151500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T154500
DTSTAMP:20230801T042329Z
CREATED:20230624T090953Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T042329Z
UID:1480-1690989300-1690991100@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Aleksei Turovski
DESCRIPTION:An attempt at a semiotic approach to animal play and joking\nPlay in the animal kingdom is an extremely widespread phenomenon\, most studied in higher vertebrates (birds and mammals)\, but clearly existing in the behavior of reptiles and fish\, possibly even arachnids and insects. Definitely in cephalopods\, chiefly octopuses. \nThe phenomenon of animal play is extremely multifarious and multilayer\, so its definition is subject to many difficulties. In this paper\, I attempt to use the definition proposed by Bekoff and Byers: “Play is all motor activity performed postnatally that appears to be purposeless\, in which motor patterns from other contexts may often be used in modified forms and altered temporal sequences. If the activity is directed toward another living being\, it is called social play.” (Animal Play: Evolutionary\, Comparative\, and Ecological Perspectives\, Bekoff M\, Byers J\, Ed. p. 99) \nStuart Brown\, in stating that animals have an intrinsic urge to play\, declares that play forms one of the basic ways for animals to gain knowledge of themselves and their environment through adaptive\, flexible and pleasure-laden action. (Ibid\, p. 254) \nI must confess that I’m not very happy with the use of the term “purposeless” for I am convinced that animals (vertebrates at least) have an intrinsic need to have fun or\, dare I say\, the need to leave and get impressions\, in accordance with which I propose a definition of the signs of involvement as perceptible traits of animal activity indicating that the animal’s attention is purposefully engaged and targeted in a certain behavioral context. \nThis approach opens up a field of study of swift and extremely targeted signs in animal play. We know very well that young animals play with all manner of objects in all manner of circumstances in display of practically all major forms of behavior\, such as sexual\, social\, defensive\, parental\, comfort etc. Whereas playing with living creatures\, in terms of both intra- and interspecies contacts\, animals use very specific signs designating the situation strictly as play. Most-studied examples include the canine “bow” as an invitation to play\, ravens’ khrr-klack sound as an invitation for a play flight etc. \nIn my experience\, different species of animals\, especially in post-childhood and adult life\, develop a special kind of play\, which seems to me as playing with situations of play. An animal engaged in such activity holds back the specific “play” sign\, starting a detailed imitation of a sexual advance or attack\, dominance etc. but immediately displaying the previously omitted “play” sign at the first hint of the adversary exhibiting the proper reaction to the non-play activity. \nThis I would describe as “joking” between animals. Joking of this kind is easily observable in the behavior of apes\, monkeys but also bears\, canids\, felines\, Corvidae and parrots. It seems to me that in animal play\, and especially in jocular play\, enhanced possibilities of mutagenesis in memes takes place. Therefore\, it could be very interesting in the study of the evolution of signs.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/turovski/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T144500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T151500
DTSTAMP:20230809T214058Z
CREATED:20230624T090910Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230809T214058Z
UID:1478-1690987500-1690989300@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Nicola Zengiaro
DESCRIPTION:Ecosemiotics between matter and life: starting from John Deely’s interpretation of semiotic scaffolding\n[Slides from the presentation] \nThe presentation is an extension of the arguments proposed by John Deely in his article “Building a Scaffold: Semiosis in Nature and Culture”\, published in 2015 in the journal Biosemiotics. In particular\, the idea that physical scaffolding prepares the plans for the advent of organic life will be extended. In this sense\, Deely suggests that there is a semio-material support that serves as a condition and direction for the «erection of a scaffolding moving the lifeless universe in the direction of being able to support life» (349). His theoretical hypothesis seeks to show how semiosis could extend beyond life\, onto a physical universe that determines the conditions of possibility for the emergence of organisms. Thus\, semiogenesis\, if it is possible to speak of genesis\, could be sought in its material dimensions. This somehow seems to propose a counter-proposal regarding the premises of biosemiotics\, that life and semiosis are co-extensive. \nThe argumentation will consist of three parts: firstly\, Deely’s arguments proposed in the article will be briefly summarised\, emphasizing the thesis that semiosis extends beyond life; secondly\, a dialogue between biosemiotics and physiosemiotics will be proposed through an ecosemiotic reinterpretation that integrates the material plane into the semiosis of nature; finally\, thanks to the notion of semiotic scaffolding\, a resemantization of physiosemiotics will be presented\, embedding it in the study of ecosystemic semiotics. \nThe aim of the talk is to link Deely’s argument\, which is posited from a physiosemiotic point of view\, with contemporary advances in biosemiotics. From this perspective\, we can read Deely’s proposal in syntony with biosemiotics\, using ecosemiotics as a tool to harmoniously integrate the two discourses. In fact\, if we think of ecosemiotics through a holistic perspective\, we can combine the biotic and the abiotic\, the organic and the inorganic\, nature and culture\, life and non-life through a continuity that stands on the semiotic scaffolding. Taking Deely’s proposal about the materiality of the scaffolding preparing life seriously\, it could be understood as the material structure that brings forth the process that directs the signifying relations between life and matter. In Deely’s reinterpretation\, semiotic scaffolding can be understood as a structure that offers evolutionary directions to organisms and the relationships between them from an ecosystemic and material point of view. The scaffolding in an ecosystem can be interpreted as the planes in which organic and inorganic life meet and condition each other. \nFinally\, a reinterpretation of physiosemiosis from ecosemiotics will be proposed\, resemantising the notion of “Physis”\, in the Greek sense of the term\, i.e. nature in its whole. The semiotic scaffold can be a useful framework for making life and non-life dialogue through complicity and continuity\, showing the intricate semiotic network and its processes\, in a first and fundamental reality. Physiosemiotics\, from an ecosemiotic perspective\, can be seen as the structure of the semiotic scaffolding that makes ecosystemic organizations emerge.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/zengiaro/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T141500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T144500
DTSTAMP:20230801T041505Z
CREATED:20230624T090826Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T041505Z
UID:1464-1690985700-1690987500@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Massimo Cerizza
