**2. The macroscopic level of communication**

The prefixes "macro-", "mega-," and "micro-" can be a source of inaccuracy and confusion. Rosnay [27] implemented "macroscopic" as a conceptual instrument for the scale of observation and experience related to social phenomena, where life develops, and the scale in which ecological systems interact with socioeconomic environments. Within the systemic-cybernetic approach, an attempt to unify terminology has been in progress since the 1960s. Currently, the proposal uses the concepts "macrocosm," "megacosm," and "microcosm". In this way, there are three scales in which culture operates: temporal limits, limits of interpretation, and limits of life. Therefore, the processes of signification obey the laws of thermodynamics, the physical laws of the universe, and the complex structures by which we exchange and create meaning. In other words, social systems, at least complex social systems, generate events. These autogenerative processes would be located in the middle between biology, which includes the neuronal interactions of individual semiosis and interpretant signs, and the accidental developments that occur as a result of random encounters between systems and events. While the individual system responds to disturbances with its own determinism or internal laws, the ecosystem responds randomly or decentralized [28]. In this sense, the difference between event and element is basic, because "the notion of an element is a spatial ontology, while the notion of an event is a temporal ontology" [28].

Some systemic philosophers such as Brier [29], Wilber [30, 31], and Laszlo [32] named this model as "ecosystemic." Each of these authors has proposed a different scheme to represent the ecosystemic model with the different scales of time, life, and interpretation. Our theoretical-methodological proposal is that the trajectory of a particular meaning can be measured as a probabilistic trajectory along these temporal, interpretive, and life scales. From this perspective, based on the phenomenology of Peirce's experience, semiosis is the process by which a thing acquires meaning in such a way that the evolution and continuous adaptation of the signs, in the form of networks or semiotic systems, limit the time of semiosis [19, 33]. Therefore, deep symbolic correlations depend on person-to-person contacts, and long-range correlations are defined by their longevity in years. Luhmann [33] applied the mathematical formula for the growth of superconnected networks to characterize the organizational systems constituted by decision-making. These systems are interconnected by themselves through semiosis, which results in an isomorphism1 with the structural coupling treated by Maturana [34]. In that sense, like Luhmann, we agree with the idea that we are not talking about structural coupling based on a closed process of self-reference [33].

Systemic-semiotics is based on the first-order cybernetics definitions by Guddemi [35]. Guddemi explains that the evolution of the concept *sign* is associated with Peirce's phenomenology of experience and associates the construction of signs with Maturana's [34] *structural coupling*, which is a path that enables the evolution of categories of experience: from pure experience or firstness, to second experience or secondness, to the third category or thirdness. In cybersemiotics, firstness is everything that expresses something as a level of consciousness and that habilitates the capacity to distinguish the objective of communication from its medium. Secondness corresponds to the classification of reality; it is the establishment of meaning, which depends on the biological properties of individuals. Thirdness is the socio-communicative interaction between individuals and can only be possible across social interaction; it is where the acknowledgement of the other takes

**71**

*Semiotic Architecture of Viral Data*

language you use" [37].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89153*

place. Brier [37] argues that it is not possible to "generate knowledge without first accepting the reality of the other, your own body and consciousness, as well as the

Systemic-semiotics is based on Guddemi's interpretation of Peirce's phenomenology of experience, unlike cybersemiotics, in which principles stem from biosemiotics and Luhmann's triple autopoiesis [33, 35, 37, 38] Nevertheless, the full consequences of these principles have yet to be determined, as does the role of cybersemiotics and systemic-semiotics in systems research. Deeper research needs to be conducted into Maturana's structural coupling in order to understand the

*"The organization of a system is only one aspect of the relations occurring in its structure and does not exist independently from the structure in which it happens. A system maintains its class identity and remains the same under these circumstances, even if its structure changes, but only if, throughout the structural changes,* 

Structural coupling is critical to understanding the direction in which changes

*"I have named structural coupling to the dynamics of congruent structural changes that occur in a spontaneous way between systems in recurring actions (in fact, recursive), as well as the coherent structural dynamics that result from it. Living systems, as well the non-living environment in which they recursively interact, are systems structurally determined, with plastic structures that follow a course of change that emerges modulated by the flow of its interactions. As a result, living systems and their non-living environment change conjoined and congruently, forming a biosphere in the form of a multidimensional network of reciprocal structural coupling which emerges spontaneously as a result of the conservation of* 

Cybersemiotics, as a type of second-order cybernetics, proposes an idea in which the production of signification in biological systems depends on structural coupling. Therefore, the study of meaning in humans must aim to complete the lack of knowledge about "the self-organization of cognition and the structural coupling of observers" [39, 40]. According to Brier [37], Peirce's semiotics combined with a cybernetic and systemic vision, such as that of Luhmann's, is what constitutes the cybersemiotics framework. However, an ontology based on Luhmann's theory of socio-communicative beings can only conceive biological systems autopoiesis. These systems perform complex tasks with an efficiency as yet out of the reach of artificial systems. In this way, the cybersemiotics theoretical background cannot solve the incommensurability

