Levels of control and closure in complex semiotic systems
It is natural to advance closures as atomic processes of universal evolution, and to analyze this concept specifically. Real complex systems like organisms and complex mechanisms cannot exist at either extreme of complete closure or lack of closure, nevertheless we should consider the properties of closures in general, the introduction of boundaries, a corresponding stability, the establishment of system autonomy and identity, and thereby the introduction of emergent new system of potentially new types. Our focus should move from simple physical closure of common objects and classical self-organizing systems to semiotically closed systems that maintain cyclic relations of perception, interpretation, decision, and action with their environments. Thus, issues arise concerning the use and interpretation of symbols, representations, and/or internal models (whether explicit or implicit) by the system; and the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic relations among the sign tokens, their interpretations, and their use or function for the systems in question. Primitive semiotic closures are hypothesized as equivalent to simple control systems, and in turn equivalent to simple organisms. This leads us directly to the grand hierarchical control theories of Turchin, Powers, and Albus, which provide an explicit mechanism for the formation of new levels within complex semiotically closed systems.
Joslyn
C
Computer Research and Applications Group (CIC-3), Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico 87545, USA. joslyn@lanl.gov <http:@www.c3.lanl.gov/joslyn>