Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semantic Organs: The Concept and Its Theoretical Ramifications

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many biologists still believe in a sort of post-Cartesian foundation of reality wherein objects are independent of subjects which cognize them. Recent research in behaviour, cognition, and psychology, however, provides plenty of evidence to the effect that the perception of an object differs depending on the kind of animal observer, and also its personality, hormonal, and sensorial set-up etc. In the following, I argue that exposed surfaces of organisms interact with other organisms’ perception to form semiautonomous relational entities called semantic organs, which participate in biological reality as discrete heritable evolutionary units. The inner dimensions and potentialities of an organism can enter the senses of another living being when effectively expressed on the outer surfaces of the former and meaningfully perceived by the latter. Semantic organs (SO) have three basic sources of variability: (1) intrinsic, i.e., genetic, epigenetic, and developmental processes; (2) extrinsic, meaning the biotic and abiotic environmental conditions which affect the developmental generators of intrinsic variability; and (3) perceptual, stemming from differences in the subject-specific interpretation of a SO’s structural basis (1 + 2). Extrinsic and intrinsic sources of variability (1 + 2) are, however, just precursors to semantic organs. SOs are relational entities which always come into existence through an act of perception and their actual form depends both on the physical potentialities of the bearer and the species- or group-specific interpretation of the receiver.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Augustyn, P. (2009). Uexküll, Peirce, and other affinities between biosemiotics and biolinguistics. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, H. W. (1862). XXXII. Contributions to an insect fauna of the amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 23(3), 495–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blut, C., Wilbrandt, J., Fels, D., Girgel, E., & Lunau, K. (2012). The ‘sparkle’in fake eyes–the protective effect of mimic eyespots in Lepidoptera. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 143(3), 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carazo, P., & Font, E. (2010). Putting information back into biological communication. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23(4), 661–669.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chittka, L., & Brockmann, A. (2005). Perception space—the final frontier. PLoS Biology, 3(4), e137.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Corning, P. A. (2013). Evolution ‘on purpose’: how behaviour has shaped the evolutionary process. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112(2), 242–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L. G., Perrett, D. I., Penton-Voak, I. S., et al. (2006). Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner’s masculinity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1592), 1355–1360.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J. A. (1992). Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. American Naturalist, 139, S125–S153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A., & Pieretti, N. (2014). From umwelt to soundtope: an epistemological essay on cognitive ecology. Biosemiotics, 7(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, E. (2015). Evolution of signs, organisms and artifacts as phases of concrete generalization. Biosemiotics, 8(1), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M. I. A., & Caldas, M. G. (2013). The concept of Umwelt overlap and its application to cooperative action in multi-agent systems. Biosemiotics, 6(3), 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Font, E., & Carazo, P. (2010). Animals in translation: why there is meaning (but probably no message) in animal communication. Animal Behaviour, 80(2), e1–e6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard: Harward University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Lloyd, E. A. (1999). Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: How shall we name and generalize the unit of Darwinism? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(21), 11904–11909.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, W. G., Crookes, K., & Rhodes, G. (2013). The other-race effect: Holistic coding differences and beyond. Visual Cognition, 21(9–10), 1224–1247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). The semiotic niche. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology, 9, 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L. (1980). Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11(1), 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janzen, D. H., Hallwachs, W., & Burns, J. M. (2010). A tropical horde of counterfeit predator eyes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(26), 11659–11665.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keefe, B. D., Dzhelyova, M. P., Perrett, D. I., & Barraclough, N. E. (2013). Adaptation improves face trustworthiness discrimination. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 358.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner, K. (2007). The formation of the theory of homology in biological sciences. Acta Biotheoretica, 55(4), 317–340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner, K. (2008a). Homosemiosis, mimicry and superficial similarity: notes on the conceptualization of independent emergence of similarity in biology. Theory in Biosciences, 127(1), 15–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner, K. (2008b). The semantic morphology of Adolf Portmann: A starting point for the biosemiotics of organic form? Biosemiotics, 1(2), 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner, K. (2011). Perceive, co-opt, modify, and live! Organism as a centre of experience. Biosemiotics, 4(2), 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner, K., & Maran, T. (2014). Visual communication in animals: Applying Portmannian and Uexküllian biosemiotic approach. In D. Machin (Ed.), Visual Communication (pp. 659–676). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner, K., & Markoš, A. (2005). Semetic rings: towards the new concept of mimetic resemblances. Theory in Biosciences, 123(3), 209–222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner, K., & Markoš, A. (2009). Mutual understanding and misunderstanding in biological systems mediated by self-representational meaning of organisms. Sign Systems Studies, 1–2, 299–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komárek, S. (2003). Mimicry, aposematism and related phenomena. Mimetism in nature and the history of its study. München: Lincom Europa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (1998). Organism as a self-reading text: anticipation and semiosis. International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, 1, 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2000). Active motion, communicative aggregations, and the spatial closure of Umwelt. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901(1), 272–279.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2010). Ecosystems are made of semiosic bonds: Consortia, umwelten, biophony and ecological codes. Biosemiotics, 3(3), 347–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2014). Adaptive evolution without natural selection. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112(2), 287–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maran, T. (2007). Semiotic interpretations of biological mimicry. Semiotica, 167, 223–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maran, T. (2009). John Maynard Smith’s typology of animal signals: A view from semiotics. Sign Systems Studies, 3–4, 477–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maran, T., & Kleisner, K. (2010). Towards an evolutionary biosemiotics: semiotic selection and semiotic co-option. Biosemiotics, 3(2), 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markoš, A. (2002). Readers of the book of life: contextualizing developmental evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. (2003). Animal signals. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A., Blanchet, S., Charmantier, A., Danchin, É., Fogarty, L., Jablonka, E., et al. (2013). Is non-genetic inheritance just a proximate mechanism? A corroboration of the extended evolutionary synthesis. Biological Theory, 7(3), 189–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel, C., Caldara, R., & Rossion, B. (2006a). Same-race faces are perceived more holistically than other-race faces. Visual Cognition, 14(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel, C., Rossion, B., Han, J., Chung, C.-S., & Caldara, R. (2006b). Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of one’s own race. Psychological Science, 17(7), 608–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mondloch, C. J., Elms, N., Maurer, D., Rhodes, G., Hayward, W. G., Tanaka, J. W., et al. (2010). Processes underlying the cross-race effect: An investigation of holistic, featural, and relational processing of own-race versus other-race faces. Perception, 39(8), 1065–1085.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. H. (2010). Detecting, Characterizing, and Gene–Gene Interactions Using Multifactor Dimensionality. Computational Methods for Genetics of Complex Traits, 72, 101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, F. R., Coetzee, V., Contreras-Garduño, J., Debruine, L. M., Kleisner, K., Krams, I., et al. (2013). Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for cues to sex- and stress-hormones in the male face. Biology Letters, 9(3), 20130050.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nadin, M. (2003). Not everything we know we learned. In Anticipatory Behavior in Adaptive Learning Systems (pp. 23–43). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Necker, L. A. (1832). Observations on some remarkable optical phaenomena seen in Switzerland; and on an optical phaenomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid. London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 1(5), 329–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepper, J. W., & Herron, M. D. (2008). Does biology need an organism concept? Biological Reviews, 83(4), 621–627.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394(6696), 884–887.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci, M. (2009). An extended synthesis for evolutionary biology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1168(1), 218–228.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (1948). Einführung in die vergleichende Morphologie der Wirbeltiere: Schwabe Basel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (1960a). Die Tiergestalt. Studien Űber die Bedeutung der tierischen Erscheinung. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (1960b). Neue Wege der Biologie. Műnchen: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (1964). New paths in biology. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (1967). Animal forms and patterns: a study of the appearance of animals. New York: Schocken Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (1990). Essays in philosophical zoology by Adolf Portmann. The living form and seeing eye. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (2000). Biologie und Geist. Göttingen: Ulrich Burgdorf Verlag.