DESCRIPTION:In praise of Brainwaves as Tissue. A biosemiotic perspective\nUntil discovery of telescopes Saturn was thought\, by proto-scientists\, to be the last planet of our solar system. Equally nowadays\, in anatomic perspective\, the skin is considered histologically the furthest tissue that divides us from \, and is in contact with the external environment. But exactly as the upgrade of lens technology made observable otherwise invisible objects in the skies\, the upgrade in physics of electromagnetic waves by Maxwell led to the discovery of brain electromagnetic waves made observable by electroencephalography 100 years ago. \nAll around the head exists an appreciable amount of electromagnetic energy  brain related. It reaches the skin through bones and goes further. It can be measured as waves with their amplitude and frequency. \nAfter 100 years of study and research\, forty of which even I\, myself\, have worked\, I have felt the urge to expose a biosemiotic analysis about the ontological and classificatory status of brain waves in the context of anatomy and histology. Otherwise maybe for next 100 years\, brain waves will still be considered devoid of an autonomous status as tissue\, differently from blood or connective tissue or nervous tissue. But the urges of times on the technological side find the biosemiotic community structure\, both theoretically and personally on the rise. \nA serious theoretical community implant that states that life is based on sign action\, not just molecular interaction. I hope all the main schools of biosemiotics will best appreciate the nature of a tissue where molecules are zero\, made of waves that are mere energy\, no mass (or a vanishingly small mass). In that “tissue” persists the pure sign action devoid of the molecular interaction but that is also firmly grounded on solid empirical observables of neurophysiology and molecules. \nAs the astronomical community discovered Uranus and its meaning beyond Saturn\, so nowadays the biosemiotic community has the opportunity to discover a tissue beyond skin. A tissue made of signs\, because it has no molecules. A tissue where the basic unit of life is nearly 100% pure biosemiosis deserves a proper ontological status able to be included in an extended view of anatomy\, and not only of physiology. Anatomy of waves of course\, but not less physical than bones. Tissue of bones gives time to be seen even with no skill. Other tissues need to be fixed and processed to be conserved and studied\, otherwise they decay. \nThis tissue “Brainwaves” has the shortest time possible to be seen because electromagnetic waves are light. One hundred millisecond for waves\, 100 years for bones. (Yes you have to be on the ball to catch it on the neurophysiological practice). \nSurely far faster in its cycle than DNA expression or protein building\, this extreme difference on both planes\, of speed and of immateriality do create some difficulties in cognitive acceptance of such a mechanism that extends the depth of semiotic freedom. \nNot to be scared by those differences\, but we are committed to searching for similarities\, a useful ethical choice in “making-meaning” of “Brain Waves As a Tissue” because it’s even ours. \n  \nReferences \nHoffmeyer\, Jesper (2008). Biosemiotics: An Examination into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs. University of Scranton Press. \nda Silva\, F Lopes (1991). Neural mechanisms underlying brain waves: from neural membranes to networks. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1991 Aug; 79(2):81-93.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/cerizza/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T131500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T141500
DTSTAMP:20230801T041942Z
CREATED:20230624T090854Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T041942Z
UID:1472-1690982100-1690985700@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Lunch
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/lunch-3/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T124500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T131500
DTSTAMP:20231029T090611Z
CREATED:20230624T090910Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231029T090611Z
UID:1475-1690980300-1690982100@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:John Pickering
DESCRIPTION:Extending Biosemiotics\nThe Extended Evolutionary Synthesis also extends the role of biosemiotics. This paper will seek to extend it further\, both to the metaphysics of C. S. Peirce and A. N Whitehead and to Ingold’s treatment of inheritance (Ingold\, 2022). \nFirstness\, experience without reaction\, is fundamental to Peirce’s metaphysics\, giving qualia an ontological status equivalent to matter.  Thus his broader concepts\, such as tychism and synechism\, are actually aspects of panpsychism. By bringing Peirce and von Uexküll together\, biosemiotics restores meaning\, and hence subjectivity\, to biology. This paper will propose to move beyond biology to a more universal view of subjectivity. \nAt first sight it might appear that Hoffmeyer agrees\, since he notes “This world is full of subjects and something must have created them.” (Hoffmeyer\, 1996\, page 57). However\, he stops short of panpsychism and takes subjectivity to be something that emerges with an evolutionary increase in semiotic freedom. \nBut to say that evolution proceeds without subjectivity and then at some point it just emerges is hardly an explanation. If evolution is accompanied by an increase in subjectivity\, there must have been some there to start with. It is more parsimonious to claim that subjectivity occurs universally to a greater or lesser extent. \nThis paper will suggest that taking this view offers an opportunity to extend biosemiotics\, not only towards metaphysics but also towards Ingold’s radical view of evolution itself\, in which ecology is central. Further\, it will propose that this will make biosemiotics more relevant to the ecological crisis facing us all (Pickering\, 2023). \n  \nReferences \nHoffmeyer\, J. (1996) Signs of Meaning in the Universe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. \nPickering\, J. (2023) Metaphysics Matters: Towards Semiotic Causation. Journal of Consciousness Studies\, Vol. 30\, No. 1 -2\, 215-237. \nIngold\, T. (2022) Evolution without Inheritance: Steps to an Ecology of Learning. Current Anthropology\, Vol. 63\, supplement 25\, 32-54. \nPresentation handout text (PDF download) \nSlides from the presentation
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/pickering/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T121500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T124500
DTSTAMP:20230801T041915Z
CREATED:20230624T090854Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T041915Z
UID:1471-1690978500-1690980300@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Julian Zubek & Joanna Rączaszek-Leonardi
DESCRIPTION:A view on abstract concepts from an interaction-based perspective: An attempt at a semiotic analysis\nMost of the approaches to concepts\, both in cognitive science and in artificial intelligence\, are informed by information-processing views. Concepts are mapped to categories\, which despite their fuzzy boundaries\, graded structure and family resemblance (Rosch\, 1973)\, are still mostly characterized by objective features pertaining to the objects in those categories. This has not changed even in the newest deep learning models\, when those features are not translatable to straightforward descriptions but still objectively belong to the classified objects. \nYet in “action-first” or interactive modern paradigms\, such as ecological psychology and enactivism\, perception and action are inseparable\, and the world is perceived in terms of relational features\, affordances. This relational view puts center-stage the first-person experience\, including experience of one’s own movement and agency (Sheets-Johnston\, 2011)\, often in interaction with others\, which makes the theory of concepts deeply embodied\, situated\, naturally interactive and normative (Rączaszek-Leonardi & Zubek\, 2023). Such a view on concepts facilitates explaining their action and goal-relevance and their flexibility\, however begs the question about the processes of abstraction from the immediate contact with the world. \nIn our paper we will attempt to trace how the abstraction processes could look like\, and we envision them as particular historical and social paths of agents’ experience with the world. Following William James\, we will treat emergent knowledge structures as selection capabilities developed as skills in dealing with and making sense of the world. By attempting a semiotic analysis of this process\, we hope to shed light on a variety of possible trajectories of concepts acquisition. We will treat signs as constraints allowing selection between alternative concepts. As we will argue\, acquisition of a certain concept can be equated with the ability to interpret a sign leading to the selection of that concept. Apparently the same concept can be elicited by multiple signs\, possibly belonging to different classes (iconic\, indexical or symbolic). Congruently\, individual trajectories of acquiring a concept may vary and involve different semiotic processes. We will analyze the classic distinction between concrete and abstract concepts in the light of Peircean semiotic categories\, starting with firstness\, secondness and thirdness. The necessity of social interaction in establishing even the most concrete concepts using the most basic signs will be discussed. \nReferences \nRączaszek-Leonardi\, J.\, & Zubek\, J. (2023). Is love an abstract concept? A view of concepts from an interaction-based perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B\, 378(1870)\, 20210356. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0356 \nRosch\, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology\, 4(3)\, 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 \nSheets-Johnstone\, M. (2011). The primacy of movement (expanded 2nd edn). Amsterdam\, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/zubek/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T114500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T121500
