Attention and Consciousness

  • Felice Cimatti
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 18)


The human is an animal that refers to itself as an “I”. According to Descartes, the subject is an axiom, and everything else follows from this primordial certainty. This is a dualism: to postulate an I as separate from the natural world. Prodi rejects this dualism. The challenge of Prodi is to find a naturalistically way to explain how human subjectivity can emerge from the world of things; that is, from biosemiotic complementarity to the I. For Prodi, following Vygotsky’s hypothesis, the “I” qua self-conscious psychological entity, is inseparable from the pronoun “I”, i.e. the discursive capacity to refer to oneself. Human consciousness is therefore the capacity to pay attention to oneself by means of language.


Anti-dualism Consciousness Self-consciousness Attention Vygotsky 

BibliographyIn ItalianOther Works Cited

  1. Alač, M., & Violi, P. (Eds.). (2004). In the beginning: Origins of semiosis, Semiotic and Cognitive Studies 12. Bologna: Brepols.Google Scholar
  2. Barbieri, M. (1985). La teoria semantica dell’evoluzione. (Thom, René, preface.) (Saggi, Scienze.) Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  3. Barbieri, M. (2000). I codici organici: La nascita della biologia semantica. (Capire la vita 1.) Ancona: peQuod editore.Google Scholar
  4. Barbieri, M. (2001). The organic codes: The birth of semantic biology. (Capire la vita 2.) Ancona: peQuod editore.Google Scholar
  5. Cimatti, F. (2000b). The circular semiosis of Giorgio Prodi. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 351–379.Google Scholar
  6. Cobley, P. (2016). Cultural Implications of Biosemiotics, Biosemiotics 15. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Esposito, R. (2015). German philosophy, French theory, Italian thought. In D. Gentili & E. Stimilli (Eds.), Differenze italiane. Politica e loso a: mappe e scon namenti. Roma: Derive Approdi.Google Scholar
  8. Favareau, D. (2010b). Introduction and commentary: Giorgio Prodi (1928–1987). In: Favareau 2010a: 323–327.Google Scholar
  9. Higuera, R., & Julio, C. (2016). The Place of Semantics in Biosemiotics: Conceptualization of a Minimal Model of Semiosic Capabilities, Dissertationes Semioticae Universitatis Tartuensis 24. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  10. Merrell, F. (2013). Meaning making: It’s what we do; It’s who we are, Tartu Semiotics Library 12. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  11. Prodi, G. (1986a). Semiosic competence, development of. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics. Vol 2, N–Z, Approaches to Semiotics 73 (pp. 884–887). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Prodi, G. (1989d). Toward a biologically grounded ethics. Alma Mater Studiorum, 2(1), 65–73.Google Scholar
  13. Sebeok, T. A. (2004). Origins: Semiosis the domain vs. Semiotics the field. In: Alač, Violi 2004: 83–104.Google Scholar
  14. Stjernfelt, F. (2014). Natural Propositions: The actuality of Peirce’s Doctrine of Dicisigns. Boston: Docent Press.Google Scholar
  15. Prodi, G. (1983a). L’uso estetico del linguaggio. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  16. Barbieri, M. (2015). Code biology. A new science of life. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Boniolo, G., & De Anna, G. (Eds.). (2006). Evolutionary ethics and contemporary biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Brentari, C. (2015). Jakob von Uexküll. The discovery of the umwelt between biosemiotics and theoretical biology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. de Waal, F. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Eccles, J. (1994). How the SELF controls its BRAIN. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eco, U. (1999). Kant and the Platypus: Essays on language and cognition. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  22. Emmeche, C. (2004). Causal processes, semiosis, and consciousness. In J. Seibt (Ed.), Process theories: Crossdisciplinary studies in dynamic categories (pp. 313–336). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  23. Fadda, E. (2013). Peirce. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
  24. Fadda E. (2014). Dalla parte di Cerbero. Peirce e la comunicazione. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio,
  25. Garroni, E. (1986). Senso e paradosso. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felice Cimatti
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Studi UmanisticiUniversità della CalabriaArcavacata di Rende CSItaly

Personalised recommendations