Bearing in mind that, in natural communication contexts, each iteration of the microcosm (the individual) with the macrocosm (the collective) involves feedback, and this process is evidence of how we update meanings with external data from our minds and personal experiences. Apparently, it is the cultural way in which we correct our mistakes or change our minds for decision-making. The systemic postulate is based on the idea that it is only at the level of macroscopic communication that semiosis is carried out, that is, the acquisition and updating of meanings. In traditional studies on transmission and acquisition of content, manipulation of behavior, and

occur and the moment they affect the levels of other scales. For example, the disproportionate growth of cells in a next-one-up structural level, the tissue, can produce far-reaching changes, which, in turn, affect the next fundamental tiers, as

difference between cybersemiotics and systemic-semiotics approaches:

*the system's organization is preserved" [34].*

in metabolism or a living organism's development:

*the autopoiesis of the living systems" [34].*

among machines, consciousness, and artificial intelligence.

<sup>1</sup> We understand isomorphism is "a correspondence of elements one to one, preserving the operational characteristics of the systems involved" [36].

#### *Semiotic Architecture of Viral Data DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89153*

*Cognitive and Intermedial Semiotics*

**2. The macroscopic level of communication**

while the notion of an event is a temporal ontology" [28].

coupling based on a closed process of self-reference [33].

The prefixes "macro-", "mega-," and "micro-" can be a source of inaccuracy and confusion. Rosnay [27] implemented "macroscopic" as a conceptual instrument for the scale of observation and experience related to social phenomena, where life develops, and the scale in which ecological systems interact with socioeconomic environments. Within the systemic-cybernetic approach, an attempt to unify terminology has been in progress since the 1960s. Currently, the proposal uses the concepts "macrocosm," "megacosm," and "microcosm". In this way, there are three scales in which culture operates: temporal limits, limits of interpretation, and limits of life. Therefore, the processes of signification obey the laws of thermodynamics, the physical laws of the universe, and the complex structures by which we exchange and create meaning. In other words, social systems, at least complex social systems, generate events. These autogenerative processes would be located in the middle between biology, which includes the neuronal interactions of individual semiosis and interpretant signs, and the accidental developments that occur as a result of random encounters between systems and events. While the individual system responds to disturbances with its own determinism or internal laws, the ecosystem responds randomly or decentralized [28]. In this sense, the difference between event and element is basic, because "the notion of an element is a spatial ontology,

Some systemic philosophers such as Brier [29], Wilber [30, 31], and Laszlo [32] named this model as "ecosystemic." Each of these authors has proposed a different scheme to represent the ecosystemic model with the different scales of time, life, and interpretation. Our theoretical-methodological proposal is that the trajectory of a particular meaning can be measured as a probabilistic trajectory along these temporal, interpretive, and life scales. From this perspective, based on the phenomenology of Peirce's experience, semiosis is the process by which a thing acquires meaning in such a way that the evolution and continuous adaptation of the signs, in the form of networks or semiotic systems, limit the time of semiosis [19, 33]. Therefore, deep symbolic correlations depend on person-to-person contacts, and long-range correlations are defined by their longevity in years. Luhmann [33] applied the mathematical formula for the growth of superconnected networks to characterize the organizational systems constituted by decision-making. These systems are interconnected by themselves through semiosis, which results in an

with the structural coupling treated by Maturana [34]. In that sense,

like Luhmann, we agree with the idea that we are not talking about structural

Systemic-semiotics is based on the first-order cybernetics definitions by Guddemi [35]. Guddemi explains that the evolution of the concept *sign* is associated with Peirce's phenomenology of experience and associates the construction of signs with Maturana's [34] *structural coupling*, which is a path that enables the evolution of categories of experience: from pure experience or firstness, to second experience or secondness, to the third category or thirdness. In cybersemiotics, firstness is everything that expresses something as a level of consciousness and that habilitates the capacity to distinguish the objective of communication from its medium. Secondness corresponds to the classification of reality; it is the establishment of meaning, which depends on the biological properties of individuals. Thirdness is the socio-communicative interaction between individuals and can only be possible across social interaction; it is where the acknowledgement of the other takes

<sup>1</sup> We understand isomorphism is "a correspondence of elements one to one, preserving the operational

**70**

characteristics of the systems involved" [36].

isomorphism1

place. Brier [37] argues that it is not possible to "generate knowledge without first accepting the reality of the other, your own body and consciousness, as well as the language you use" [37].

