Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 6:07 AM
408 online now:
PaulK, Rrhain (2 members, 406 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,065 Year: 6,671/21,208 Month: 2,432/2,634 Week: 95/525 Day: 10/60 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
Porosity
Member
Posts: 86
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 1 of 223 (701278)
06-15-2013 3:00 PM


Hello all...

This is my first post, I'm a long time lurker here and I feel like I know you guys. I don't have any degree's in anything but I'm fascinated with origins and have participated on other sites, doing research, debating and learning.

It seems like the latest creationist sales talk is this new semiotic argument for ID. I did search here and came up blank. I was doing research on the subject and this was the first place I looked into trusting the great minds here.

From what I can conclude, is that if these guys use enough excessive, ill-defined verbiage, they can somehow justify making these supportive assertions. Hoping nobody can figure out what the hell they are saying?

The way I see it this will become another creationist fallacy, until they offer a genuine explanation/hypothesis of their own.

What do you guys think? here are some links to get started.

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=659
http://www.uncommondescent.com/...ntegration/#comment-422898

Anyway... I figure, if anyone can make sense of this argument this is probably the best place to start.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 06-15-2013 3:10 PM Porosity has responded
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 06-15-2013 8:03 PM Porosity has responded
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 12:44 PM Porosity has responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4751
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 223 (701279)
06-15-2013 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porosity
06-15-2013 3:00 PM


You could supply more than links
I followed those links and had a quick look at it. I think it is possible to do something of a summary of what you think the argument is. To be fair I think you should attempt that as best as you can before this is promoted.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 3:00 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 3:25 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member
Posts: 86
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 3 of 223 (701280)
06-15-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
06-15-2013 3:10 PM


Re: You could supply more than links
I think they are trying to say that translation is a semiotic process. That RNA/DNA code is non physical, informatics and semiotics.
Part of the argument is that physical processes become semiotic (epistemic cut) and cannot be explained by materialism. Also they are asserting semiosis is not physics. That the nature and irreducibility of the origin of code demands a conscious agent and that the origin of semiosis is not often talked about because it defies the materialistic framework and no answers can be found in it.

It is difficult to research and that is why I'm here to see what you guys think of this. They seem to reference Biosemiotics research, they say it's an emerging discipline.

In the end it sounds like (insert god here)

Edited by Porosity, : spelling

Edited by Porosity, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 06-15-2013 3:10 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

    
Porosity
Member
Posts: 86
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 4 of 223 (701281)
06-15-2013 3:45 PM


Here is a quote from another site that seems to outline the idea.

quote:
But let us say that it is true, we have a chemical link between codons and amino acids. Now at some point we have to replace these physical constraints with the formal rules that are the genetic code. The question then becomes where did these formal rules come from? Formal rules are not physical they seem to have come out of nowhere. How?

There are no physical constraints linking a sign (codon) to what it represents, called the object in semiosis (amino acid). No physical connections.

The formal rules linking the object to the interpretant are also non physical. They are intangible you cannot touch them, they are not physics. It defies mechanistic physicality quite clearly.

The semiotic triad is irriducable all three must exist, sign, object and interpretant. It defies reductionism quite clearly. The only way to build the system is by a top down flow of information that must be telelogical.

Semiosis is the fundamental quality of mind, it is how our minds work. We relate to the world by the interpretation of signs. Signs can be anything that we apply meaning to. We accumulate experience through a life time of interpreted meaning of signs through our physical senses, (consciousness) we then use signs to interpret even more signs.

Semiosis requires mind, in fact it is the basis of mind.



Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 06-15-2013 4:16 PM Porosity has responded
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2013 5:08 PM Porosity has responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4751
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 5 of 223 (701283)
06-15-2013 4:14 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Semiotic argument for ID thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4751
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 223 (701284)
06-15-2013 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Porosity
06-15-2013 3:45 PM


Definitions
I already had to look up semiotic. Can you save everyone (those like me anyway) and supply definitions of the terms used please?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 3:45 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 5:53 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15482
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 7 of 223 (701285)
06-15-2013 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Porosity
06-15-2013 3:45 PM


Yes, well, the thing is that when the loony says this:

There are no physical constraints linking a sign (codon) to what it represents, called the object in semiosis (amino acid). No physical connections.

