Interview with me and Michael Marder by Federico Comollo

Today I have been interviewed by Federico Comollo (online) along with Michael Marder, on our basic understanding of life. A written version will hopefully appear at some point next year.

Seventh Ex.phil. lecture

Today I have given the seventh lecture in Ex.phil. this Autumn, at University of Stavanger´s Department of social studies. The course is part of the bachelor in psychology as well as the year-long study in psychology. Today´s topic was how humans can be understood from the perspectives of biology, social sciences and human dignity.

Seventh Ex.phil. lecture

Today I have given the seventh lecture in Ex.Phil. this Autumn, as part of the University of Stavanger´s bachelor degree in psychology. The topics were views on humans from biology and social sciences. We also had an "early dialogue" (tidligdialog) concerning evaluation of the course.

30 writing days

Today I have had half a writing day devoted to our book Semiotic agency, with some 300 words written in the chapter on the origin of life, bringing the total number of writing days this year up to 30.

Search image article accepted for publication in BioSystems

I have been notified that my article "The search image as link between sensation, perception and action" has been accepted for publication in BioSystems´ special issue in code biology.

In the round of revisions, I made this figure illustrating the workings of search images, on request by a peer-reviewer:

Blogpost in LifeScienceToday: "Biosemiotics: Making sense of nature"

Today a blogpost I have co-written with Alexei Sharov and Timo Maran as first author was published in Springer´s blog LifeScienceToday. Link and reference:

Tønnessen, Morten, Alexei Sharov and Timo Maran (2016). Biosemiotics: Making sense of nature. Published in Springer´s blog LifeScienceToday. URL: http://blogs.springer.com/lst/biosemiotics-making-sense-nature/.

Biosemiotics 12th highest ranked Springer journal in Evolutionary and developmental biology

As an overview published online shows, Biosemiotics is Springer´s 12th highest ranked journal (out of 14) in the category Evolutionary and developmental biology journals, as measured by Thomson Reuters Impact Factor for 2014.

First Biosemiotics editorial published online - "Towards Synthesis of Biology and Semiotics"

The first editorial by Alexei Sharov, Timo Maran and myself was published online in Biosemiotics on April 4th (full text here). Reference:

— 2015b, with Alexei Sharov and Timo Maran. Towards Synthesis of Biology and Semiotics. Editorial. Biosemiotics 8(1). Published online April 4th 2015 (DOI: 10.1007/s12304-015-9239-y).

Excerpt:

Although some scholars consider biosemiotics predominantly as a philosophy, particularly within philosophy of biology/science, we would like to emphasize its scientific and often practical orientation. Biosemiotics can contribute to natural science, applied science and philosophy alike. Our scientific outlook does not mean, however, that we support mechanistic methodology, which currently dominates in physics, chemistry, and even in molecular biology. We believe that traditional approaches in science associated with studies of passive, isolated systems, as in physics and chemistry, should be complemented by a distinctively different study of complex agents such as living organisms and their components, people, human organizations, and technological artifacts. The radically different nature of these complex phenomena requires a substantial shift in scientific methodology. Biosemiotics considers the existence of entities that are not directly accessible for investigation (e.g., meaning, agency, goals, internal representations). It therefore seeks to identify or develop indirect methods that can help to evaluate these entities, and supports systematic approaches for their analysis. These efforts should be based on diverse heuristics, handling of multiple hypotheses, and complementarity of different descriptions as exemplified by the brief overview of papers presented in this issue (see below).

Editorial proof-read

Today I have proof-read the Biosemiotics editorial "Towards synthesis of biology and semiotics", co-written with Alexei Sharov and Timo Maran.

Abstract for Gathering in biosemiotics 15: "The ontogeny of precocial vs. altricial Umwelten"

Yesterday around Midnight I composed the abstract below and submitted it to the 15th international Gathering in Biosemiotics (Copenhagen, 30 June - 4 July 2015).

***

The ontogeny of precocial vs. altricial Umwelten

Morten Tønnessen, University of Stavanger

The model organism in Uexküll’s Umwelt theory (Uexküll 2010 etc.) is an adult organism. In the case of embryos, fetuses and, in many species, neonates and young specimen, his dictum that an animal’s Umwelt only consists of those questions that the animal can answer does not apply. As Magnus (2011: 41) observes, Uexküll distinguishes between the time of becoming and the time of being, where “[t]he time of becoming equals the time needed for developing functioning organs; the time of being on the other hand covers the time when the organs have acquired their final form and as such are ready for use.”