Systemic-semiotics is based on Guddemi's interpretation of Peirce's phenomenology of experience, unlike cybersemiotics, in which principles stem from biosemiotics and Luhmann's triple autopoiesis [33, 35, 37, 38] Nevertheless, the full consequences of these principles have yet to be determined, as does the role of cybersemiotics and systemic-semiotics in systems research. Deeper research needs to be conducted into Maturana's structural coupling in order to understand the difference between cybersemiotics and systemic-semiotics approaches:

*"The organization of a system is only one aspect of the relations occurring in its structure and does not exist independently from the structure in which it happens. A system maintains its class identity and remains the same under these circumstances, even if its structure changes, but only if, throughout the structural changes, the system's organization is preserved" [34].*

Structural coupling is critical to understanding the direction in which changes occur and the moment they affect the levels of other scales. For example, the disproportionate growth of cells in a next-one-up structural level, the tissue, can produce far-reaching changes, which, in turn, affect the next fundamental tiers, as in metabolism or a living organism's development:

*"I have named structural coupling to the dynamics of congruent structural changes that occur in a spontaneous way between systems in recurring actions (in fact, recursive), as well as the coherent structural dynamics that result from it. Living systems, as well the non-living environment in which they recursively interact, are systems structurally determined, with plastic structures that follow a course of change that emerges modulated by the flow of its interactions. As a result, living systems and their non-living environment change conjoined and congruently, forming a biosphere in the form of a multidimensional network of reciprocal structural coupling which emerges spontaneously as a result of the conservation of the autopoiesis of the living systems" [34].*

Cybersemiotics, as a type of second-order cybernetics, proposes an idea in which the production of signification in biological systems depends on structural coupling. Therefore, the study of meaning in humans must aim to complete the lack of knowledge about "the self-organization of cognition and the structural coupling of observers" [39, 40]. According to Brier [37], Peirce's semiotics combined with a cybernetic and systemic vision, such as that of Luhmann's, is what constitutes the cybersemiotics framework. However, an ontology based on Luhmann's theory of socio-communicative beings can only conceive biological systems autopoiesis. These systems perform complex tasks with an efficiency as yet out of the reach of artificial systems. In this way, the cybersemiotics theoretical background cannot solve the incommensurability among machines, consciousness, and artificial intelligence.

Bearing in mind that, in natural communication contexts, each iteration of the microcosm (the individual) with the macrocosm (the collective) involves feedback, and this process is evidence of how we update meanings with external data from our minds and personal experiences. Apparently, it is the cultural way in which we correct our mistakes or change our minds for decision-making. The systemic postulate is based on the idea that it is only at the level of macroscopic communication that semiosis is carried out, that is, the acquisition and updating of meanings. In traditional studies on transmission and acquisition of content, manipulation of behavior, and

insertion of consumption patterns, the macroscopic level is omitted, because behavior is thought to be an area for psychology or marketing. However, significant communication or the process of significance [41] is carried out at the macroscopic level.

Communication, at the macroscopic level, is the process of transmitting information from one point to another, whether it is in the public, private, individual, or collective, where the range of possible states is assigned to code and decode [42, 43]. For theoreticians such as Lacalle and Landowski, sociosemiotic concepts such as public and private spheres place communication in the center as an interface that regulates the transit of meaning between them. Furthermore, in social systems, communication implies conditions for assigning meaning within a range of possible states of the receiver, and this limit is cultural [44–46].

The methodological objective of the application of these sociosemiotic categories is to measure the degree of visibility of the subject in the communicative processes. Consequently, the visibility of the subject in the media defines the relations between the message and the communication channels through which the receivers get the information. In other words, the media largely determine the difference between the individual and collective interpretation of a sign, message, or speech and leave an evidence of that [47].

For semioticians like Charo Lacalle and Eric Landowski, the methodological objective of their socio semiotical categories is "to measure the degree of visibility of the subject in the communicative processes" [42]. Currently, in communication outlets hosted in social network's websites, the degrees of visibility of individuals are self-evident, whereas, over the twentieth century and the beginning of this century, the visibility of individuals as a concept was an empirical topic not yet comprehended. From a systemic approach, we can distinguish several scales in which "empirical individuals communicate, and systems of meaning make communication processes possible" [48]. Provisionally, we can divide the visibility of interactions as scales of semiotic organization: culture, society, community, and kinship, which we will explain below.

Culture refers to those interactions that correspond to the set of values and standards of a social system. These values and norms act as parameters of collective order and include beliefs (religious, esthetic, ethical, and philosophical), legal systems, political ideologies, technical practices, prevailing economic attitudes, etc. Culture polarizes strongly almost all individuals in the system, through reciprocal conditioning of behavior, which in turn. "The basic values and the resulting adaptative norms correspond to the autopoietic character of a given sociosystem, which must however adapt to internal and environmental change. It strongly polarizes nearly all the individuals in the system, through reciprocal behavioral constraints and, in turn, generates the behavior and attitudes needed to maintain its global coherence and efficiency and in some extreme cases secures its very survival" [1]. This graph relation corresponds to the organization of systems, suprasystems, and subsystems in which a social institution like language operates, as well as codependences and relevant points of interaction that can be observed [49], shown in **Figure 1** as collective and public networks.