  • Prum, R. O. (2012). Aesthetic evolution by mate choice: Darwin’s really dangerous idea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 367(1600), 2253–2265.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, E. S. (1916). Form and function: a contribution to the history of animal morphology. London: Murray.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. J. (2011). The brain as a source of selection on the social niche: examples from the psychophysics of mate choice in tungara frogs. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 51(5), 756–770.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. J., & Cummings, M. E. (2013). Perceptual biases and mate choice. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 44, 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salthe, S. (2014). Creating the umwelt: from chance to choice. Biosemiotics, 7(3), 351–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santelices, B. (1999). How many kinds of individual are there? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14(4), 152–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, K., Mitteroecker, P., Fink, B., & Bookstein, F. L. (2009). Psychomorphospace–from biology to perception, and back: towards an integrated quantification of facial form variation. Biological Theory, 4(1), 98–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A. (2014). Evolutionary constraints or opportunities? Biosystems, 123, 9–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stella, M., & Kleisner, K. (2010). Uexkullian Umwelt as science and as ideology: the light and the dark side of a concept. Theory in Biosciences, 129(1), 39–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tiddeman, B., Stirrat, M., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). Towards realism in facial image transformation: Results of a wavelet MRF method. Computer Graphics Forum, 24(3), 449–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2009). Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. V. (1921). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. P., & Altenberg, L. (1996). Perspective: complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution, 50(3), 967–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, B. H., & Depew, D. J. (2003). Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (1966). Adaptation and natural selections. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (1999). Biological individuality: the identity and persistence of living entities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, J. B., Brodie, E. D., & Wade, M. J. (2000). Epistasis and the evolutionary process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I owe my thanks to Jindřich Brejcha for countless discussions on this topic. I also thank three anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions. Special thanks belong to Anna Pilátová for more than language suggestions. This study was supported by the Czech Grant Agency project GACR GA15-05048S, and within the project of Education for Competitiveness Operational Programme (OPVK), Research Centre for Theory and History of Science, registration No. CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0138, co-financed by the European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic. Special thanks to Zander Tyler aka Jack Parow whose musical performances kept me company during the writing of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and History of Science, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Viničná 7, 128 44, Prague, Czech Republic

    Karel Kleisner

Authors
  1. Karel Kleisner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karel Kleisner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kleisner, K. Semantic Organs: The Concept and Its Theoretical Ramifications. Biosemiotics 8, 367–379 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9246-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9246-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation