In Squigglespeak posts, we talk about the squiggle sign (~), and give examples of its use by ourselves and others…
The following excerpt comes from the article by Fred Cummins, Deep Affordance: Seeing the Self in the World:
Fred Cummins – Cognitive Science Programme – University College Dublin
“Let us now consider the Umwelt of the E. Coli bacterium in this cartoonishly simple sketch. As we have caricatured things here, the world that presents itself to the cell can be described in several complementary ways.
I will adopt Scott Kelso’s typographic convention here (REF), to relate members of a complementary pair with a squiggle, thus: good~evil is the complementary pair of good and evil. Complementary pairs define each other, as conventionally expressed by the yin and yang symbol.
We may interpret the elements as opposites, or we may adopt a more inclusive view that sees them as complementary facets of the same underlying thing.
Perception~Action:
These are not the inputs and outputs of some infernal computing device. They stand in no relation as cause and effect, but are, in a very deep sense, complementary notions.
In seeing them as opposing notions, as input and output, respectively, we generate the illusion of the spooky middle, or mind, and our metaphysical problems are only just beginning.
For the cell, the information that is lawfully related to its movement is the chemical gradient expressed at the membrane surface. This information is only information because of the kind of thing the cell is.
It is not particularly privileged information. The gradient just happens to matter to the cell precisely because of its role in the processes that sustain the cell’s identity as a cell.
As outside observers, we can see both perception (detection of a gradient at the surface) and action (tumbling). But neither stands in the relation of cause to the other’s effect.
The tumbling is the means by which a gradient is picked up. Action related to perception. The gradient specifies the tumbling behavior. Perception related to action.
There is no separation between them, and thus no hidden middle. They stand as lawfully related, in a perpetual state of mutual specification.
Self~Other:
And so, in the spirit of von Uexküll, we can venture some epistemological guesses about the experience of the cell.
Barring spooky action at a distance, the world encountered by the cell makes its mark, or impinges upon the cell, only at the membrane surface, where the gradient lies.
In the simple form we have sketched it here, the gradient is particularly simple. It contains sufficient information to distinguish this direction from that direction.
It doesn’t contain or specify any information about the nutrient qua nutrient.
It merely points in one direction, distinguishing it from its opposite.
So the kind of distinction available to the cell is spatial.
If the world encountered by the cell is limited to that, we can talk about perceiving a gradient, or, with just a little forced empathy, as sensing a direction.
(And the cell might answer, if questioned about its tumbling: “I did it”.) But we could also note that the action or movement of the cell is lawfully related to that gradient. (And so the cell might reply “It was done to me”.)”