Society involves the interaction of human systems using parameters of order. Keynon De Greene [50] explains the use of order parameters as follows: when applied to complex living systems, the establishment of order describes evolutionary limits and warnings for the survival of the system. The parameter order belongs to a macroscopic, emergent collective field, in which critical points of an infinite number of microlevel interactions occur. The parameter of order expresses the stochastic generation of new structural change, as well as the deterministic maintenance of the established situation or its structural constancy. The appearance of the parameter of order represents a significant loss for the degrees of freedom at the microlevel, so that the microlevel behavior follows the parameter of order. Languages, theories,

**73**

**Figure 1.**

religions, political belief systems, economic belief systems, as well as scientific and social belief systems, such as the Newtonian paradigm, are exemplary parameters of

*The sociodigital networks and their macroscopic interaction: culture, society, community, family. Source: authors.*

Community, in this sense, is a type of interaction between empirical individuals who share frames of reference, similar epistemologies, and the realization of similar tests to ascertain reality in a way that mutually validates their knowledge [51]. Communities are about "the structure made of interconnected individuals who live in similar environmental conditions" [52]. Individual members do not "necessarily have to be identical, even if they are all of the same general types. They may

order, shown in **Figure 1** as collective and private networks.

*Semiotic Architecture of Viral Data*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89153*

*Cognitive and Intermedial Semiotics*

and leave an evidence of that [47].

kinship, which we will explain below.

insertion of consumption patterns, the macroscopic level is omitted, because behavior is thought to be an area for psychology or marketing. However, significant communication or the process of significance [41] is carried out at the macroscopic level.

Communication, at the macroscopic level, is the process of transmitting information from one point to another, whether it is in the public, private, individual, or collective, where the range of possible states is assigned to code and decode [42, 43]. For theoreticians such as Lacalle and Landowski, sociosemiotic concepts such as public and private spheres place communication in the center as an interface that regulates the transit of meaning between them. Furthermore, in social systems, communication implies conditions for assigning meaning within a range

The methodological objective of the application of these sociosemiotic categories is to measure the degree of visibility of the subject in the communicative processes. Consequently, the visibility of the subject in the media defines the relations between the message and the communication channels through which the receivers get the information. In other words, the media largely determine the difference between the individual and collective interpretation of a sign, message, or speech

For semioticians like Charo Lacalle and Eric Landowski, the methodological objective of their socio semiotical categories is "to measure the degree of visibility of the subject in the communicative processes" [42]. Currently, in communication outlets hosted in social network's websites, the degrees of visibility of individuals are self-evident, whereas, over the twentieth century and the beginning of this century, the visibility of individuals as a concept was an empirical topic not yet comprehended. From a systemic approach, we can distinguish several scales in which "empirical individuals communicate, and systems of meaning make communication processes possible" [48]. Provisionally, we can divide the visibility of interactions as scales of semiotic organization: culture, society, community, and

Culture refers to those interactions that correspond to the set of values and standards of a social system. These values and norms act as parameters of collective order and include beliefs (religious, esthetic, ethical, and philosophical), legal systems, political ideologies, technical practices, prevailing economic attitudes, etc. Culture polarizes strongly almost all individuals in the system, through reciprocal conditioning of behavior, which in turn. "The basic values and the resulting adaptative norms correspond to the autopoietic character of a given sociosystem, which must however adapt to internal and environmental change. It strongly polarizes nearly all the individuals in the system, through reciprocal behavioral constraints and, in turn, generates the behavior and attitudes needed to maintain its global coherence and efficiency and in some extreme cases secures its very survival" [1]. This graph relation corresponds to the organization of systems, suprasystems, and subsystems in which a social institution like language operates, as well as codependences and relevant points of interaction

that can be observed [49], shown in **Figure 1** as collective and public networks. Society involves the interaction of human systems using parameters of order. Keynon De Greene [50] explains the use of order parameters as follows: when applied to complex living systems, the establishment of order describes evolutionary limits and warnings for the survival of the system. The parameter order belongs to a macroscopic, emergent collective field, in which critical points of an infinite number of microlevel interactions occur. The parameter of order expresses the stochastic generation of new structural change, as well as the deterministic maintenance of the established situation or its structural constancy. The appearance of the parameter of order represents a significant loss for the degrees of freedom at the microlevel, so that the microlevel behavior follows the parameter of order. Languages, theories,

of possible states of the receiver, and this limit is cultural [44–46].

**72**

#### **Figure 1.**

*The sociodigital networks and their macroscopic interaction: culture, society, community, family. Source: authors.*

religions, political belief systems, economic belief systems, as well as scientific and social belief systems, such as the Newtonian paradigm, are exemplary parameters of order, shown in **Figure 1** as collective and private networks.

Community, in this sense, is a type of interaction between empirical individuals who share frames of reference, similar epistemologies, and the realization of similar tests to ascertain reality in a way that mutually validates their knowledge [51]. Communities are about "the structure made of interconnected individuals who live in similar environmental conditions" [52]. Individual members do not "necessarily have to be identical, even if they are all of the same general types. They may

very well perform different functions" [1]. Miller's theory of living systems places communities as interconnected organizations that, in turn, combine with societies [53–56] more individuals who share an identity and a common purpose, and who are committed to the joint creation of meaning through interaction [1], shown in **Figure 1** as individual and public networks.

The most stable social interactions occur within the family or kinship level. They have a lot of variety of states and are the atomic units of analysis to study communities. This type of organization regulates two types of relations, according to classic theory: consanguinity and affinity relations [57]. However, approaches like Dziebel's [58] and Fortes's [59] from a systemic perspective consider kinship as a regular or egocentric network, asserting the origin node, and focused on a single family member called ego [60]. Thus, kinship relationships in a virtual or physical community are the basis of cultural networks study, shown in **Figure 1** as personal and private networks.

**Figure 1** is intended to clarify how the isomorphism of interaction operates across different communication interfaces and impacts the communication process. Isomorphisms from the biologic scale toward the social scale correspond to the interaction from real networks in the "network topology" column versus the social network website in the first column. Signs circulate across different scales of the network; therefore, they do not have the same communication level or share similar interactions, resulting in sign meaning not being the same as in their original semiosis.

According to Vallée [61], the multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary character of systems theory has, as its fundamental purpose, the finding of the structural isomorphisms between systems that belong to different disciplines or between representations of the same order. Wiener [62] refers to such isomorphisms as mere homomorphisms in his cybernetics work. The search for this type of isomorphism, or proper homomorphism, has led to the concept of a model that allows for the representation of a category of systems.

Nowadays, in the digital media of communication, the degree of visibility is evident through its network topology. While, in the past century, the concept of visibility and its graduation in the empirical subject was poorly understood. Note that the social network website Facebook operates across all scales, and consequently, the intimacy, privacy, and anonymity of individuals are exposed. For this reason, other social network websites where intimacy is not at risk have become more popular among young people [42].

A methodological division of the scales of symbolic organization is as follows: culture, society, community, and family, which have been explained widely in other essays [42].

Just as shown in **Figure 1**, and in **Table 1**, with these scales, it is possible to know the trajectory of a meaning through its network topology [42].

Cybersemiotics advances that interactions are necessarily evolutionary, which is also congruent with the systemic-semiotics approach. Within the types of interaction described above, social systems are integrated and constituted. In human communication, an expression serves as evidence of autopoiesis of consciousness. The changes of connectivity across networks are proof of the need to structure communication in the form of intentional relationships with entities beyond the self.

The homomorphisms of interaction are individual-private, individual-public, collective-private, and collective-public, all of which determine the type of semiosis and the visibility of individuals. Interaction occurs within culture, society, community, and family, that is, regular networks within semiotic organization.

**Figure 1** also illustrates the qualitative aspects referring to the nodes and their meanings, and quantitative features such as nodes of influence involving objects,

**75**

*Semiotic Architecture of Viral Data*

**Empirical subject**

homomorphisms.

*Source: Valle Canales [49].*

*Visibility of the subject in sociodigital networks.*

**Table 1.**

correlations.

of the original message.

**3. The microscopic level of communication**

make up the meaning of the politician you thought of.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89153*

**Sociosemiotical concept**

Collective Private Intimate community,

persons, or signs as well as their degree of connectivity. The behavior of interactions is represented as an isomorphism of interaction network along with its

**Communicative process**

Individual Private Intimate diary Facebook, Snapchat, Pinterest

closed groups

and amateurs

Public Public opinion—experts

Public Public figure Twitter, Instagram, Facebook,

**Sociodigital network**

Online conversation services: WhatsApp, Skype, Facebook,

YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, Blogs— Tumblr, news, informative media

Pinterest

Pinterest

In short, when messages operate at the macroscopic level, communication processes become irreversible, and the evidence is the events they generate. These events are an effect or by-product of the interaction of different sets of messages, experiences, and coherence with specific environments. Mathematically, we can

Rule 1: *when a difference of interpretation is large enough, between the individual and the collective, cascades of viral information arise, in which hundreds, thousands, or millions of subjects share facts (true, suspicious, or false).* In this way, a situation of nonequilibrium or instability of the original message creates long-range

However, before entering the dissipative structures, we will briefly recount what happens at the microscopic level. In other words, we will talk about the instability

Semiotics studies the variety of possible semiosis [43]. Meanwhile, semiosis is the process of cooperation between three entities: a sign, its object, and its interpretant [48]. We can know these three entities in three ways: the concrete or existing object; the immediate object or the sign that the interpretant evokes in his mind in the form of an image of the concrete object; and the logical interpretant or the final meaning of the existing object. This process continues through the correlation with other signs in the mind of the interpreter, who is an empirical subject, and is expressed through a more complex sign (known as a symbol) that has a correspondence with the concrete object and various signs. Think of a politician and now meditate on the specific politician of your choice; think of all the ways you can communicate those ideas in your culture, and there you will have all the signs that

Social networks function as mediators of meaning; this is a type of predicate: probably, or probably, or possibly the existing object is something in accordance with the elements provided by the media [47, 48]. But, in sociodigital networks, a meaning can be interpreted in a different way from the original message. This phenomenon is studied through interpretive semiotics [45, 63]. In interpretive

abstract them and analyze them as cascades or *dissipative structures*. The rule that operates at the macroscopic level is the following:


#### **Table 1.**

*Cognitive and Intermedial Semiotics*

and private networks.

semiosis.

