About a week ago my commentary "Hvordan er det å være et dyr?" (What is it like to be an animal?) was published in Dyrebeskyttelsen Norge´s magazine Dyrenes forsvarer no. 4, 2024 (pp. 8-9). The commentary has also been published online. I am one of four commentators in Dyrenes forsvarer, this is my first commentary.
The magazine can be read in full online here.
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
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:
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
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."
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
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
My Commentary article "The evolutionary origin(s) of the Umwelt" has been accepted for publication in Biosemiotics.
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.
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.
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.
My commentary to Denis Noble´s Target article "The illusions of the Modern Synthesis" has been published in issue 14(1) of Biosemiotics.
Full reference:
Tønnessen, Morten 2021. Making the Umwelt Bubble of the Modern Synthesis Burst. Commentary. Biosemiotics 14(1): 121–125. Published online May 9th 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s12304-021-09430-2
Today I have had an article writing day devoted to work on my commentary "Making the Umwelt bubble of the Modern Synthesis burst" (published today, see other post) and my wasted growth articles. The latter included updating a table for the second article, focused on inequality, and adding some 200 words in the process (analysis and comments).
Total number of writing days so far this Spring is up to 34.
My commentary article on Denis Noble´s Target article "The illusions of the Modern synthesis" was published today.
Reference and link:
Tønnessen, Morten 2021a. Making the Umwelt Bubble of the Modern Synthesis Burst. Commentary. Biosemiotics. Published online May 9th 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s12304-021-09430-2
I have just proof-read my commentary "Making the Umwelt Bubble of the Modern Synthesis Burst", which is to be published in Biosemiotics as a commentary to Denis Noble´s Target article "The illusions of the Modern synthesis".
Yogi Hale Hendlin´s editorial in his first issue as Editor-in-Chief of Biosemiotics has just been published, titled "Expanding the reach of Biosemiotics". In the same issue, the journal´s first Target Article with a number of invited Commentaries will also appear. I served as an Editor-in-Chief until the end of last year, after which Yogi took over as Editor-in-Chief.
Excerpts:
Taking up this role of Editor-in-Chief also prompted reflection on all those whose leadership at this journal has developed the discipline into an oasis for robust transdisciplinary dialog. Most immediately prior, I’d like to thank previous Editor-in-Chief Morten Tønnessen for his many years of leadership at the journal, as well as Filip Jaroš, and Timo Maran. Marcello Barbieri, the journal’s first Editor-in-Chief, helped launch Biosemiotics in 2008. And finally, Alexei Sharov, my fellow current Editor-in-Chief, deserves thanks for his steady and indispensable guidance of the journal.
In the current iteration of Biosemiotics, we have shifted from three Editors-in-Chief to two; but have expanded the journal leadership to include five Associate Editors plus an Intern. We are grateful for all of their contributions towards making this journal run smoothly and to expanding Biosemiotics’ reach and capacity. One reason for the need for this greater capacity is to accommodate the new article type of Target Articles and Commentaries pioneered by Morten Tønnessen. It is my pleasure to work with the Editorial Board of Biosemiotics, the Associate Editors and Intern, and the Members and Executive Board of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies in continuing their devoted work in this tradition.
I have just been notified that my Commentary article "Making the Umwelt bubble of the Modern Synthesis burst" has been accepted for publication in Biosemiotics.
Today I had an article writing day devoted to revising my commentary article "Making the Umwelt bubble of the Modern Synthesis burst" (a commentary to Denis Noble´s target article "The illusions of the Modern Synthesis"), with some 300 words written in the process (net). The commentary will be published in Biosemiotics.
Total number of writing days so far this Spring is up to 28,5.
Tonight I have had half an article writing day, and written a commentary on Denis Noble´s Target article for Biosemiotics "The illusions of the Modern Synthesis", with some 1.800 words written. I also sent a proof-read version of "Neurosemiotics across species" (Routledge handbook chapter) to the editors along with Contributor agreement and bionote.
Total number of writing days so far this Spring is up to 17.