DTSTAMP:20230801T041836Z
CREATED:20230624T090854Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T041836Z
UID:1470-1690976700-1690978500@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Frederik Stjernfelt
DESCRIPTION:Peirce’s ideas of the man-animal distinction\nPeirce was an evolutionist and one of the first to generalize the concept of evolution from biology to physics and sociology alike. He also took some interest in locating what it is that separates the human animal from other higher animals. As to biological instinct\, it was the human urge to externalize signs in art\, technology and science and other products of the extended mind; semiotically\, it was the ability to make hypostatic abstractions; psychologically\, it was the notion of extended self-control. This paper revisits Peirce’s conceptions of the human condition. Peirce ascribed humanity great tasks in the evolution of the planet as of the universe; yet\, his evaluation of the individual human animal was very low\, as to autonomy\, courage\, moral\, as well as intelligence. By which means did he think this chasm between the individual human animal and the grand aims of humanity could be bridged?
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/stjernfelt/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T113000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T234500
DTSTAMP:20230801T041810Z
CREATED:20230624T090854Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T041810Z
UID:1469-1690975800-1691019900@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Coffee break
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/coffee-break-5/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T110000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T113000
DTSTAMP:20230801T042133Z
CREATED:20230624T090910Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T042133Z
UID:1474-1690974000-1690975800@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Tommi Vehkavaara
DESCRIPTION:Meaningfulness and applicability of semiotic concepts in biosemiotics\nThe 1st Gatherings in biosemiotics was held 22 years ago in Copenhagen and the first sentence of its CFP proclaimed the intention “to establish a regular framework for discussions of biosemiotics in the context of biology”. I must have been taken that seriously\, because without being biologist at all\, my talk was titled “How and why to naturalize semiotic concepts for biosemiotics?”\, i.e. how semiotic concepts of human\, mental\, logical\, and linguistic sciences might be applicable in the natural science of biology (Vehkavaara 2002). Eight years later\, the sixth of the so-called Saka-theses (Kull et al. 2009) proclaimed “(b)iosemiotics does not take for granted the wide variety of concepts of the sign\, sign action\, and so on […] but undogmatically sees these as a resource for the construction of an up-to-date\, refined\, and better-grounded […] version of a general semiotics” (p. 170). The question is the same as my talk in 1st Gatherings. One of the many difficulties in this is the integration of conceptual and empirical studies. Often in empirical studies\, the phenomena are dealt with standard biological manners\, and the semiotic concepts either play a rather thin and decorative role\, or are referred only in some vague intuitive senses. Theoretical studies\, in turn\, easily stuck into debates between competing abstract definitions without criteria specific enough to control their applicability. Some of the theoreticians start from a kind of foundational and universalistic semiotic metaphysics or transcendental philosophy (seemingly e.g. Søren Brier\, John Deely\, Kalevi Kull\, and Thure von Uexküll) that is supposed to replace more standard non-semiotic naturalism. Others take the opposite strategy and start from standard physical theory but aim to end up showing how semiotic concepts emerge or become possible as the complexity of physico-chemical systems increases (e.g. Deacon 2013\, Short 2007\, Bickhard 1998\, and to some extent Hoffmeyer 1993). This last strategy may nevertheless be too consuming for more concrete studies\, and therefore perhaps some antifoundationalist and pluralist naturalism would be more preferable. In these biosemiotic approaches\, it would be accurate to consider on which grounds and how the theoretical starting points are chosen? \nIn empirical studies\, the choice appears often as rather random\, but it is implicitly present even in the naturalistic strategy of Deacon and others\, because some preliminary idea about signhood or meaningfulness is after all required. Be the starting points some already developed semiotic conceptions or merely intuitive ideas\, we should pay attention to the semiotic phenomena that we use as exemplary prototypes for the used or constructed concepts of sign\, meaning\, etc. Of the already established semiotic theories and conceptions applied in biosemiotic studies\, several motivating problems and starting point intuitions can be listed: (1) subjectively meaningful perception (e.g. Uexküll\, Husserl\, and Sonesson)\, (2) socially shared mental ideas (e.g. Saussure and structuralists\, Lotman\, and later Wittgenstein)\, (3) representational cognition of rational inquiry (Peirce and Dewey)\, (4) mechanical action or correspondence (e.g. Barbieri’s cry “meaning is a molecule!”\, protosign of Sharov 2015\, and possibly Morris’ behaviorism)\, (5) intentional or teleological action (e.g. Alexander 2013\, constructive representation of Vehkavaara 2003\, and minimal ontological representation of Bickhard 1998). These differing starting points produce the differently structured and functioning concepts of sign or meaning. I would take it unlikely that any single concept of sign or semiosis could be sufficient to describe all biosemiotic processes and be somehow self-evidently universally applicable. It is also possible that in many cases more than one differently structured signs functions together. \n  \n  \nReferences \nKull\, K. et al. (2009). Theses on Biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a Theoretical Biology. Biological Theory 4(2)\, 167–173. \nStjernfelt\, F. (2022). Sheets\, Diagrams\, and Realism in Peirce. de Gruyter GmbH. Berlin/Boston.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/vehkavaara/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T103000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T110000
DTSTAMP:20230801T041756Z
CREATED:20230624T090953Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T041756Z
UID:1479-1690972200-1690974000@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Sigmund Ongstad