**Figure 1** as individual and public networks.

representation of a category of systems.

lar among young people [42].

essays [42].

very well perform different functions" [1]. Miller's theory of living systems places communities as interconnected organizations that, in turn, combine with societies [53–56] more individuals who share an identity and a common purpose, and who are committed to the joint creation of meaning through interaction [1], shown in

The most stable social interactions occur within the family or kinship level. They have a lot of variety of states and are the atomic units of analysis to study communities. This type of organization regulates two types of relations, according to classic theory: consanguinity and affinity relations [57]. However, approaches like Dziebel's [58] and Fortes's [59] from a systemic perspective consider kinship as a regular or egocentric network, asserting the origin node, and focused on a single family member called ego [60]. Thus, kinship relationships in a virtual or physical community are the basis of cultural networks study, shown in **Figure 1** as personal

**Figure 1** is intended to clarify how the isomorphism of interaction operates across different communication interfaces and impacts the communication process. Isomorphisms from the biologic scale toward the social scale correspond to the interaction from real networks in the "network topology" column versus the social network website in the first column. Signs circulate across different scales of the network; therefore, they do not have the same communication level or share similar interactions, resulting in sign meaning not being the same as in their original

According to Vallée [61], the multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary character of systems theory has, as its fundamental purpose, the finding of the structural isomorphisms between systems that belong to different disciplines or between representations of the same order. Wiener [62] refers to such isomorphisms as mere homomorphisms in his cybernetics work. The search for this type of isomorphism, or proper homomorphism, has led to the concept of a model that allows for the

Nowadays, in the digital media of communication, the degree of visibility is evident through its network topology. While, in the past century, the concept of visibility and its graduation in the empirical subject was poorly understood. Note that the social network website Facebook operates across all scales, and consequently, the intimacy, privacy, and anonymity of individuals are exposed. For this reason, other social network websites where intimacy is not at risk have become more popu-

A methodological division of the scales of symbolic organization is as follows: culture, society, community, and family, which have been explained widely in other

Just as shown in **Figure 1**, and in **Table 1**, with these scales, it is possible to know

Cybersemiotics advances that interactions are necessarily evolutionary, which is also congruent with the systemic-semiotics approach. Within the types of interaction described above, social systems are integrated and constituted. In human communication, an expression serves as evidence of autopoiesis of consciousness. The changes of connectivity across networks are proof of the need to structure communication in the form of intentional relationships with entities beyond the self.

The homomorphisms of interaction are individual-private, individual-public, collective-private, and collective-public, all of which determine the type of semiosis and the visibility of individuals. Interaction occurs within culture, society, commu-

**Figure 1** also illustrates the qualitative aspects referring to the nodes and their meanings, and quantitative features such as nodes of influence involving objects,

nity, and family, that is, regular networks within semiotic organization.

the trajectory of a meaning through its network topology [42].

**74**

*Visibility of the subject in sociodigital networks.*

persons, or signs as well as their degree of connectivity. The behavior of interactions is represented as an isomorphism of interaction network along with its homomorphisms.

In short, when messages operate at the macroscopic level, communication processes become irreversible, and the evidence is the events they generate. These events are an effect or by-product of the interaction of different sets of messages, experiences, and coherence with specific environments. Mathematically, we can abstract them and analyze them as cascades or *dissipative structures*.

The rule that operates at the macroscopic level is the following:

Rule 1: *when a difference of interpretation is large enough, between the individual and the collective, cascades of viral information arise, in which hundreds, thousands, or millions of subjects share facts (true, suspicious, or false).* In this way, a situation of nonequilibrium or instability of the original message creates long-range correlations.

However, before entering the dissipative structures, we will briefly recount what happens at the microscopic level. In other words, we will talk about the instability of the original message.

## **3. The microscopic level of communication**

Semiotics studies the variety of possible semiosis [43]. Meanwhile, semiosis is the process of cooperation between three entities: a sign, its object, and its interpretant [48]. We can know these three entities in three ways: the concrete or existing object; the immediate object or the sign that the interpretant evokes in his mind in the form of an image of the concrete object; and the logical interpretant or the final meaning of the existing object. This process continues through the correlation with other signs in the mind of the interpreter, who is an empirical subject, and is expressed through a more complex sign (known as a symbol) that has a correspondence with the concrete object and various signs. Think of a politician and now meditate on the specific politician of your choice; think of all the ways you can communicate those ideas in your culture, and there you will have all the signs that make up the meaning of the politician you thought of.

