Trias van ontwikkelen, signaleren, evolueren

Alle organismen, simpele mono- of ultra cellulair zijn gespecialiseerd in uitwisselen van gecodeerde betekenisvolle “informatie”.
Dit functioneert en organiseert structuren, processen op basis van  interne en externe informatie.
Basaal is het uitwisselen van “signs” (signalen) en er actief op reageren.
Virussen zijn een voorbeeld dat  eerst werd beschreven als “dode” kristallijne objecten.
Maar ook virussen signaleren en reageren in hun omgeving. Een potentiële “gastheer” start hun “zender en ontvanger” op. Er volgt interpretatie en reactie, gekoppeld aan zelf opgebouwde signalen.

De  ontvanger en volgt de (opgelegde) codering door het virus.
Dit systeem is in al wat leeft gigantisch uitgebreid en het  virus is slechts voorbeeld als basismodel.
Als we onszelf  nemen: wij zijn samengesteld door oorspronkelijk twee onafhankelijke eencelligen, de mobiele spermatozoa en de afwachtende ovum. Zij versmelten en hun DNA pakketten met 24 chromosomen  verenigen zich, we zijn diploide dieren met 48 chromosomen.
De informatie die de “meercellige kolonie” mens vormt en laat functioneren komt dus “uit” die eencelligen.

Eicel en zaadcel versmelten

Deze interactie op cellulair niveau is uitgebreider, vrijwel alle organismen doorlopen dit proces. Letterlijk alle, ook als er symbiotische relaties zijn.
Duidelijke voorbeelden zijn:   Korstmossen, zoals Xanthoria parietina:

…en natuurlijk de symbiose van ons met darmbacterien:

Escherichia coli

Wezenlijk is, dat alle cellen zoals alle eencelligen  permanent actief in contact staan met hun “umwelt”, dat wat hen omgeeft. In meercelligen zoals wij de cellen ondeling en die cellen met andere, niet “eigen” cellen. Niet alleen met E. coli maar ook met het gezelschap dat op onze huid functioneert.

Het is de basis van “Biosemiotics”, een onderzoeksrichting die zich richt op [signaal afgeven  – waarnemen door ontvanger – reageren van ontvanger – signaal afgeven – ].
Intussen is deze benadering gebruikt op bijna alle onderdelen van het leven, van grote populaties tot biochemische en biofysische componenten.

Beoordeling van deze ontwikkeling en  nadelen van explicite koppeling van “bios” en “semios” is nodig. Publicaties omvatten de L.U.C.A , de “Last Universal Commin Ancestor” (dat niet eentje maar een associate gewesst zal zijn) en de “levende computers” die ons bezig zijn te vervangen (een nieuwe symbiose?).

All living entities possess coded “information” of structures, processes and acting to internal en external information. Based on semiosis it is named as “language” and “symbols” (production of meaningful signs) in philosophy, a oringinally pure Homo sapiens option. When more became known of all other organisms in biology, biophysics and biochemistry it automatic became for some researchers “bios-semios”. The studyof behavior ethology was an important starter. But quickly followed by phytological awarnes about what happens.

All is based on code-maker generated “sensors” being at the same time also“actors” . The basic unit for communication (interpretation of signs ANC responding) consists of an enormous complex of interacting connections. 
It starts and ends intracellular but is connected extracellular with the whole organism
AND what is about there [as is mentioned: Umwelt, Von Uexkull].

A bottleneck in “Biosemiotics” is the mix of two different “platforms”, Semiotics and Biology. Apart from that, physics, chemistry and informatics are now taking part.
Semiosis is based on philosophical reasoning about signs (be it languages or symbols).
It means that the brainy animal “Homo sapiens” is the central object and has a typical alpha fundament.
But a link to biological properties was obvious: ethology first, ecology immediately followed. Behaviour of people is signs, acts, smell, sounds…..
And the notion of anatomical and physiological properties with a mix of adding chemical curing (or killing) was a wide open backdoor to Biochemistry, Biophysics and Bioinformatics.
When biology is linked, a principal beta based science uses different definitions that SEEM to be the SAME as in semiosis.

That is in most cases not true or not clear. The effect is very complicated (endless?) discussions and overlapping explanations that appear.