The formal rules linking the object to the interpretant are also non physical. They are intangible you cannot touch them, they are not physics. It defies mechanistic physicality quite clearly.

... he is lying. The physical processes relating the codon to the amino acid are well understood. I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ... except, of course, that knowing stuff about biology doesn't help one to be a creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 3:45 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 8:55 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member
Posts: 86
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 8 of 223 (701287)
06-15-2013 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminNosy
06-15-2013 4:16 PM


Re: Definitions
Yes, sorry I'm not informed myself, that's why I posted to see if you guys heard of this argument. Hopefully we all can learn from this and be able to put up better arguments.

Here is Semiotic Terminology but the creos have seemed to high jack the word.

Semiotics, or semiology, is the study of signs, symbols, and signification. It is the study of how meaning is created, not what it is. Below are some brief definitions of semiotic terms, beginning with the smallest unit of meaning and proceeding towards the larger and more complex:

Signifier: any material thing that signifies, e.g., words on a page, a facial expression, an image.

Signified: the concept that a signifier refers to.

Together, the signifier and signified make up the

Sign: the smallest unit of meaning. Anything that can be used to communicate (or to tell a lie).

Symbolic (arbitrary) signs: signs where the relation between signifier and signified is purely conventional and culturally specific, e.g., most words.

Iconic signs: signs where the signifier resembles the signified, e.g., a picture.

Indexical Signs: signs where the signifier is caused by the signified, e.g., smoke signifies fire.

Denotation: the most basic or literal meaning of a sign, e.g., the word "rose" signifies a particular kind of flower.

Connotation: the secondary, cultural meanings of signs; or "signifying signs," signs that are used as signifiers for a secondary meaning, e.g., the word "rose" signifies passion.

Metonymy: a kind of connotation where in one sign is substituted for another with which it is closely associated, as in the use of Washington for the United States government or of the sword for military power.

Synecdoche: a kind of connotation in which a part is used for the whole (as hand for sailor).

Collections of related connotations can be bound together either by

Paradigmatic relations: where signs get meaning from their association with other signs,

or by

Syntagmatic relations: where signs get meaning from their sequential order, e.g., grammar or the sequence of events that make up a story.

Myths: a combination of paradigms and syntagms that make up an oft-told story with elaborate cultural associations, e.g., the cowboy myth, the romance myth.

Codes: a combination of semiotic systems, a supersystem, that function as general maps of meaning, belief systems about oneself and others, which imply views and attitudes about how the world is and/or ought to be. Codes are where semiotics and social structure and values connect.

Ideologies: codes that reinforce or are congruent with structures of power. Ideology works largely by creating forms of "common sense," of the taken-for-granted in everyday life.


Source: http://www.uvm.edu/...ete/semiotics_and_ads/terminology.html

Sorry for my ignorance I'm still trying to figure out this site.

Edited by Porosity, : link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 06-15-2013 4:16 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5504
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.9


(3)
Message 9 of 223 (701290)
06-15-2013 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porosity
06-15-2013 3:00 PM


Semi-ID-iotic argument for ID
My subtitle indicates what I think of the idea.

I did search here and came up blank.

I'm pretty sure that there are some ID and creationist threads here about "new information". The semi-ID-iotic argument is the same sort of thing, but dressed up in sophistic language.

From what I can conclude, is that if these guys use enough excessive, ill-defined verbiage, they can somehow justify making these supportive assertions. Hoping nobody can figure out what the hell they are saying?

We call that "a snow job". Yes, you are onto them.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 3:00 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 8:38 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Porosity
Member
Posts: 86
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 10 of 223 (701291)
06-15-2013 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
06-15-2013 8:03 PM


Re: Semi-ID-iotic argument for ID
Hi all,
Thanks for the replies.

Lol... Semi-ID-iotic argument for ID ....can I use that

Here is the opening argument from UB, on one of these forums.
You see what I mean? Sounds like some real deep sh#t.

A1.Chance and Necessity cannot generate a semiotic system, whereas the necessary and sufficient conditions of a semiotic system consist of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.
A2. The necessary and sufficient conditions of a protein synthesis system consists of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.
A3. A protein synthesis system is a semiotic system
A4. Therefore Chance and Necessity cannot generate a protein synthesis system.