DESCRIPTION:Structures of Animal Utterances Seen as Aesthetics – and as Communication. Semiotic perspectives on functions of so-called animal beauty\n  \nDue to a dramatic increase of research in ethology and zoo-communication over the last decades biosemiotics has now access to an extensive amount of empirical studies of how and why animals structure their utterances. Research on this key communicational element may focus on its physicality (as science) and/or a particular structure’s quality (as aesthetics). For zoo-communicational research on utterances both are necessary. Some of these empirical studies contain detailed and rich information which should enable meta-studies of formed structures of animal utterances. \nOne such study is Prum (2017) suggesting that birds’ plumage should\, in line with Darwin’s mostly rejected view\, be seen as a result of an evolutionary battle between displaying\, functioning as addressive temptation and as evaluative spectating of the display. He claims that a race between performing and judging has\, over time\, changed the game from “the survival of the fittest” to “the survival of the prettiest”. \nPrum’s research is preferred as empirical (meta-)data for my study\, not because of his “Darwinian” claim that beauty drives evolution\, but for his meticulous diachronic study of feathers and plumage and for his principle discussion of the possible functions of structured form of animal utterances. Epistemologically\, especially two relevant perspectives intersects in his work\, an aesthetical\, focusing the function of form as “beauty” and a more holistic one\, where form is seen as part of (semiotic) communication in a wider sense. \nI am not alone paying interest in this issue. Kull (2022) aims to make sense of animal aesthetics by an adjusted Peircean semiotics\, specifically through his coined notion “perfect semiotic fitting”. That beauty drives evolution Kull basically consider as false. He turns his attention to the sign-level in order to problematise the notion of beauty in nature (and culture) and suggests that semiotics is a relevant tool for problematising even animal aesthetics. \nOngstad (2019) presents a socio-semiotic framework for studies of animal utterances and life-genres (‘habits’). It stresses meso-level concepts such as utterance and life-genre to enable a bridging between micro (the sign) and macro (the Umwelt). Further\, it combines four semiotic levels sign\, utterance\, life-genre\, and life-world\, and further five intertwined communicational aspects\, form\, content\, act\, time\, and space as well as a set of processes\, such as semiosis and positioning. Such a framework should enable a discussion of the role of structured form as part of a taxon’s communicational system. \nI will first discuss claimed roles and functions of formed structures of birds’ utterances in Prum (2017) based on the framework by contrasting an aesthetic and a communicational perspective and further search\, comparatively\, for compatibilities between the semiotic perspectives of Kull (2022) and of Ongstad (2019). \n  \nReferences  \nKull\, K. (2022). The biosemiotic fundamentals of aesthetics: beauty is the perfect semiotic fitting. Biosemiotics\, 15(1)\, 1-22. \nOngstad\, S. (2019). A conceptual framework for studying evolutionary origins of life-genres. Biosemiotics\, 12(2)\, 245-266. \nPrum\, R. O. (2018). The evolution of beauty: How Darwin’s forgotten theory of mate choice shapes the animal world-and us. Anchor.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/ongstad/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T100000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T103000
DTSTAMP:20230801T041733Z
CREATED:20230624T090826Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T041733Z
UID:1467-1690970400-1690972200@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Debbie Cole
DESCRIPTION:Preliminary Connections with Semiotics in Linguistic Anthropology\nAs a newcomer to the field of Biosemiotics\, I find the Biosemiotics Glossary Project a fascinating example of intentional interdisciplinary and intercultural communication.  Linguists within anthropology have long worked on language contact\, i.e. the emergence\, maintenance\, and evolution of new registers within their cultural contexts. The building of the Biosemiotics Glossary likely displays similarities to the emergence of contact registers in other cultural domains\, while also potentially exhibiting some interesting differences\, in part because of its intentional nature. In the spirit of Favareau and Kull’s (2015) On Biosemiotics and Its Possible Relevance to Linguistics\, this paper will consider linguistic anthropology’s potential relevance to Biosemiotics. \nBuilding on the work of widely cited contemporary theorists within the fields of linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics\, this paper will attempt to take small steps in two directions. First\, it will sketch some general properties of register emergence (enregisterment) to introduce some terms that could be useful for taking a meta-communicative perspective to the interdisciplinary collaboration and communication between scholars building the Biosemiotics Glossary project. Second\, it will present a handful of semiotic concepts that have been developed within linguistic anthropology. By connecting them to concepts that have already been added to the glossary (such as agency and intentionality)\, I hope to open a dialog about the potential usefulness of linguistic anthropological approaches for Biosemiotic scholarship. This exchange would hopefully also lead to recommendations from seasoned Biosemiotics scholars for concepts from their various disciplines that could be usefully incorporated into linguistic anthropological work. \n  \nReferences \nContact talk: The discursive organization of contact and boundaries. Zane Goebel\, Deborah Cole\, and Howard Manns\, eds. 2020. London: Routledge. \nEckert\, Penny. 2017. Comment: The most perfect of signs. Iconicity in variation. Linguistics. 55(5): 1197–1207.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/cole-cole/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T093000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230802T100000
DTSTAMP:20231029T110406Z
CREATED:20230624T090826Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231029T110406Z
UID:1466-1690968600-1690970400@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Paul Cobley
DESCRIPTION:Does Biosemiotics Need a Theory of Reading?\nPaul Cobley\nCentral to biosemiotics is the process of interpretation\, which takes place across all species of life. General semiotics has been enlivened by the concept of ‘the text’ and the concomitant act of ‘reading’ (Lotman 1964)\, with interpretation embedded in it. The term ‘reading’ clearly invokes a linguistic metaphor\, a derivation from literate culture with a fully anthropic bearing. Is such a metaphor of any use to biosemiotics in its resolute commitment to studying semiosis across species and within organisms\, the overwhelming majority in both cases being non-literate? Is it even worthwhile as a supplement to interpretation. This paper proposes that a reconsideration of the phenomenon of reading in the light of recent research will contribute to a finer sense of biosemiotics’ mission in the academy and beyond. The paper will do this in two main ways. First\, it will point to the emerging study of reading processes which demonstrates not a set of cerebral or socio-cultural co-ordinates that are enacted in acts of reading\, but the invocation of distributed bodily apparatuses characterized by scalarity (Trasmundi\, Toro and Mangen 2022). Second\, based on studies of the use of close reading (Cobley and Siebers 2021)\, it will suggest that embodiment in reading offers indications of what readers seek to get close to when they carry out close reading. In particular\, it will be argued that reading closely affords (or at least promises to afford) greater proximity to ‘the real’ as it is conceived in a biosemiotic frame by John Deely. Deely’s distinction between sign\, object and thing offers both biosemiotics and the theory of (close) reading a configuration for the recognition of a realm beyond signification plus the possibility of signs signifying beyond themselves and objects. In biosemiotic terms\, this entails constraints and agential opportunities. Effectively\, ever closer reading\, like Achilles’ progress in catching the tortoise\, will be argued to expand the parameters of the human Umwelt. \n  \nReferences \nCobley\, Paul and Siebers\, Johan (2021) ‘Close reading and distance: between invariance and a rhetoric of embodiment’ Language Sciences 84 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101359 \nLotman\, Jurij M. (1964) Lektsii po struktural’noi poetike. Vvedenie\, teoriia stikha. Tartu \nUniversity. (Brown University Slavic Reprint 5. Ed. Thomas Winner\, Brown University Press\, 1968). \nTrasmundi\, Sarah Bro; Toro\, Juan & Mangen\, Anne (2022). Human Pacemakers and Experiential Reading. Frontiers in Communication. ISSN 2297-900X. 7. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.897043.
