The problem, as I see it, is to distinguish externally a developmental trajectory (DT) from any local concatenation of unrelated events. By equating meaning with interpretation from a viewpoint, I assimilate semiosis to development. From DTs emerge, e.g., intentional actions, systems, forms, organisms, texts, organizations-by way of intensification of properties acquired in early stages. All of these begin as vague germs with large evolutionary potential (they can branch at any point), which gradually gets exchanged for increasingly more definite embodiment while a DT endures. A DT's closure is not fully formed from the first, but gradually emerges as it develops. A DT's ability to produce informational entropy (H, information capacity) increases as it matures and grows old by way of binding information. This process is representable by a specification hierarchy of classes and subclasses. Development involves movement to a subclass, and not jumps to new classes. This is true of emergence as well-e.g., biology emerged from chemical activity, but it is still based on a kind of (a selection from) chemistry. It has not transcended chemistry, and neither will AI. The autonomy of a DT, which increases as it it binds historical information, is rooted in its contexts; change the latter and its autonomy disappears, however mature it is. It can "skate across" gaps in its material resources only if the larger context remains stable. To match autonomy with semiotics, we assimilate to it, viewpoint, subjectivity and agency.
展开▼
