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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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. it’s hard to understand so it must be meaningful.
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.
Do you post over at theskepticalzone or uncommondecent?
No... I'm not smart enough to post at theskepticalzone, yet smart enough not to post at uncommondecent.
Have you been reading my posts?
All the time. That's one of the things I love about these forums...you can literally read how members have grown and evolved from their first posts.
This's the first I've heard of it. I looked up your links and read up some other stuff about all this.
The interweds is a big place, one the sites I frequent has a group of creos trying to sell this Semi-ID-iotic argument to all the other ignorant plebes who think they are saying something smart. This is part of the reason I came here to get out the dumps and talk to people with some smarts and what not.
Ha! So who's worse, the smartasses or the dumbasses?
LOL! I would have to go with the dumbasses...they make me feel smarter.
For how long?
I started to do some research on this site about six months ago. The other forum is a conspiracy site and those clowns over there use every fallacy in the book, but this semiotic is new to me. So I decided I needed to look it up and arm myself with more knowledge... here I am.
I've never really considered being a lurker. I poked around for 2 days to get the jist of it before I dove right in. But I like to argue.
I don't think of myself of being a lurker either, I just didn't feel I had anything to add to the existing conversations, so I stayed out of it tell I had something relevant to talk about. Besides I'm a shitty writer..lol.
I'm more of a Cafeteria Catholic.
I was raised a Catholic, then ended up doing the Christian thing for my wife. For the last few years I've ended up being Agnostic, due in part for my curiosity of the universe and the realization that religion has stunted growth in human progress and on many scientific fronts.
It looks to me like semiosis, as used by creationists, is just numerology without the numbers.
I think that it has more to do with information. What they are saying is their puppet master is behind the scenes giving molecules the information to react to physical laws...the invisible creator at last!
Here is large quote from on of these creos thinking processe. Sorry about the large copy/paste but there is no way I could explain this properly.
quote:In the materialistic view of the universe all things are the result of only matter/energy. However there is something else that has not yet permiated this view and that is information. As I have said before what physics and especially quantum theory has shown us is what matter itself flows from is intangible mathematical principles and information. "Information is information not matter or energy" as my signature from the founder of cybernetics Norbert Weiner stated. So what does he mean by this? It means what I have been saying all along, that information is carried by matter and energy but is not the medium itself. The information in this post is not the pixels that carry it, the same way as the information in DNA is not the molecules themselves. A sign is made of two entities the physical medium and the non physical thing that it represents.
We need to think about information differently. We have often heard that everything is information but what physicists are referering to is classical Shannon information, the result of the measurable collapse of probabilities. But classical Shannon information does not consider the meaning of a message. For example these two lines contain an equal measure of Shannon information.
smnT sho.ri tnifaoii This is information.
What is obvious is that one contains meaningful functional information and one does not. Yet both are equal in the mathematical sense of classical Shannon information. The meaningful information is intangible.
What is implied by Norbert Weiners' quote is that information is another aspect of the universe. So now we have two elements Matter/energy and information.
As far as semiosis goes what we have is the sign (matter/energy) and the object (information). The term object in semiosis can be a bit misleading, an object in this sense is not a physical object it is representation of something that can be physical or can be abstract such as a concept. Other terms are used that may be more appropriate but these are the ones I have used so far, so I'll stick with them.
Now up to this point, I don't think many should have trouble accepting this, it is what science has revealed to us.
Yet we still have something missing that is vital for information to exist and that is the interpretant, the information or the meaning does not actually exist until it is interpreted. This is where consciousness comes in. As Max Planck and some of the other pioneers of quantum theory believed, as do I is that consciousness is fundamental to reality. This is a very ancient idea that again has come to the fore. If so, we complete the semiotic triad.
Sign. - matter/energy Object. - information Interpretant - consciousness
I submit that these three qualities is what the physical universe is. Although they may very well be simply all manifestations of consciousness, but this is another issue. We do know that these things exist at the very least.
This can solve the problems of mind and body, the origin of life, the quantum enigma and even the dynamic nature of evolution as the emergent and dynamic flow of information. This is why I think biological evolution reflects the flow and evolution of consciousness. This view can also explain why things are not perfect, why there is conflict and struggle and why there are obstacles and challenges to overcome. These things drive us to grow to investigste and solve problems, in a perfect world this cannot happen. It is the universe extrapolating and exploring itself and finding equalibrium and growing.
Hello Upright BiPed, What a pleasant surprise, I was not expecting you to show up here, I hope you will recant and participate just so we can get a better handle on what it is your trying to say.
You say... "Darwinian evolution requires the transfer and translation of recorded information in order to exist itself, it cannot be the source of this system."
I'm curious if you understand modern evolutionary synthesis? This so called "recorded information" is just gene flow from parent to offspring, or as you say "transfer". You make it sound as if OZ is in the background typing away codes to effect the process of reproduction. Furthermore evolution does not explain "the source of this system." Just what happens after.
I don't get this either.
quote:This is typically the weakest of all objections. All symbol systems are material/chemical. You can’t demonstrate one that isn’t, so it’s not even a distinction. Of course, you can simply insist that any local “relationship” instantiated in the system is merely an anthropocentric projection; however what you cannot do is derive the effect of the medium from the chemistry of medium itself.
Can you simplify what it is your saying here? The first parts sound rather semantic and the last part... " what you cannot do is derive the effect of the medium from the chemistry of medium itself." This is not an explanation, I need an example of what medium you cannot derive from chemistry itself.