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/cobley/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T163000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T170000
DTSTAMP:20231029T105940Z
CREATED:20230624T090758Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231029T105940Z
UID:1463-1690907400-1690909200@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Mariana Vitti Rodrigues\, Claus Emmeche & Henrik Nielsen
DESCRIPTION:Protein language models and the semiotic language of Signal Peptides\nMariana Vitti Rodrigues\, Claus Emmeche & Henrik Nielsen\nAre language models learning to read the language of nature? This communication explores the learning potential of applying automated methods to predict signal peptides using protein language models. Signal Peptides (SP) are short amino acid sequences whose function is to guide its protein towards the secretory pathway in a cell. Being non-stable parts of proteins\, signal peptides are difficult to identify experimentally. One approach to identify SP bioinformatically is to use Protein Language Models which are inspired by Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms (SignalP 6.0\, Teufel et al. 2022). In this context\, we inquire: What is the role of the computer (language) model in our knowledge about signal peptides? To investigate this question\, we will propose a semiotic analysis of protein language\, inquiring the extent to which language models are able to read bits of ‘the language of nature’. Our hypothesis (H1) is that the semiotic concept of dicisign\, or natural proposition (Stjernfelt 2014)\, understood as a kind of sign which conveys information\, can shed light on the SP phenomenon. Peirce presented the dicisign as a double-sign structure by the colocalization between an Icon and an Index (Peirce CP 2.312\, 1903). The iconic part of a dicisign embodies the possible properties that can be attributed to the sign’s object\, being its description. The indexical part of the dicisign indicates possible objects of attribution\, being the reference of its object. The function of a dicisign is to inform\, to convey the form of its object by its own abilities\, in order to generate new interpretants which claim that the icon-index syntax holds. The SP\, viewed as a dicisign\, can be understood as playing a zipcode function: it guides a given package (icon/protein) to a certain location (index/transmembrane or outside the cell)\, conveying the form of its object (protein translocation). Within this framework\, we will discuss the extent to which Signal Peptides can be considered as part of semiosis in order to investigate which semiotic aspects of SP can be ‘translated’ (or digitalized) to be analyzed through language models (we will even pose this question to another language model). Finally\, we invite the audience to reflect upon the extent to which a biosemiotic approach to SPs plays a relevant role as a source of new knowledge in the growing automation of scientific practice. \nReferences \nTeufel\, F.\, Almagro Armenteros\, J.J.\, Johansen\, A.R. et al. (2022). SignalP 6.0 predicts all five types of signal peptides using protein language models. Nat Biotechnol 40\, 1023–1025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01156-3 \nPeirce\, C. S (1958) The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Electronic edition. Vols. I-VI\, Hartshorne\, C.\, Weiss\, P. (Eds.)\, 1931-1935. Vols. VII-VIII\, Burks\, A. W. (Ed.). Charlottesville: Intelex Corporation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Quoted as CP\, followed by the volume and paragraph]. \nStjernfelt\, F. (2014) Natural Propositions. The Actuality of Peirce’s Doctrine of Dicisigns. Boston\, Mass.: Docent Press. \n[Slides from the presentation]
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/rodrigues-vitti-emmeche-nielsen/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T160000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T163000
DTSTAMP:20231029T105803Z
CREATED:20230624T090758Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231029T105803Z
UID:1462-1690905600-1690907400@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Rebeca Méndez-Veras & Òscar Castro
DESCRIPTION:Biosemiotics as a theoretical framework to approach the human gut-microbiota-brain-axis\nRebeca Méndez-Veras & Òscar Castro\nThe human brain has approximately 86-100 billion neurons; however\, the enteric nervous system has an estimated 200 million neurons\, which is why our gut is called the “second brain”. Both systems connect through several sensors\, microbes\, and cells (Sarkar et al.\, 2018); host and microbiota interact continuously. \nThe gut-microbiota-brain-axis (GMBA) is a communication network which engages in a constant and complex dialogue. It connects the central nervous system (CNS) and the gastrointestinal tract. The brain\, immune cells\, and gut microbes communicate through signaling pathways and soluble factors such as cytokines\, central lymphatic vessels\, vagal connections\, amino acids\, neurotransmitters\, hormones\, and neuroactive metabolites (Sarkar et al.\, 2018). These communication elements can directly affect the gut\, CNS\, and immune system and indirectly affect the brain. Despite some disagreement\, several studies have shown that the gut microbiota influences cognitive functions (Sarkar et al.\, 2018). \nIn this study\, we present biosemiotics as a theoretical framework to explain the biocommunication occurring in the GMBA. We will use tryptophan-serotonin signaling as an example of neurotransmission and examine how Jesper Hoffmeyer´s semiotic scaffolding is one of the best ways to approach semiosis in this pathway. Do microbes communally work with host cells? Is their behavior part of a “shared agenda” (Hoffmeyer\, 2014) or are they capable of making individual decisions? Is health\, a continuous peaceful coexistence (as Hoffmeyer says) between the host homeostatic mechanisms and microbes? Is a disruption in this “blissful state” what leads to disease\, to cognitive impairment? These are some of the questions that we pretend to answer\, and that will lead us to reframe others as the ones proposed by those working on research regarding the use of pro(psycho)biotics as therapeutics. \nAs pointed out by Sharov and Vehkavaara (2015)\, “Biosemiotics should include both object-agent and meta-agent perspective in studying signs processes in living organisms” and “the importance of studying molecular interactions through biosemiotics terminology gives us a wider view of the problem” (Sharov & Vehkavaara\, 2015). A holistic approach is the only path to truly understanding the human-microbiome interconnection\, and biosemiotics is a wonderful framework to provide it. \n  \n  \nReferences \nHoffmeyer\, J. (2015). Semiotic Scaffolding of Multicellularity. Biosemiotics 8\, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9231-6 \nSarkar A\, Harty S\, Lehto SM\, Moeller AH\, Dinan TG\, Dunbar RIM\, Cryan JF\, Burnet PWJ (2018). The Microbiome in Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. Trends Cogn Sci. Jul;22(7):611-636. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.04.006. Epub 2018 Jun 12. PMID: 29907531. \nSharov\, A.A.\, Vehkavaara\, T. (2015). Protosemiosis: Agency with Reduced Representation Capacity. Biosemiotics 8\, 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-92197 \n[Slides from the presentation]
