Read-only link to "Understanding subjecthood and experience"

My correspondence text "Understanding subjecthood and experience", which clarifies my views in response to Jablonka and Ginsburg, is available for reading (only) here.

Commentary to Jablonka and Ginsburg "Understanding subjecthood and experience" published in Biosemiotics

My correspondence text "Understanding subjecthood and experience" has just been published in Biosemiotics. This is a brief commentary written in response to Jablonka & Ginsburg´s 2023 article "Living and experiencing: Response to commentaries", which I felt misrepresented my views.

Reference:

Tønnessen, Morten 2024. Understanding subjecthood and experience. Correspondence. Biosemiotics. Published online March 15th 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-024-09557-y 

Letter to the editor "Understanding subjecthood and experience" accepted by Biosemiotics

I have been notified that my commentary "Understanding subjecthood and experience" has been accepted for publication in Biosemiotics. I have revised it in one round.

See also:

Letter to the editor "Understanding subjecthood and experience" written and submitted to Biosemiotics

Text on the evolutionary origin of Umwelt featured in Middlesex University Reading group session

My brief commentary article "The Evolutionary Origin(s) of the Umwelt. Biosemiotics" is included in this Spring´s readings for the reading group “Signs in Nature” at Middlesex University, along with Jablonka and Ginsburg´s Target article "Learning and the Evolution of Conscious Agents". This will happen in the session "Consciousness and Umwelt", which takes place Friday April 19th online.

Letter to the editor "Understanding subjecthood and experience" written and submitted to Biosemiotics

Today I have written and submitted a Letter to the editor - or Correspondence - to Biosemiotics, titled "Understanding subjecthood and experience", in response to Eva Jablonka and Simona Ginsburg´s article "Living and Experiencing: Response to Commentaries", which was recently published in Biosemiotics.

See also:

Jablonka and Ginsburg´s response to my commentary on their target article; with comments

Jablonka and Ginsburg´s response to my commentary on their target article; with comments

In the recently published article "Living and Experiencing: Response to Commentaries", published in Biosemiotics, Eva Jablonka and Simona Ginsburg respond to my commentary "The Evolutionary Origin(s) of the Umwelt", which was one out of several commentaries on their 2022 target article "Learning and the evolution of conscious agents". While they overall present another impressively comprehensive article on the character, diversity and range of life, I feel that some of my views are misrepresented in their comments.

Excerpts:

Olteanu too (2022) points to the resonance between our theory and the biosemiotic approach to learning and consciousness, while other biosemioticians [Campbell (2022), Hendlin (2023), Tønnesson (2022)] emphasize both the common ground and the need to incorporate terms such as Umwelt into our framework and to expand on the continuity between life and mind.

No problem here.

The assumption that there is no life without sentience is reflected in the biopsychic stance of some of our commentators, who regard all living beings, from bacteria to humans, as sentient. This biopsychic assumption is clearly stated by Reber et al. (2022) and by Meincke (2023), but a biopsychic stance is also implied in the commentaries of Hendlin (2023), Tønnessen (2022), and Riskin (2023).

I do not think this is accurate. I make no claim in my commentary that I think it is fair to characterize as adopting a biopsychic stance implying that all life is sentient. On the contrary, I distinguish clearly between sentient and non-sentient organisms, and thematize the emergence of sentience during the Cambrian explosion.

Maybe the a priori assumption that intrinsic value must be mentally experienced is related to a different understanding of the terms “subject” and “subjective experiencing”. Subjective experiencing, as Tønnessen (2022) defines it, is “the experiencing of the subject”. However, a “subject”, as we understand the term, does not necessarily have mental states. A subject does have closure (and hence also a necessary inwardness and individuality) and is an agent that interacts with object/s external to it, reacting differently to world-generated and self-generated identical stimuli. Such reafferent reactions, were, we suggested, the non-mental precursors of the mental sense of self, and such reactions may be thought of as constituting “subjecthood”. But such subjecthood is as yet not mental subjecthood. Olteanu (2022) may have interpreted our usage of the term “subjective” in biosemiotic terms (as belonging to a subject, as subjecthood) and not in the common sense of equating “subjective experiencing” with “mental experiencing”, implying private, mental states such as perceiving the taste of banana ice cream and feeling fear.

