Dawkins’ Weasel and Autocommunication
https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5148-2025-4-18-26
Abstract
Aim. To show the limitations of biological reductionism from perspective of autocommunication which is carried out at both individual and general levels.
Methodology. Probabilistic models of biological reductionism are analyzed in comparison with models of contingency, historical and philosophical data, methods of discourse and communication interpretation, and reconstruction and modeling of autocommunication conditions are applied. The procedure becomes a stepwise critical test of the applicability of reductionism to the fact of autocommunication.
Results. It is concluded that the nature of autocommunication as a contingent situation of experience is not reducible to cognitive operations. Consistent critical verification shows the irreducibility of experience to its fixations, as well as the possibility of transforming modelings of experience into elements of experience. The present world in the era of linguistic models of AI allows such operations of ongoing enrichment of experience, which also provides a new developmental stimulus for religious philosophy.
Research implication. Both epistemological and ontological implicita of autocommunication in its irreducibility to cognitive operations have been presented in this work.
About the Authors
A. V. Markov
Russian State University for the Humanities
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander V. Markov – Dr. Sci. (Philology), Cand. Sci. (Philosophy), Prof., Department of Cinema and Contemporary Art
Moscow
O. A. Shtayn
Ural Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Oksana A. Shtayn – Cand. Sci. (Philosophy), Assoc. Prof., Department of Social Philosophy
Ekaterinburg
References
1. Vaneyan, S. S. (2013). Panofsky, Gombrich and the Meaning of Meaning in Art and Iconology. In: St. Tikhon’s University Review. Problems of History and Theory of Christian Art, 1 (10), 21–43 (in Russ.).
2. Guseltseva, M. S. (2010). Psychology and History: From Macroanalysis to Microanalysis. In: Psychological Research, 3. URL: https://psystudy.ru/num/article/view/927?articlesBySameAuthorPage=1 (accessed: 10.09.2025) DOI: 10.54359/ps.v3i10.927.
3. Kotelevskaya, V. (2022). The Boulevard Angel of History: Toward Walter Benjamin’s Work on Arcades. In: Versus, 2 (3), 154–171 (in Russ.).
4. Monin, M. A. (2020). Between Trace and Omen. The Paradigm of Evidence: As Knowledge and as Practice. In: Questions of Philosophy, 4, 154–166. DOI: 10.21146/0042-8744-2020-4-154-166.
5. Adamov, M. S. (2024). The Problem of Epistemic Responsibility and Its Psychophysiological Foundations. In: Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 8 (2), 205–228. DOI: 10.17323/2587-8719-2024-2-205-228 (in Russ.).
6. Khitruk, E. B. (2022). Understanding Man in the Context of the Memetic Theory of Religion: From “Image and Likeness” to “Vehicle.” In: St. Tikhon’s University Review. Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies, 101, 118–135. DOI: 10.15382/sturI2022101.118-135 (in Russ.).
7. Kralechkin, D. (2023). Purpose and Contingency: After Meritocracy. In: Logos, 6 (157), 85–110 (in Russ.).
8. Sapolsky, R. Determined. The Science of Life Without Free Will. Moscow: Alpina Non-Fiction publ. (in Russ.).
9. Dawkins, R. The Blind Watchmaker. Moscow: AST publ. (in Russ.).
10. Goethe, J. W. (2012). The Unexpected Goethe. Moscow, St. Petersburg: Letniy Sad publ. (in Russ.).
11. Lotman, Yu. M. (1994). Lectures on Structural Poetics. In: M. Yu. Lotman and the Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School. Moscow: Yazyki russkoi kultury publ., pp. 17–245 (in Russ.).
12. Lotman, Yu. M. (2000). Autocommunication: “I” and “Other” as Addressees (On Two Models of Communication in the Cultural System). In: Lotman, Yu. M. Semiosphere. St. Petersburg: Art-SPB publ., 159–177 (in Russ.).
Review
Views:
1
Email this article 