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/mendez-castro/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T154500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T160000
DTSTAMP:20230801T041322Z
CREATED:20230624T090758Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T041322Z
UID:1461-1690904700-1690905600@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Coffee break
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/coffee-break-4/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T151500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T154500
DTSTAMP:20231029T105546Z
CREATED:20230624T090758Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231029T105546Z
UID:1460-1690902900-1690904700@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Peter Lang
DESCRIPTION:Deleuze and Biosemiotics\nPeter Lang\nThe aim of this paper is to establish a clear link between biosemiotics and Deleuzean philosophy. This can be done by highlighting the affinity in Deleuze’s work to theories of autopoiesis and organic/biophysical sense-making. A compelling through-line can be drawn between Deleuze\, theories of living systems\, and biosemiotics in the way an organism\, as emergent assemblage\, territorializes its world. If expression is considered as a continual modification of a system of interactions with an external milieu\, it is fundamentally interwoven with a notion of “effective action” or the cognitive activity inherent to living systems. From the perspective of biological systems theory\, cognitive activity produces a surplus of signification\, an Umwelt\, or world of meaningful interactions for the system. Biosemiotics teaches that lower-level (but no less essential) processes not only ground higher order structures from which meaning emerges\, but are themselves meaning-making. Contingent molecular interactions in turn enable the organism to engage with and make sense of a world. Sense-making\, the result of a complex of recursive\, embodied activity allows us to ultimately acknowledge concepts such as “mind” and “subject” as not only wholly embodied\, but grounded in a single\, creative biophysical process. Specifically\, I will focus on the cell as an organic semiotic system and the processual relation between cognition and language. The living cell\, as a result of its function as a bounded system\, marks inside and outside\, establishes a set of lived relations\, enacts a repertoire of behaviors\, and establishes the foundation for a self-other distinction.  \nIn order to make my case\, I will begin with an analysis of double causality in Deleuze’s early book Logic of Sense before linking it to a reading of double articulation in the third chapter of A Thousand Plateaus. The former presents a philosophical overview of internal dynamics that is later recast in an explicit discussion of living systems in the latter. Along the way\, my readings will be mediated by insights from autopoietic theory\, namely those of Maturana and Varela and the work of Evan Thompson. Securing both a philosophical and a biological understanding of dynamic systems in Deleuze foreshadows a reading of autopoiesis as a theory of biosemiotics which in turn substantiates biosemiotics as at once a scientific and an aesthetic theory of subjectivity. Biosemiotics as a discipline bridges science\, theory\, and the arts. A Deleuzean biosemiotics coheres and mobilizes these concerns and\, in my estimation\, remains the only approach that is consistently biophysically and aesthetically productive from the point of view of individual subjective emergence. \n[Slides from the presentation]
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/lang/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T144500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T151500
DTSTAMP:20231029T105225Z
CREATED:20230624T090635Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231029T105225Z
UID:1458-1690901100-1690902900@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Tyler Bennett
DESCRIPTION:Waste and the Second Turn in Biosemiotics\nTyler Bennett\nThe main characteristics of the second turn in biosemiotics are: “(a) extending the integration to Saussurean approaches; i.e. developing a general semiotics which synthesizes Peircean\, Saussurean and Uexküllean theories; and (b) grounding aesthetics and ideology in biosemiotics” (Chávez Barreto et. al 2022). The second turn was declared only at the beginning of the 2020s\, but already considerable progress has been made in the name of this turn. The 2023 Special Issue of the Biosemiotics journal\, edited by myself and Yogi Hendlin\, features contributions that emphasize all these characteristics. Out of control growth and consumption are byproducts of an economic theory of value that is disconnected from the environment but\, in order for it to work\, Marx’s flawed answer to this disconnection must be brought up to date with a contemporary understanding of ecological cost (Hornborg 2001). The arts and humanities are caught in the self-destructive loop of trying to prove their instrumental value and defend their legitimacy against charges of obsolescence from STEM – one reason is that postmodern humanities seem to have no interest in science (Gare 2022). The transdisciplinary framework of biosemiotics offers a solution to this deadlock\, but it is still not clear which of the humanities are to blame\, and which are unfairly maligned for their postmodernism. For example\, second–generation semiology (Kristeva\, Derrida\, Lacan) is often pejoratively lumped with postmodernism\, however\, one of the primary tasks of the second turn is to rehabilitate precisely these figures. Rehashing the actual status of the ‘postmodern’ is a major task of the second turn – it is no longer acceptable to discredit entire swathes of academic\, literary and artistic production as simply being ‘postmodern’ when postmodernism as such is no simple fad or set of whimsical stylistic choices (like montage) – in the 90s the postmodern was only a guess at what was to come\, but today it is a ubiquitous state of affairs\, where the fluid identity effects of communication technology have obliterated the old idols\, and those still trying to turn back the clock are just pissing in the wind. The second turn brings the advancements of biosemiotics to bear upon the most pressing questions of today’s supercharged media environment. This entails definite social and existential commitments that not everyone will agree with\, the least of which is certainly not the commitment to witnessing the ongoing ecological catastrophe. Probably the status of these commitments will be the source of the most lively discussion. \nReferences \nChávez Barreto\, Eugenio Israel; Kull\, Kalevi; Lacková\, Ludmila; Miyamoto\, Oscar; Bennet\, Tyler James 2022. Funktionskreis and the biosemiotic signifieds. Sign Systems Studies 50(2/3). DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2022.50.2-3.07 \nGare\, Arran 2022. Against Posthumanism: Posthumanism as the World Vision of House-Slaves. Borderless Philosophy 4:1-56 (2021) \nHornborg\, Alf 2001. The Power of the Machine: Global Inequalities of Economy\, Technology and Environment. Boulder: Alta Mira Press. \n[Slides from the presentation]
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/bennett/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T141500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T144500
DTSTAMP:20231029T105356Z