Social networks function as mediators of meaning; this is a type of predicate: probably, or probably, or possibly the existing object is something in accordance with the elements provided by the media [47, 48]. But, in sociodigital networks, a meaning can be interpreted in a different way from the original message. This phenomenon is studied through interpretive semiotics [45, 63]. In interpretive

semiotics, the transfer of meanings is a recursive process that generates new interconnections between semiotic systems [64]. For this reason, in the fake news factory, we can find several examples of interpretative semiotics, to be noticed: translation processes, change of linguistic code, construction of verisimilitude, or naive iconism [41].

The transfer of messages from one subsystem to another modifies the original meaning accordingly. This process is very important, since it allows the classification of objects from an original semiosis to a current semiosis, coherent with the culture, space, and time of each individual [45, 47]. Peirce defined semiosis as an action or influence, which is or implies a cooperation between three subjects: a sign, its object, and its interpretant [47, 48]. This relative influence of three is not fixed in any way to the action between pairs. In this way, the interpretant signs belong to the microscopic level; that is why they are unstable, because, isolated, they are incomplete. They always require an object and a sign-vehicle. In the macroscopic communication circuit, a message can acquire different interpretations than those initially thought by the transmitter to communicate. In other words, the original semiosis will never be the same as the final semiosis once the subject introduces his message in the scales of macroscopic communication: family, community, society, and culture.

Based on the cultural perspective of Eco, the meanings change through the symbolic means of each culture. In this way, the information acquired in a virtual environment, by balancing its variety of states with the concrete known environment, generates by-products as a form of entropy to balance the interpretation of the contents. The semiotic competences of *dictionary* and *encyclopedia* define the possible ranges of the interpretation of each individual [45]. In order to codify signs, the competence of the sign production must respond to the conventions of each culture; this is the encyclopedic competence. On the other hand, the competence of dictionary operates on a personal level; it depends on our experiences and personal knowledge [41, 65].

According to Charles Sanders Peirce, the sign, object, and interpretant sign only can occur as an effect of social interaction. This trivalent interaction is the semiosis, and the result is the meaning. Consequently, semiosis needs a cultural environment and individual experience. All these processes are components of phenomenology of experience. In this way, human understanding begins at a personal scale and consolidates at the macroscopic level. At that level, we will find what, within the theory, is called a sign, the minimum unit of meaning (mum), or semiotic function. For example, the signs of different languages for the entity "political candidate" can result in the following outputs: የፖለቲካ እጩ, Amharic; палітычны кандыдат, Belarusian; ผู้สมัครทางการเมือง, Tai. In that way, there is a sign with the condition of a concrete and dynamic object. In other words, the object is the entity to which the sign refers. In the previous example, through experience, we know that the object "political candidate" can take a great variety of concrete assignments within a given space and time. In this way, this entity interacts and exists within a macroscopic (where it is enunciated) and microscopic (which enunciates) environment. In the third place, an interpretive sign is missing, and that sign depends on the interpretative qualities of each person. In theoretical terms, the interpretant sign cannot be known unless someone opened someone else's head and says: "Look! Here is the sign-political candidate". However, it would be the sign "political candidate" of that time and moment, and not of this other time and moment.

The rule that operates at the microscopic level is as follows.

**Rule 2**: *if the concrete object and the interpretant sign are separated, it is due to its inconsistency with the macroscopic context. As the difference of states in the* 

**77**

*Semiotic Architecture of Viral Data*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89153*

and the final result is irreversible [13].

evolution in their network topology.

Harry Wiener index [68].

lifetime is very short.

and a natural viralization.

According to the Wiener index,<sup>2</sup>

**4. The dissipative structures of communication**

*interpretation gets bigger, the distance between them will grow exponentially as they circulate within the macroscopic level until reaching different regions.* Thus, the approximation to equilibrium is the result of the decrease in the difference of interpretations, and this implies a transformation in the original semiosis. Consequently, the initial information has been modified; the objective and object of the original system can become completely different from its intention, emotion, or reason.

