The thresholds for extending the evolutionary synthesis: How far can we go?

[Slides from the presentation]

The research project “Methodological design of extended evolutionary synthesis: interdisciplinary framework for social and life sciences” (Russian Science Foundation, № 22-18-00383) faces the challenges of crossing interfaces between traditional scientific disciplines, paradigms (in Kuhn’s sense), research programmes (in Lakatos’ sense) and even subtler exploratory projects. Our point of departure is the need to fully utilize the potential of interpretation and thus of semiotics with its interpretant as the utmost noumenal instance of cognition. It seems promising to move top-down through the layers of scientific knowledge from the humanities and social sciences towards the life sciences and further to chemistry and physics as well as to quantum mechanics and cosmology with its string theories, etc. However adventurous this idea may seem, the Anthropic Principle in any of its versions implies that interpretation along with observation, calculus and patterning is universal and applicable to any state of the Observed (measured, shaped and interpreted) Universe or its constituents. But it is even more evident that interpretation as we use it in our everyday lives – moreover in social and human research – cannot be bluntly applied to study of life forms or molecules or galaxies. We all know about fallacies of anthropomorphism and other obvious cognitive restrictions and methodological censures.

We also know that although Kantian antinomies cannot be resolved once and for good, our human cognitive capacities to conclude (Urteilskäfte) allow us to find here and now pragmatic and palliative solutions. Such solutions inherently are specific and not universal. But consistent exploring of their systematic series and sequences may allow us to disclose transitory forms as well as their pragmatic and palliative mutual interaction. Typically cases and instances reveal themselves on the interfaces or thresholds between domains of our Observable Universe or thresholds of human cognition and scientific investigation.

The much-discussed biosemiotic threshold is a typical case of this. Different authors and schools of thought debate if interpreting and coding stay on different sides of the divide or on the opposing banks of Rubicon, or mingle on the threshold created by the overlapping of distinctly different domains dominated either by coding alone or coding with interpreting. The paper suggests we should go further and explore a series of far-fetching reductions of interpreting and coding. This series may include copying (making an alternative sample of the original), reproducing (making another instance of something which is separate and selfsame), and finally pulsating (reappearing again and again). All those distinctly different forms can be related to each other by the usage of a common operational scheme: recursion with inversion or rather recursion with an inverse switch.