CREATED:20230624T090758Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231029T105356Z
UID:1459-1690899300-1690901100@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Ľudmila Lacková
DESCRIPTION:Biological Writing: An Appendix to The Language Metaphor of Life\nĽudmila Lacková\nThe language metaphor of life has been proposed as an analogy to the linguistic model\, where a specific biological level corresponds to a specific language level (DNA bases correspond to phonemes\, triplets of bases correspond to words and genes correspond to sentences). This presentation is a reconstruction of the original language metaphor of life (Jakobson 1971) and will focus on two main axes. The two axes are built on a critical reading of F. de Saussure and the postulates of modern linguistics about speech as primary semiotic system and linearity as the second principle for language in CLG (1916). Firstly\, Saussure’s privileging of speech over writing is reconsidered. Jakobson’s analogy starts with phonemes and naturally leads to replacing phonemes with written units of the genetic phonological alphabet\, or the “letters of the genetic alphabet”. Here we unexpectedly bring the critique by Derrida (1967) or Harris (2000) of the overestimation of the phonological alphabets in the western cultures into biology\, and propose an alternative to the Jakobsonian language metaphor of life: we can imagine for the genetic script\, rather than phonological alphabet\, some kind of pictographic or logographic writing system reminiscent of Egyptian hieroglyphs or Chinese characters. As proposed by Anton Markoš\, in some cases DNA bases are not read base by base\, but by the superficial structure of triplets\, that is\, by the spatial shape of a triplet. This observation leads us to understand the DNA script as composed not of discrete digital units of second articulation but of compositional units defined by first articulation only[1]. The second axis then develops the question of the supposed linearity of the genetic text. Jakobson’s original metaphor led to the reduction of complex genetic texts into digital linear strings transcribable by a computer. Privileging speech over writing misapprehends the genetic script as a phonological\, discrete and digital text. With the proposal to replace speech by\, ideographical or pictographic writing\, linearity is no longer a condition for the genetic script. As a conclusion\, it will be demonstrated that the language metaphor of life can be dimensional\, processual and dynamic. \n  \nReferences \nDerrida J. (1967). De la grammatologie.Paris: Editions de Minuit. \nHarris\, R. (2000). Rethinking Writing. Indiana University Press. \nJakobson\, R. (1971). Selected Writings\, Volume 2: Word and Language; Mouton: The Hague\, s. 289–333. \nMarkoš\, A. and Hajnal\, L. (2007). Staré pověsti (po)zemské\, Praha: Pavel Mervart. \nSaussure\, F. de. 1995 (1st ed.1916). Cours de linguistique générale (ed. by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye) Paris\, Payot \n[1] For the notion of double articulation see Martinet\, A. 1967. Eléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Colin \n[Slides from the presentation]
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/lackova/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T131500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T141500
DTSTAMP:20230801T041141Z
CREATED:20230624T090635Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230801T041141Z
UID:1457-1690895700-1690899300@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Lunch
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/lunch-2/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T124500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T131500
DTSTAMP:20231029T105023Z
CREATED:20230624T090635Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231029T105023Z
UID:1455-1690893900-1690895700@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Óscar Miyamoto
DESCRIPTION:Tales of semiotic freedom\nÓscar Miyamoto\nDo we have the means to clearly explain biosemiotics to the general public? Reaching broader audiences is not only feasible\, but also a responsible step if biosemiotics aims at changing the classic way biology is understood in other disciplines. We are\, though\, a long way from conveying our terminology in accessible and timely ways outside of our own academic journals. \nInterestingly\, central biosemiotic topics have been already raised in serious media outlets. Take for instance Aeon Magazine’s mention of Jesper Hoffmeyer’s concept of scaffolding in the context of biodiversity; and Jakob von Uexküll’s concept of umwelt to explain the origin of cognition. On a similar note\, Quanta has covered slime mould’s habituation\, and Real Science has reported sperm whales’ arbitrary codes\, even if they do not necessarily label those topics as ‘mycosemiotics’ or ‘zoosemiotics’\, respectively. These evidence-based narratives show that scientific accuracy and impactful storytelling can go hand in hand. \nThe potential to purposefully apply biosemiotics in everyday scientific literacy is yet to be discovered. I argue that biosemiotics has such a responsibility\, specifically when it comes to clarifying some of the most amazing and puzzling natural phenomena\, such as abiogenesis\, convergent evolution\, and mind: the ‘bread and butter’ of our field. \nMy presentation will show an example of how such ‘biosemiotic storytelling’ could look like. More concretely\, I will tell a story about umwelt phenomenology based on the concept of “semiotic freedom” (Hoffmeyer 1996: 61). Not being the typical scholarly talk\, my tale will start as follows: “In the murky waters of a Tanzanian creek\, a platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) is looking for lunch. “Umberto” closes his eyes and nostrils\, letting the tickling sensations in his bill guide his scanning movements. The Australian monotreme relies on a multimodal coupling of 100 thousand electroreceptors and mechanoreceptors located on his bill skin. This underwater ‘sixth sense’ provides Umberto with tridimensional coordinates of his invertebrate snacks\, even when he cannot see them. \nUmberto’s electroceptive ‘scanner’ does something far more complex than ‘encoding’ the position of submerged insects and crayfish. It relies on Umberto’s ability to pertinently interpret surplus of meaning. On the one hand\, Umberto’s bill makes an abbreviation or sampling of some relevant aspects of the environment. And\, on the other\, Umberto’s wits have a productive reference inasmuch they enhance the vividness of his sentience\, augmenting his experiential Umwelt\, “the phenomenal world or the self-world of the animal” (Uexküll 1992: 319). \nIn Tartu\, Estonia\, a suspicious hooded crow (Corvus cornix) is hiding caches inside her secret pantries and fridges. “Nicola” will episodically remember the expiration date and exact location of each buried snack\, anticipating which items to retrieve first (e.g. fast-decaying worms)\, and which items to retrieve later (e.g. mussels and hazelnuts). Nicola’s theftproof food-storing techniques developed within a social game of deception and theory of mind. Umberto\, Thomas and Nicola are eye-opening examples of the intrinsic biosemiotic value of life: interpretative freedom. In the words of Jesper (Homo sapiens): “the most pronounced feature of organic evolution is not the creation of a multiplicity of amazing morphological structures\, but the general expansion of ‘semiotic freedom’\, that is to say the increase in richness or ‘depth’ of meaning that can be communicated” (Hoffmeyer 1996: 61). [to be continued] \nReferences \nHoffmeyer\, J. (1996). Signs of Meaning in the Universe. Bloomington: Indiana UP. \nSebeok\, T.A. (1991). A Sign is Just a Sign. Bloomington: Indiana UP. \nUexküll\, J. v. (1992) [1934]. A stroll through the world of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica 89(4)\, 319-391. \n[Slides from the presentation]
