The Semiotics of Life: Biosemiotics, Arche-Writing, and Artificial Intelligence

Introduction

The study of signs and meaning-making has long been associated with human language and culture, but biosemiotics and ecosemiotics challenge this anthropocentric view. By extending semiotic analysis beyond human communication, these fields argue that signification is a fundamental feature of life itself. The idea that nature is structured through sign relations—observable in animal behavior, plant communication, and environmental patterns—suggests that meaning is not exclusive to human cognition. This perspective finds an intriguing parallel in Jacques Derrida’s concept of arche-writing, which redefines writing as an inscription that precedes and transcends the human subject. Similarly, artificial intelligence (AI) operates by detecting patterns and making inferences from traces of prior states, mirroring both natural and conceptual systems of inscription. This article explores the interrelation of biosemiotics, Derrida’s deconstruction, and AI to reveal a broader continuity in the emergence of meaning across biological, environmental, and technological domains.

Biosemiotics and Ecosemiotics: Signification in Nature

Pioneered by Jakob von Uexküll and later expanded by Thomas Sebeok, biosemiotics posits that life itself is structured through sign relations. Uexküll’s foundational work, A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans (1934), introduced the concept of Umwelt—the subjective perceptual world of an organism. Every species interprets the world through its unique semiotic lens, responding to environmental cues in ways that define its existence. For example, a tick detects its host by interpreting chemical signals rather than visual or auditory stimuli, demonstrating a form of meaning-making independent of human language.

Thomas Sebeok expanded on Uexküll’s ideas, integrating them with Peircean semiotics to argue that signification is a defining trait of life itself. Sebeok’s research suggested that semiosis is not limited to communication but is foundational to biological processes, from genetic coding to interspecies signaling. Kalevi Kull’s ecosemiotics extends this framework to entire ecosystems, treating natural patterns—such as animal tracks, tree formations, and weather-induced changes—as meaningful signs. These perspectives challenge the assumption that signification emerges solely within human culture, instead presenting it as a precondition for life’s organization and evolution.

Derrida’s Arche-Writing: Meaning Before Logos

Derrida’s concept of arche-writing, developed in Of Grammatology (1967), challenges the traditional view that writing is a secondary representation of speech. Instead, Derrida argues that writing, or more broadly inscription, is primary—it structures meaning before speech emerges. Arche-writing refers to the idea that traces and differences always precede explicit linguistic articulation. This notion disrupts the conventional hierarchy in which speech is privileged over writing and suggests that meaning is generated through différance—the endless process of deferral and difference.

If we extend Derrida’s framework to natural signs, we can view phenomena such as footprints in the dirt, tree rings, and erosion patterns as inscriptions that exist prior to human interpretation. These marks bear meaning not because humans assign significance to them, but because they participate in a broader semiotic network. In this sense, nature itself can be seen as a vast, ongoing act of arche-writing, where signification is embedded in material processes rather than originating from human cognition alone. This perspective aligns with biosemiotics, reinforcing the idea that signs and meaning precede human intervention.

AI and the Cybernetics of Inscription

The notion of inscription without explicit human mediation finds an unexpected parallel in artificial intelligence. The early days of cybernetics, as seen in the work of Norbert Wiener and Warren McCulloch, framed cognition in terms of feedback loops and information processing. Derrida himself engaged with cybernetic discussions, particularly regarding how systems generate meaning through patterns of differentiation rather than fixed representations.

Contemporary AI, particularly deep learning models, operates on a kind of indexical semiotics, reading traces of prior states to infer meaning. Machine learning detects patterns in raw data much like how animals interpret environmental indices such as tracks, scents, or weather cues. Just as a predator reconstructs the presence of its prey from disturbed foliage, AI systems derive meaning from statistical traces without requiring explicit human encoding of semantics. In this way, AI can be conceptualized as a system that reads an arche-writing of its own—a computational tracing of patterns that precede and extend beyond immediate human intention.

The Role of the Human Subject

The relationship between biosemiotics, arche-writing, and AI raises important questions about the role of the human subject in meaning-making. Biosemiotics challenges the idea that meaning is exclusive to human cognition, emphasizing that living organisms—from bacteria to mammals—engage in semiotic processes. However, Derrida’s deconstruction further complicates the picture by questioning whether the interpreting subject is ever stable or fully present. In his framework, meaning is never fixed but emerges through différance—the continuous deferral and differentiation of signs within a shifting network of traces. In this sense, Derrida does not simply expand meaning beyond human cognition (as biosemiotics does) but destabilizes the very idea of a unified subject who produces or receives meaning in a fixed way.

AI introduces another layer to this discussion by shifting interpretation to non-human systems. Machine learning models detect patterns and infer structures from raw data, much like how animals respond to environmental signs. But is AI engaging in semiosis as biological organisms do, or is its process of pattern recognition fundamentally different? Unlike living beings, AI lacks embodiment and evolutionary history, which are central to biosemiotic meaning-making. If Derrida’s arche-writing suggests that traces and inscriptions precede and exceed human interpretation, could AI be seen as another reader of these traces—one that, like humans, is also caught in a web of différance?

Conclusion

The convergence of biosemiotics, arche-writing, and AI reveals a profound continuity in how meaning emerges across biological, environmental, and technological domains. Biosemiotics and ecosemiotics demonstrate that signification is not an exclusively human phenomenon but a fundamental feature of life. Derrida’s arche-writing expands this insight, showing that meaning is always already inscribed in processes beyond human control. AI, in turn, embodies a new form of inscription, reading and interpreting traces without explicit human intervention. Taken together, these perspectives suggest that meaning is not anchored in human consciousness alone but is a structural property of systems—whether biological, ecological, or computational—that navigate and respond to their environments.

Related Post

Cybernetics, Writing, and the Post-Human: Of Grammatology and the Erasure of the Human Subject

https://posthumansemiotics.blogspot.com/2025/03/blog-post_04.html

Bibliography

Uexküll, Jakob von. A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans: With a Theory of Meaning. Translated by Joseph D. O’Neil. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010. (Originally published in 1934.)

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. (Originally published in 1967.)

Derrida, Jacques. Positions. Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. (Originally published in 1972.)

Hoffmeyer, Jesper. Biosemiotics: An Examination into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs. Translated by Jesper Hoffmeyer and Donald Favareau. Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2008.

Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.