Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 1:53 PM
34 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo (6 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,786 Year: 11,822/19,786 Month: 1,603/2,641 Week: 112/708 Day: 46/66 Hour: 9/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(8)
Message 16 of 223 (701297)
06-16-2013 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
06-16-2013 5:01 AM


a coding system couldn't have arisen by purely biological means

But they can arise by purely chemical means.

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H2O

That describes a real spontaneous chemical reaction that happens all by itself no matter what. That we can represent those reactions with letters does not create a coding systems that needs a coder to explain.

When you mix an acid and a base, its makes a salt. That just happens. The only code to explain is the one we invented to talk about the reaction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 5:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 17 of 223 (701298)
06-16-2013 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2013 12:49 PM


Sure, chemical reactions are spontaneous, but we're talking about DNA coding, where a string of chemicals translates into physical features in a living creature -- not salt, not just some other chemical product, but traits in a LIVING CREATURE. That's rather a different order of "code" wouldn't you agree?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 06-16-2013 2:37 PM Faith has responded
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 3:39 PM Faith has responded
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 06-17-2013 12:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Porosity
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 18 of 223 (701299)
06-16-2013 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2013 12:44 PM


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.

Hey..are you really a Catholic Scientist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 3:36 PM Porosity has responded

    
Porosity
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 19 of 223 (701300)
06-16-2013 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
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.

I value your opinion, do you have anymore to add than an opinion? Any citations for why this process could not be natural?

Are you the one to make sense of Semiotics? if so...please do.


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

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 20 of 223 (701301)
06-16-2013 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
06-16-2013 1:57 PM


Faith writes:
Sure, chemical reactions are spontaneous, but we're talking about DNA coding, where a string of chemicals translates into physical features in a living creature -- not salt, not just some other chemical product, but traits in a LIVING CREATURE.

It seems to me that DNA encodes for proteins, not for traits. How traits emerge is a far more complex story, and shouldn't be considered semiosis (IMO).

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 1:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 3:25 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 21 of 223 (701302)
06-16-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nwr
06-16-2013 2:37 PM


It seems to me that DNA encodes for proteins, not for traits.

Yes we all know that and it's a trivial point in this context.

How traits emerge is a far more complex story, and shouldn't be considered semiosis (IMO).

But it's obviously what the creationist argument is about. If you want to propose another term, fine, but semiosis seems to me to be quite appropriate. Chemical coding that produces a salt or a protein is obviously not the concern, but how one gets from the chemical product to the traits of the living organism -- that is obviously another order of coding that has no chemical or biological explanation and IMO can't have one.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 06-16-2013 2:37 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 06-16-2013 5:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 223 (701305)
06-16-2013 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Porosity
06-16-2013 2:01 PM


No... I'm not smart enough to post at theskepticalzone, yet smart enough not to post at uncommondecent.

Ha! So who's worse, the smartasses or the dumbasses?

All the time.

For how long?

This is the first forum I came to. A friend recommended it to kill down time at work (we had discussed the creation/evolution debate together before). I started working the night shift in the lab at work beginning Jan. '05.

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've never really posted at any other forums because I can't get over the inferior software.

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.

Yup, to them the end justifies the means.

Hey..are you really a Catholic Scientist?

I'm more of a Cafeteria Catholic. I think it accurately conveys a sufficient portion of my character to be a useful identifier to those who might reply to me. I wasn't considering the lurkers, and didn't intend to represent Catholicism. I wanted something that informed the other posters about me.

I was sitting in my lab coat, and removed my safety glasses to better try to come up with a name for my login here. I liked it being Catholic Something, but I didn't know what to call myself. I was reminded of a scene from the movie Half Baked (as I looked at myself in my PPE):

Thurgood was sweeping the floor in the lab (where they were doing marijuana research), and an old man in a lab coat interjects:

'Uh, Janitor?'

Thurgood offendedly turns to reply

'What is it?, Scientist."

So I went with that.

ABE: here's the scene:

http://youtu.be/GDHVi3h6ZXw

"I know this isn't your responsibility, but mop the rest of this shit up, I'll be right back"

I've been promoted since then, to a desk mostly, but I still do scientific research in another lab there. Its those skills that I utilize as my job, but its all for commercial reasons... so we sell more of the products that we manufacture. I haven't published anything, but its been considered.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2013 2:01 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2013 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 223 (701306)
06-16-2013 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
06-16-2013 1:57 PM


Sure, chemical reactions are spontaneous, but we're talking about DNA coding, where a string of chemicals translates into physical features in a living creature -- not salt, not just some other chemical product, but traits in a LIVING CREATURE. That's rather a different order of "code" wouldn't you agree?

So much so that its not even a "code" anymore. Take a look at Message 4.

They're talking about codons and amino acids. That stuff is just chemistry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 1:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 3:59 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 24 of 223 (701309)
06-16-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2013 3:39 PM


Hm, too bad if so, but with all that emphasis on "mind" it seems to imply more.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 3:39 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
Porosity
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 25 of 223 (701311)
06-16-2013 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2013 3:36 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16804
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 26 of 223 (701314)
06-16-2013 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
06-16-2013 3:25 PM


Faith writes:

If you want to propose another term, fine, but semiosis seems to me to be quite appropriate.


It looks to me like semiosis, as used by creationists, is just numerology without the numbers.

Faith writes:

... how one gets from the chemical product to the traits of the living organism....


Chemicals have physical properties. There's nothing mysterious about that. A living organism is essentially just an enormous molecule with the sum total properties of its constituents.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 3:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2013 7:15 PM ringo has responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 27 of 223 (701315)
06-16-2013 5:14 PM


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

Here's the deal: both these can't be true.

Examine these examples

"Water requires oxygen; in fact it is the basis of oxygen"

"Hydrogen requires water; in fact it is the basis of water"

only a1 and b2 are true, not otherwise.


  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 28 of 223 (701319)
06-16-2013 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ringo
06-16-2013 5:01 PM


Hi ringo,

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.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 06-16-2013 5:01 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 06-17-2013 12:39 PM Porosity has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 29 of 223 (701340)
06-17-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
06-16-2013 1:57 PM


Sure, chemical reactions are spontaneous, but we're talking about DNA coding, where a string of chemicals translates into physical features in a living creature -- not salt, not just some other chemical product, but traits in a LIVING CREATURE. That's rather a different order of "code" wouldn't you agree?

How is it different?

Why can't we describe all chemical reactions as being guided by a code?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 1:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 30 of 223 (701341)
06-17-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
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.

Just as 600 years ago it made sense to a lot of people that the Earth remained stationary as the Sun moved about it.


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

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019