Abstract

In this commentary I present five corollaries that follow the target article “How molecules became signs” by Terrence W. Deacon and also two outstanding questions the article rises. The corollaries revolve around the notion of interpretation as a form of thermodynamic work—specifically, non-expansion or “useful” work. This specific form of work, along with its path-dependent nature, may be critical for the fundamental understanding of semiotic processes, the subjective character of interpretation, and even the nature of viruses.