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/miyamoto/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T121500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T124500
DTSTAMP:20231029T104734Z
CREATED:20230624T090635Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231029T104734Z
UID:1456-1690892100-1690893900@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Phillip Guddemi
DESCRIPTION:The Creative Porpoise Climbs the Semiotic Scaffolding\nPhillip Guddemi\nOne of Jesper Hoffmeyer’s many innovative concepts in biosemiotics was that of semiotic freedom. I propose to relate Hoffmeyer’s idea of semiotic freedom to Gregory Bateson’s concept of levels of learning\, by way of describing an experiment in porpoise learning which was inspired by Bateson’s observations of human-porpoise interactions in a performing oceanarium setting. \nIn this oceanarium\, the Sea Life Park in Hawaii\, in the middle 1960s\, the public was told that what they were observing in their entertainment was porpoise learning\, according to the accepted canons of behaviorism at that time. Bateson noted that this was impossible\, since the same porpoises put on six shows a day five days a week\, thus they could not be learning anew each time. On the other hand\, it would spoil the illusion if a tourist saw the same porpoise learning the same thing again. \nBateson postulated that the porpoise must achieve a learning at a different “level\,” i.e. that what the trainer wanted was for the porpoise to produce a new behavior when called upon to do so. Bateson proposed to demonstrate this experimentally. The experimental porpoise was subjected to several sessions just as the show porpoises had been. In each session the porpoise is frustrated by not being rewarded for the same behavior as in the previous session. At about the fourteenth session\, the porpoise dances excitedly in the tank and produces twelve new behaviors in sequence\, four of them never seen in the species before. \nThe behaviorist concept of a “behavior” (which Bateson did not use unironically) must of course be critiqued. What the trainers called a behavior is a part of a human-animal relationship\, involving for the porpoise a decontextualizing of some habitual response to the porpoise’s umwelt which is then re-porpoised (so to speak) into the new context of the human-porpoise “show” encounter. This is a kind of biosemiotic transfer from what the behavior means in its originary porpoise context\, and the porpoise’s capacity to do this may point to a precursor of symbolic sign use. \nThis may especially be true given the ability of the porpoise to demonstrate learning at the conceptual level of the ability to produce novel (or creative) recontextualizations of behavior. (The trainer herself\, Karen Pryor\, in spite of her ostensible behaviorism\, entitled the chapter she wrote about the experiment “The Creative Porpoise.”) Bateson considered this as learning at the level of category\, inspired by mathematical and philosophical concepts of the early 20th Century. Peirce might have seen it as an exemplification of his phrase the habit of habit change. And Hoffmeyer would very likely have seen it in the context of semiotic scaffolding – related to an increase in what he called semiotic freedom. \n  \n  \nReferences \nBateson\, Gregory. “Double Bind\, 1969.” Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago\, University of Chicago Press\, 2000\, pp. 276-8. \nHoffmeyer\, Jesper. Biosemiotics: An Examination into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs. Scranton and London\, University of Scranton Press\, 2008. \nPryor\, Karen. Lads before the Wind: Adventures in Porpoise Training. N.Y.\, Harper and Row\, 1975. \n[Slides from the presentation]
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/guddemi/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T114500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20230801T121500
DTSTAMP:20231029T104519Z
CREATED:20230624T090620Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231029T104519Z
UID:1453-1690890300-1690892100@isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com
SUMMARY:Isabel Ferreira
DESCRIPTION:The Importance of the Concept of Umwelt in a Changing World\nIsabel Ferreira\nIn the last decades\, humankind has been experiencing the cumulative effects of a profound technological development that has accelerated immensely the dynamics of human social life\, that has been reshaping the human sphere of action and interaction\, that has hybridised human reality by merging the natural and the artificial\, creating new possible forms of agency and consequently new lived worlds. \nAccording to Ferreira (2018\, 2021\, 2022)\, the deployment of artificial cognition in the twenty-first century\, has introduced a fundamental twofold ontological shift: (i) tools have lost their purely instrumental status and have suddenly become potential autonomous entities capable of a form of shared agency when co-acting with humans and even capable of decision making in multiple circumstances (ii) the environment\, on the other hand\, has acquired a hybrid nature\, where the analogic and the digital merge and where the physical and the virtual converge\, where natural intelligence and autonomous artificial systems cohabit in a fusion that blurs the lines between the physical\, the digital and the biological. \nAs Jesper Hoffmeyer pointed out (1996\, 2008)\, life is fundamentally grounded in semiotic processes.  The present paper claims that Uexkull’s concept of Umwelt and Hoffmeyer’s concept of Semiosphere play an essential role in the identification of the phenomena that the present technological (r)evolution brings about and in the analysis of its own dynamics. \n  \nReferences \nFerreira\, M. I. A. (2018). Cognitive architectures: The Dialectics Agent/Environment. In M. I. A. Ferreira\, J. Sequeira\, & R. Ventura (Eds.)\, Cognitive architectures\, intelligent systems\, control and automation: Science and engineering (Vol. 94). Springer\, Cham. ttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97550-4_1. \nFerreira\, M. I. A. (2021). On human condition. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Robot Ethics and Standards—ICRES 2021. Retrieved from https://www.clawar.org/icres2021/ \nFerreira\, M.I.A. (2022). On Human Condition: The Status of Work. In: Aldinhas Ferreira\, M.I.\, Fletcher\, S.R. (Eds.) The 21st Century Industrial Robot: When Tools Become Collaborators. Intelligent Systems\, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering\, vol 81. Springer\, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78513-0_1 \nHoffmeyer\, J. (1996). Signs of Meaning in the Universe. Bloomington. Indiana University Press. \nHoffmeyer\, J. (2008) Biosemiotics. University of Scranton Press. Chicago. USA. \n[Slides from the presentation]
URL:https://isbsarchive.dreamhosters.com/gibs23pres/ferreira/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR