pp 1–21 | Cite as

Semiosis and Bio-Mechanism: towards Consilience

  • Rasmus Gahrn-AndersenEmail author
  • Stephen J. Cowley


In biosemiotics, some oppose the study of sign relations to empirical work on bio-mechanisms. Urging consilience between these views, we show the value of Alain Berthoz’s concept of simplexity. Its heuristic power is to present molecules, cells, organisms and communities as using tricks to self-fabricate by agglomerating ‘simplex’ bio-mechanisms. Their properties enable living systems (including observers) to self-sustain, adapt and, at best, to thrive. But simplexity also empowers agents to engage with their surroundings in novel ways. Life thus not only generates know-how but also social organisation. With languaging, people can act and inhibit: they can also simplexify. As a result, we can see a fruit as ripe, feel when things are awry or behave in ways likely to be judged to be apt. While all living beings make situated use of the historical and the local, humans also bind these with the use of both practices and artifacts. As a result, brains come to emulate what occurs in-between persons and their surroundings. In pursuing the basis for our powers, we focus on inhibition. This simplex trick enables a plant to use dormancy, a bird to learn, and a person to mesh languaging with other aspects of action/perception. Indeed, inhibition enriches human style phenomenology as impersonal resources are used to expand our epistemic horizons. Experience links a self-fabricating body, ancient bio-mechanisms, community-based concerns and epigenetically derived know-how.