Digital communication is a system of dynamic states designed to create information, whose by-product is entropy. Therefore, a way to dispel such entropy is necessary. The main objective of incorporating these presuppositions is due to the isomorphism that we have used throughout this text to explain how viral information and its social action emerge. We talk about Ilya Prigogine's theory about dissipative structures [13–16]. Ilya Prigogine postulated that matter and energy are transformed throughout a trajectory that begins at a microscopic and unstable level. The next level is the irreducible statistics by which a rupture in the temporal symmetry takes place; that is, once it enters this process, neither matter or energy can be reduced. Finally, at the macroscopic level, energy and matter find balance,

This succession, instability (chaos) → probability → irreversibility, involves properties of probabilistic evolution that can be measured [13]. In the dimension of culture, that evidence is observed through virtual environments and their statistical

Under these criteria, we understand dissipative structures as by-products of an interpretative semiosis, which operates when there's a big difference in the interpretation between the public and the private. These structures are what network literature calls information cascade. Sun et al. [66] were the first to research this type of cascade phenomena with real Facebook data. According to these authors, the models of statistical evolution have contributed to the comprehension of how diseases are transmitted and, also, of how ideas between people are transmitted through diffusion structures. These can be small chains at the level of a family or peer conversation, or it can very well scale to the famous cascades of viral information, which, in its more outstanding cases, have effects on the objects of a concrete

From theory, network's interaction and topology allow observing the time of propagation of false or fake news, so that it is possible to place them within the

The first kind of structure is known as "string-like," while the second kind is commonly denominated "viral" [69–72]. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the behavior itself of the propagation shows a notable difference between an artificial

<sup>2</sup> Wiener index carries the name of Harry Wiener; in his time [68], he named it "number of trajectory." It

through which the news can be disseminated: (1) a structure that has great depth; the propagation is slow and from person-to-person but, in a moment, it reaches a concentration point that triggers a rapid viral spread; (2) the second structure implies a rapid propagation, of long-range but little depth and its

there are at least two network structures

environment, and over the objects of a virtual environment [67].

is the most antique topological index related to molecular ramification.

*Semiotic Architecture of Viral Data DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89153*

*Cognitive and Intermedial Semiotics*

naive iconism [41].

and culture.

personal knowledge [41, 65].

semiotics, the transfer of meanings is a recursive process that generates new interconnections between semiotic systems [64]. For this reason, in the fake news factory, we can find several examples of interpretative semiotics, to be noticed: translation processes, change of linguistic code, construction of verisimilitude, or

The transfer of messages from one subsystem to another modifies the original meaning accordingly. This process is very important, since it allows the classification of objects from an original semiosis to a current semiosis, coherent with the culture, space, and time of each individual [45, 47]. Peirce defined semiosis as an action or influence, which is or implies a cooperation between three subjects: a sign, its object, and its interpretant [47, 48]. This relative influence of three is not fixed in any way to the action between pairs. In this way, the interpretant signs belong to the microscopic level; that is why they are unstable, because, isolated, they are incomplete. They always require an object and a sign-vehicle. In the macroscopic communication circuit, a message can acquire different interpretations than those initially thought by the transmitter to communicate. In other words, the original semiosis will never be the same as the final semiosis once the subject introduces his message in the scales of macroscopic communication: family, community, society,

Based on the cultural perspective of Eco, the meanings change through the symbolic means of each culture. In this way, the information acquired in a virtual environment, by balancing its variety of states with the concrete known environment, generates by-products as a form of entropy to balance the interpretation of the contents. The semiotic competences of *dictionary* and *encyclopedia* define the possible ranges of the interpretation of each individual [45]. In order to codify signs, the competence of the sign production must respond to the conventions of each culture; this is the encyclopedic competence. On the other hand, the competence of dictionary operates on a personal level; it depends on our experiences and

According to Charles Sanders Peirce, the sign, object, and interpretant sign only can occur as an effect of social interaction. This trivalent interaction is the semiosis, and the result is the meaning. Consequently, semiosis needs a cultural environment and individual experience. All these processes are components of phenomenology of experience. In this way, human understanding begins at a personal scale and consolidates at the macroscopic level. At that level, we will find what, within the theory, is called a sign, the minimum unit of meaning (mum), or semiotic function. For example, the signs of different languages for the entity "political candidate" can result in the following outputs: የፖለቲካ እጩ, Amharic; палітычны кандыдат, Belarusian; ผู้สมัครทางการเมือง, Tai. In that way, there is a sign with the condition of a concrete and dynamic object. In other words, the object is the entity to which the sign refers. In the previous example, through experience, we know that the object "political candidate" can take a great variety of concrete assignments within a given space and time. In this way, this entity interacts and exists within a macroscopic (where it is enunciated) and microscopic (which enunciates) environment. In the third place, an interpretive sign is missing, and that sign depends on the interpretative qualities of each person. In theoretical terms, the interpretant sign cannot be known unless someone opened someone else's head and says: "Look! Here is the sign-political candidate". However, it would be the sign "political candidate" of that

time and moment, and not of this other time and moment. The rule that operates at the microscopic level is as follows.

**Rule 2**: *if the concrete object and the interpretant sign are separated, it is due to its inconsistency with the macroscopic context. As the difference of states in the* 

**76**

*interpretation gets bigger, the distance between them will grow exponentially as they circulate within the macroscopic level until reaching different regions.* Thus, the approximation to equilibrium is the result of the decrease in the difference of interpretations, and this implies a transformation in the original semiosis. Consequently, the initial information has been modified; the objective and object of the original system can become completely different from its intention, emotion, or reason.