It started in the late 1800’s and now in the 2000 millennium it leads to a Cacophony.
And it does ask of all partakers to reshape thinking to produce a comprehensible scientific route
In order to better realize a biosemiotic way to understand all complicated interactions in “life” there are several basic premises:

After discovery of very small active nannobacteria, even smaller “nanobes” and a very early appearance of bacterial fossils the problem to comprehend it became very difficult. Some researchers tink that these “nano” living entities may have “landed” on earth, fixed to remnants of much older planetary remnants. We already know that all earthly maternal are dust like that and so maybe not only “dust”…
If so, than “bio-semiosis” also started somewhere else, xx billions of years earlier.
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/nanobes/index.html

Nanobes: A New Form of Life?

In reaction to this, be aware of creationists confiscating the information as “proof” of creation by fantasied mighty alpha ape ….
That something strange is going on in the universe is obvious but not a “never ending” story.
We and all living on this planet will be destroyed by our sun transforming to a “red giant” star.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r35EooK-vFs

red giant sun
Red Giant Sun over Atlanta 7 billion AD
Credit: Stephen W. Ramsden

0

START
The chance that “a” LUCA could start is totally bound to processes surrounded by “envelope” bounderies and able to make energy available for physicochemical interactions. This stays a major problem to understand appearance of “prime” LUCA’s. RNA ’s are possibly not only codes but also important acttors. DNA constructed by RNA’s functions as library .
Quantum physic nano-bio interactions?

1

Fundament is an active (or activated) very complex RNA-DNA codex ”hooked” to peptides
and related macromolecules leading to the heritage of unknown L.U.C.A* versions.
a. Commodifies interactions are “deciphered” (? Meijers) in computational sense,
making “living” as process “acceptable”.

2

Encoded intern and extern messages sent and received as “signs” in prokaryote and eukaryote
cells (and its organelles) are meaningful.Iterpretating gives interacting processes for
3.4xx.000.000yr now.

“Or activated” accounts for viruses. Effects of messages from their RNA or DNA
and “hooked” partakers is also “2”.Their” learning” is also known.

3

Messages [“signs”] received by connected cells and / or their organelles] can be
interpreted [“sense”]. Interpreted messages are -or can be- acted upon.

4

There is feedback to ascertain successful communication.
Meaningful messages can be changed to new [meaningful or messed-up] messages.

5

These reflect (useful or faulty) changes induced by either external or internal
influences
 (experiences).

6

Communication in “lively” processes is an energy consuming process.
It is completely different of all other chemosurgical interactions needed it keeping life alive…**

7

What is stated for [organelle] and [cell] is also the case for [multi- cellular organism] and
[groups of all “Umwelt” *** organisms].

8

What Umwelt means for individual interpretations is directly linked to “Innerwelt”
(Meijers). All I “see”, “hear” and and” feel” is reshaped images and sound and feelings
INSIDE my head.

9

And last but not least an essential problem arises: We know now that all what we see, feel, smell,
hear and all that is functioning in you Is “translated” in your head. This fact is not to comprehend
but the most important property .The same happens in no brainy animals and in another sense in all in all living entities. It must have began “in” L.U.C.A. “last universal ancestor” conglomerates.

*L.U.C.A. = Last Universal Common Ancestor (not hypothetical but inevitable).

Physical and emotional reactions of baby and mother swimming

All mentioned premises need a usable example and I humbly want to try to realize something that is a positive sign to sense.

Backward thinking
Starting with biosemiosis did mean, “thinking backward” because all we know now is in our “time” about products we can identify. What is mentioned in 9 and 10 is you and me now. The first step is then to “look” inside you and me, the brains. The sensory Homunculus (SH) in fig.1 shows what is mentioned in 9. The motor Homunculus positioned after the SH, but in your “feel” and “vision” the function as one. A nasty example is, when someone does miss a leg (accident of illness) he does still feel it:
A phantom leg giving phantom pain…
In the drawing you see the eye. What you do not see is your “screen”.
You can find that on the back of your brain with links to other places as well.
Form, movement ad colour are different parts. “You” compose this mix to what you [think to] see. What all this proofs is: all information [signs] IS send to your brains AND there is “processed”, “interpreted” and “reacted upon”. Stored in memories, connected to already available information to link to…
So, you and I are robots!

(Insert Oliver Sachs here)

This strange situation is the same for all “brainy” animals, slugs, lobsters, worms, snakes and lions, you name it. BUT what about very “simple” ones, like jellyfish or sponges?And then the Protista? There are some interesting examples.