Simplexity Biosemiosis Enaction Observers Distributed language Phenomenology 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Alexander, V. N. (2013). Creativity: Self-referential mistaking, not negating. Biosemiotics, 6(2), 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen, J. T. (2013). Linguistics and evolution: A developmental approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aplin, L. M., Sheldon, B. C., & Morand-Ferron, J. (2013). Milk bottles revisited: Social learning and individual variation in the blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus. Animal Behaviour, 85(6), 1225–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, L. J., & Litchfield, D. (2013). Interactivity and embodied cues in problem solving, learning and insight: further contributions to a “theory of hints”. In S. J. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition beyond the brain (pp. 223–239). Dordrecht, London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbieri, M. (2003). The organic codes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barbieri, M. (Ed.). (2007). Biosemiotics: Information, codes and signs in living systems. New York: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Barbieri, M. (2015). Code biology: A new science of life. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  9. Berthoz, A. (2012). Simplexity: Simplifying principles for a complex world. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berthoz, A. (2017). The vicarious brain, creator of worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chemero, A. (2011). Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cobley, P. (2016). Cultural implications of biosemiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colombetti, G. (2013). The Feeling Body: Affective Science Meets the Enactive Mind. Cambridge MA. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Compain, P. (2003). Le pari de la simplexité: Le simple et le complexe en synthèse organique (pp. 129–134). April–May: L’actualité chimique.Google Scholar
  15. Cowley, S. J. (1994). The place of prosody in Italian conversations. University of Cambridge: Unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
  16. Cowley, S. J. (2002). Why brains matter: An integrational perspective on “the symbolic species”. Language Sciences, 24, 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cowley, S. J. (2008). Meaning in nature: Organic manufacture? Biosemiotics, 1, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cowley, S. J. (2011a). Taking a language stance. Ecological Psychology, 23(3), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cowley, S. J. (Ed.). (2011b). Distributed language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  20. Cowley, S. J. (2012). Mimesis and language: A distributed view. Interaction Studies, 13(1), 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cowley, S. J. (2014a). The integration problem: interlacing language, action and perception. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 21(1–2), 11–23.Google Scholar
  22. Cowley, S. J. (2014b). Linguistic embodiment and verbal constraints: Human cognition and the scales of time. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.Google Scholar
  23. Cowley, S. J. (2017). Changing the idea of language: Nigel Love's perspective. Language Sciences, 61, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cowley, S. J. (2018). Language and life: Is meaning biosemiotic? Language Sciences, 67, 46–58. Scholar
  25. Cowley, S. J. & Gahrn-Andersen, R. (Eds.) (2019). Simplexity, language and human agency. Special Issue of Language Sciences, 71.Google Scholar
  26. Cowley, S. J., & Gahrn-Andersen, R. (submitted). Simplexity and simplexifying.Google Scholar
  27. Cowley, S. J., & Kravchenko, A. (Коули С.Дж., Кравченко А.В.) (2006). Динамика когнитивных процессов и науки о языке. Вопросы языкознания. English version: Cognitive dynamics and the language sciences available at:
  28. Cowley, S. J., & Markoš, A. (2018). Lineages, human language and evolving meshworks. Language Sciences, 71, 8–18. Scholar
  29. Cowley, S. J., & Steffensen, S. V. (2015). Coordination and language: Temporality and time-ranging. Interaction Studies, 16(3), 474–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Deacon, T. W. (1998). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  31. Deacon, T. W. (2011). Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  32. Dennett, D. C. (1989). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Dewey, J. (1896). On the reflex arc in psychology. Psychological Review, 3, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Donald, D. (1991). The origins of the modern mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Farina, A. (2013). Soundscape ecology: Principles, patterns, methods and applications. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Favareau, D. (2009). Introduction: An evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In D. Favareau (Ed.), Essential readings in biosemiotics (pp. 1–77). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gahrn-Andersen, R. (2017). But language too is material! Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.
  39. Gahrn-Andersen, R. (2018). Biological simplexity and cognitive heteronomy. Language Sciences, 71, 38–48. Scholar
  40. Gallagher, S. (2001). The practice of mind: Theory, simulation or primary interaction? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 83–108.Google Scholar
  41. Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Developmental psychology: Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415(6873), 755.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  43. Godfrey-Smith, P. (1996). Complexity and the function of mind in nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American sociological association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harries-Jones, P. (2017). ‘Steps’ to agency: Gregory Bateson, perception, and biosemantics. Biosemiotics, 10(2), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hoffmeyer, J. (1997). Signs of meaning in the universe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Husserl, E. (2012). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport, 7(14), 2325–2330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kravchenko, A. V. (2009). The experiential basis of speech and writing as different cognitive domains. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(3), 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kravchenko, A. V. (2011). How Humberto Maturana’s biology of cognition can revive the language sciences. Constructivist Foundations, 6(3), 352–362.Google Scholar
  51. Lassiter, C. (2018). Language and Simplexity: A powers view. Language Sciences, 71, 27–37. Scholar
  52. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (2013). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Linell, P. (2004). The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Linell, P. (2015). Dialogism and the distributed language approach: A rejoinder to Steffensen. Language Sciences, 50, 120–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Malinowski, B. (1946). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism (pp. 296–336). Eighth edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.. [Originally, 1923].Google Scholar
  60. Maturana, H. R. (2002). Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 9(3–4), 5–34.Google Scholar
  61. Meltzoff, A. N. (1988). Imitation, objects, tools, and the rudiments of language in human ontogeny. Human Evolution, 3(1–2), 45–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Pattee, H. H. (2001). The physics of symbols: Bridging the epistemic cut. Biosystems, 60, 5–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Pattee, H. H. (2012). The necessity of biosemiotics: Matter-symbol complementarity. In H. H. Pattee & J. Raczaszek-Leonardi (Eds.), Laws, langauge and life (pp. 275–292). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Raimondi, V. (2014). Social interaction, languaging and the operational conditions for the emergence of observing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.Google Scholar
  65. Raimondi, V. (2018). The bio-logic of languaging and its epistemological background. Language Sciences, 71, 19–26. Scholar
  66. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sebeok, T. A., & Danesi, M. (2012). The forms of meaning: Modeling systems theory and semiotic analysis. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  68. Steffensen, S. V. (2013). Human interactivity: Problem-solving, solution-probing and verbal patterns in the wild. In S. J. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition beyond the brain (pp. 195–221). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stewart, J. (2010). Foundational issues in enaction as a paradigm for cognitive science: From the origin of life to consciousness and writing. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sutton, J. (2007). Batting, habit and memory: The embodied mind and the nature of skill. Sport in Society, 10(5), 763–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Taylor, T. J. (2000). Language constructing language: The implications of reflexivity for linguistic theory. Language Sciences, 22(4), 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thibault, P. J. (2018). Selves, synergies, simplexities: Languaging in a complex world. Language Sciences, 71, 49–67. Scholar
  73. Thompson, E. (2004). Life and mind: From autopoiesis to neurophenomenology. A tribute to Francisco Varela. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(4), 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thorndike, E. L.(1898). Animal Intelligence: An Experimental Study of the Associative Processes in Animals. Psychological Review, Monograph Supplements, No. 8. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  75. Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication (pp. 321–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. van den Herik, J. C. (2017). Linguistic know-how and the orders of language. Language Sciences, 61, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. von Neumann, J. (1966). The theory of self-reproducing automata (A. Burks (Ed.)). Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  78. von Uexküll, J. (1957). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. In C. H. Schiller (Ed.), Instinctive behavior (pp. 5–80). Madison: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  79. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Weller, A., Villejoubert, G., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (2011). Interactive insight problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 17(4), 424–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Language and CommunicationUniversity of Southern DenmarkSlagelseDenmark

Personalised recommendations