I agree that not all subjects have mental states, and that some subjecthood is mental whether other organisms´ subjecthood is non-mental. What I criticized in my commentary was Jablonka and Ginsburg´s conflation of subjective experience with consciousness in their target article. Specifically, I questioned "one of its basic premises, namely that it is justified to “use the terms consciousness and subjective experiencing as synonyms” (p. 2)".

As Tønnessen (2022) rightly points out, the origin of the Umwelt is very ancient. We believe, as we think he does, that the co-construction of organisms and their relevant environment is as ancient as life itself. We also agree with him that a “sense saturated” Umwelten emerged during the Cambrian (with UAL), but we do not understand the basis of his claim that a primitive, mental sense of self preceded the Umwelten of sentient, Cambrian animals, and that the notion of Umwelt presupposes sentience.

I make no claim in my commentary to the effect "that a primitive, mental sense of self preceded the Umwelten of sentient, Cambrian animals, and that the notion of Umwelt presupposes sentience." This is misrepresenting my views. I refer to nothing "mental" in my commentary, clearly distinguish between conscious and non-conscious organisms, with and without the capacity for sensation, and my portrayal of the emergence of "sense-saturated" Umwelten, on the background of non-sentient Umwelten, clearly opposes the views that Jablonka and Ginsburg attribute to me.

In my commentary, I write: 

"The origin of the Umwelt did not coincide with the origin of sentience or consciousness. Nor did subjecthood, or subjective experience, emerge during the Cambrian explosion, though more complex forms of subjective experience evolved at this time."

I find it hard to understand how this can be taken to imply that all life is sentient and conscious, as Jablonka and Ginsburg appear to think is my view. "Subjective experience", in my view, "is a graded phenomenon, and evolved gradually to more complex forms as organisms evolved from simple organisms to more complex organisms."

Jablonka and Ginsburg comment now published in Biosemiotics issue

My comment to Jablonka and Ginsburg´s Target article has now been published as part of an issue of Biosemiotics, issue 3 of volume 15. Updated reference: 

Tønnessen, Morten 2022. The evolutionary origin(s) of the Umwelt. Commentary. Biosemiotics 15(3): 451–455. Published online November 3rd 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09506-7 

Commentary "The evolutionary origin(s) of the Umwelt" published online

A few days ago my commentary article "The evolutionary origin(s) of the Umwelt" was published online in Biosemiotics. This is a commentary to Eva Jablonka & Simona Ginsburg´s Target article "Learning and the evolution of conscious agents".

Reference:

Tønnessen, Morten 2022. The evolutionary origin(s) of the Umwelt. Commentary. Biosemiotics. Published online November 3rd 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09506-7 

#17

Today, at this Autumn´s writing day #17, I have added some 400 words to my article "Wasted GDP in the USA", and proof-read my Commentary article "The evolutionary origin(s) of the Umwelt".

Jablonka and Ginsburg commentary accepted for publication

My Commentary article "The evolutionary origin(s) of the Umwelt" has been accepted for publication in Biosemiotics.

#10

Today, on the 10th writing day this Autumn, I have had a writing day devoted to updating my article "Wasted GDP in the USA" and making a requested amendment to my recently finished Commentary article "The evolutionary origin(s) of the Umwelt", with some 200 words written altogether.

#9

Over the two last days, Wednesday and Thursday, I have had half an article day, devoted to finishing my Commentary article "The evolutionary origin(s) of the Umwelt" - a commentary on Eva Jablonka and Simona Ginsburg´s Target article in Biosemiotics, "Learning and the Evolution of Conscious Agents", with some 900 words written. Number of writing days this Autumn is up to 9.

#8,5

Today I have had half an article day, devoted mostly to writing a commentary to a Target article by Eva Jablonka and Simona Ginsburg, "Learning and the evolution of conscious agents". The work title of my commentary is "The evolutionary origin(s) of the Umwelt". I also added a couple of references to my book manuscript Captured. Altogether I wrote some 800 words.

Number of writing days this Autumn is 8,5 so far.

#7

Yesterday, on my way back from Thessaloniki towards Stavanger, I had half a writing day, with readings done related to a commentary I will likely write for Biosemiotics on a Target article by Eva Jablonka and Simona Ginsburg, "Learning av the evolution of conscious agents". Number of writing days so far this Autumn is up to 7.