The human species is not the only species that is not born ‘ready-made’. Whereas individuals of precocial species are relatively mature and mobile from the moment of birth or hatching, and thus quite independent from the outset, individuals of altricial species, whether mammals or birds, are relatively helpless as newborn/newly hatched, and require adult care. As Starck and Ricklefs (1998: 23) write, many insectivores, all rabbits, many rodents and most carnivores

give birth to small neonates that have closed eyes and ears, and no hair, are generally poorly developed, and are dependent on maternal care for a long lactation period. Newborn marsupials and monotremes are extremes, resembling early embryos, even compared to other altricial mammals. Precocial neonates are found among the ungulates […] and several rodent taxa.

Given the noticeable, axiomatic correspondence between physiology and Umwelt, the Umwelten of altricial species are at the beginning of life radically different from the Umwelten of precocial species. Briefly put, whereas precocial Umwelten are largely functional from the outset (and can thus be studied in isolation, as it were), altricial Umwelten become fully functional only gradually (and must therefore be studied in conjunction with the Umwelten of other individuals on which they depend).

In the course of this presentation I will also offer a brief overview of the ontogeny of the embryonic, foetal and infant human Umwelt (Tønnessen 2014). Fundamental questions that will be addressed include: At what point does the human Umwelt emerge? What Umwelt transitions can be identified in the ontogenesis of the early human Umwelt? What is characteristic of the Umwelt trajectory of human embryos/foetuses/infants? And, how are Umwelt objects established/crystallized/fixated in the human Umwelt?

Acknowledgement: This work has been supported by the research project “Animals in Changing Environments: Cultural Mediation and Semiotic Analysis” (EEA Norway Grants/Norway Financial Mechanism 2009–2014 under project contract no. EMP151).

References

Magnus, Riin 2011. Time-plans of the organisms: Jakob von Uexküll’s explorations into the temporal constitution of living beings. Sign Systems Studies 39(2/4): 37–57.

Starck, J. Matthias; Ricklefs, Robert E. 1998. Patterns of development: The altricial–precocial spectrum. In: Starck, J. Matthias; Ricklefs, Robert E. (eds.), Avian Growth and Development: Evolution within the Altricial-Precocial Spectrum. New York: Oxford University Press, 3–30.

Tønnessen, Morten 2014. The ontogeny of the embryonic, foetal and infant human umwelt. Sign Systems Studies 42 (2/3) (Special Issue “Sign evolution on multiple time scales” guest-edited by Kristian Tylén and Luis Emilio Bruni): 281–307.
Uexküll, Jakob von 2010. A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans with a Theory of Meaning [orig. Uexküll 1956 [1934/1940]; O’Neil Joseph, trans.] Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

Debate on human distinctiveness continues in Morgenbladet

The book chapter excerpt by professor in biology Dag Hessen, based on his contribution to Hvem er villest i landet her? Råskap mot dyr og natur i antropocen, menneskets tidsalder [Who is wildest in this country here? Brutality towards animals and nature in the Anthropocene, the age of Man], sparked debate in the Norwegian weekly Morgenbladet last week, when professor in theology Knut Alfsvåg responded to Hessen with a letter to the editor. This week, in Morgenbladet June 19-25, Hessen replies with a letter to the editor entitled "Mennesker og dyr: like eller likere?" [Humans and animals: Alike, or more alike?].

Joining the editorial board of Biosemiotics

Editor-in-Chief of Biosemiotics, Marcello Barbieri, has just invited me to join the editorial board of the journal, and I have willingly accepted.

The editorial board now counts (26 people all in all):

Myrdene Anderson, Argyris Arnellos, Stefan Artmann, Søren Brier, Luis Emilio Bruni, Paul Cobley, Stephen J. Cowley, Fatima Cvrcková, Charbel Niño El-Hani, Marcella Faria, Almo Farina, Mario Gimona, Peter Harries-Jones, Alexander V. Kravchenko, Dario Martinelli, Yair Neuman, Stephen Philip Pain, Susan Petrilli, Joanna Raczaszek-Leonardi, Luis Mateus Rocha, Stanley N. Salthe, Frederik Stjernfelt, Morten Tønnessen, Tommi Vehkavaara, Bruce H. Weber and Günther Witzany.

In addition, there's 4 associate editors ( Donald Favareau, Jesper Hoffmeyer, Kalevi Kull, Anton Markoš) and an Advisory board wherein sits (15 people, namely) Prisca S. Augustyn, Gérard Battail, Peter A. Cariani, Han-liang Chang, Sergei V. Chebanov, Marcel Danesi, Terrence Deacon, John Deely, Claus Emmeche, Cliff A. Joslyn, Koichiro Matsuno, Winfried Nöth, Howard Hunt Pattee, Alexei Sharov and Jean Umiker-Sebeok.