B1. Chance, Necessity and intelligent causation can generate a semiotic system, whereas the necessary and sufficeint conditions of a semiotic system consist of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.
B2. Chance and Necessity cannot generate a semiotic system, whereas the necessary and sufficient conditions of a semiotic system consist of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.
B3.Therefore the origin of a semiotic system is best explained by chance, necessity and intelligent causation.

His unnecessarily complex writing brain f#cks his intended meaning. itís hard to understand so it must be meaningful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 06-15-2013 8:03 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2013 11:48 PM Porosity has not yet responded

    
Porosity
Member
Posts: 86
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 11 of 223 (701292)
06-15-2013 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
06-15-2013 5:08 PM


Hi Dr Adequate,
I just wanted to say, your one of my -go to guys- when I need information.
Thanks, I really enjoy your writings.

... he is lying. The physical processes relating the codon to the amino acid are well understood. I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ... except, of course, that knowing stuff about biology doesn't help one to be a creationist.

From what I understand they are confused about biology. But trying to debate with this guy about such discrepancies, is like arguing with a drunk three year old with a high vocabulary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2013 5:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15482
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 12 of 223 (701293)
06-15-2013 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Porosity
06-15-2013 8:38 PM


Re: Semi-ID-iotic argument for ID
A1.Chance and Necessity cannot generate a semiotic system, whereas the necessary and sufficient conditions of a semiotic system consist of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.

Or to put it another way:

A1. Without a shred of evidence or argument, I'm going to assert something which implies the conclusion I want to draw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 8:38 PM Porosity has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 13 of 223 (701294)
06-16-2013 5:01 AM


Since I am a creationist of course I can't possibly have anything of value to say, and all I can say is it makes sense to me that a coding system couldn't have arisen by purely biological means. But then I don't think any of life could have arisen that way, or evolved after it had arisen either.

And I find it very interesting that so far nobody has had anything substantive to say against the idea, just the usual mocking and ridicule. Funny, I thought that was against the rules. Not.


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-16-2013 12:33 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 12:49 PM Faith has responded
 Message 19 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2013 2:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 06-17-2013 12:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1325
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 14 of 223 (701295)
06-16-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
06-16-2013 5:01 AM


faith writes:

Since I am a creationist of course I can't possibly have anything of value to say, and all I can say is it makes sense to me that a coding system couldn't have arisen by purely biological means.

And true to form, you never let ignorance keep you from spouting off anyway.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 5:01 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 15 of 223 (701296)
06-16-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porosity
06-15-2013 3:00 PM


This is my first post,

Do you post over at theskepticalzone or uncommondecent?

I'm a long time lurker here and I feel like I know you guys.

Have you been reading my posts?

It seems like the latest creationist sales talk is this new semiotic argument for ID. I did search here and came up blank. I was doing research on the subject and this was the first place I looked into trusting the great minds here.

From what I can conclude, is that if these guys use enough excessive, ill-defined verbiage, they can somehow justify making these supportive assertions. Hoping nobody can figure out what the hell they are saying?

The way I see it this will become another creationist fallacy, until they offer a genuine explanation/hypothesis of their own.

What do you guys think?

This's the first I've heard of it. I looked up your links and read up some other stuff about all this. (I can't believe people blog about what other people argue about on online forums)

My first reaction is that they've invented the problem that they think needs to be solved. Secondly, semiotics seems to stem from semantics, and semantic arguments are the least fun for me.

Now, on to what I see is the root of the "problem":

A-T-G-C

Those are all chemicals. When one amino acid binds to another, that is a chemical reaction. To make it easier to talk about those incredibly complex chemical reactions, their constituents are replaced with letters. In reality, they're just the spontaneous physical interactions that make up any reaction.

To a person interested in liguisitics, I could see how those letters looking like they're used to write some code would make it look like you need a code-writer in the equation.

But, for the real question of "where the code comes from", Why this letter connect to that letter, well that is going to be a chemistry problem.

People who really want to break this code would be studying chemistry.

All this stuff about non-physical linkages between the letter 'A' and the chemical Adenine is not really a problem from a chemical standpoint.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 3:00 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2013 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017