Upright Biped has announced the launch of his site via this UD post: Writing Biosemiosis-org
All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell. The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.
http://biosemiosis.org/index.php/a-scientific-hypothesis-of-design
Discuss!
Sure, sweetie, just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
You’re certainly too old to keep sucking your thumb for comfort in public.
We could go on or we could talk about science for once. The ball is in your court
peace
Since you make no claims, you cannot be wrong.
A vacuous theology cannot be incorrect.
You appear to be in the same boat (so to speak) as Erik.
fifthmonarchyman:
What on earth makes you assume that Glen did “not see that one coming”? It’s not as if you have ever, once, been the least bit unpredictable.
We know you behave like a bot with no choice but to regurgitate your idiot presuppositionalism when we poke you; just makes you twice as fun to play with, sometimes.
We’ll stop whenever you get too boring.
But do keep trying to demonstrate your free choice in response to comments, dear bot-man. I’m sure feeling and behaving like a bot is a comforting security blanket to you. Wouldn’t want to deprive you of your necessary comfort in the big messy ungodly real world.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Good thing their god isn’t real. They’d be sunk.
Sounds risky. Science makes claims.
How exactly do you know that I exist?
How exactly do you not know that you’re a blithering, repetitious drone? Please be specific, it’s important why it is that you fail to recognize the insipidity of your thoughtles tripe.
How are you ignorant enough to think I didn’t see such trite drivel coming?
Glen Davidson
When the idea is on a circular track, one just waits.
Nice
First Pope to address USA congress. Washington, D.C. streets. Did you completely ignore the fanfare? World meeting of families. Philadelphia? Cuba?
JPII’s funeral generated more ‘political’ visitors than any in recent memory (yours is probably twice as old as mine). It wasn’t just Reagan who helped ‘tear down’ that wall, after all. Atheists repeatedly express ignorance and shallowness, and earn their reputations because of it.
Your views are all too ‘American,’ petrushka. Not global enough. Uninspiring. Self-validating. Unaware of others. Sad.
Skeptic.
Gregory,
Did he say he was speaking for the world? Would it be more reasonable to assume he was speaking about his own, localized experience?
SAD.
I did hear about the fanfare. The current Pope’s popularity seems tied to secular issues. That’s why I speak of retreat. When religion ditches the god stuff and becomes humanism, the journey to the light side will be complete.
That, and stop sending pedophile priests to countries that lack a free press.
Mung,
Re: the “good news of symbols”. 😉 A bit of a chuckle, with (Omega Code-like) caution. Perhaps you may be aware of the Copenhagen, Tartu and Moscow schools of semiotics; Uexküll, Lotman, Kull, et al.?
Once ‘zoosemiotics’ ala Sebeok are brought into the conversation, the quasi-semiotic ‘theist code apologists’, like UB, who doesn’t sound like a scholar him/herself, are easily turned against IDism. E.g. Wesley J. Smith’s ‘human exceptionalism,’ based in the Discovery Institute.
I’ve met some leading semioticians in the Copenhagen school personally. Fascinating, and definitely not IDists (except for that one non-semiotician theologian who was at least sympathetic, as all theists). Semiotics is not such a boon for IDism as your ‘comrade’ may make it appear. 🙁 Be careful with the IDist PR hype.
Mung, when you bring the good news, be sure to include a description of how the genetic code enables design. You might reference Venter, if you like.
Just show us the correspondence between genetic symbols and phenotype. In particular, show us how one anticipates the functional effects of novel sequences.
Hahaha
Let’s talk about science. You first.
God made science. The end, ‘Nuff said.
The same way I know anything. The only way I can know anything.God chooses to reveal it to me.
your turn
I agree science makes claims and then tests them. Claims about the phyiscal material universe.
Science does not make claims about the existence or nonexistence of God. God is not in the dock and his existence is not in anyway in doubt. You know he exists
No that is not the end that is only the beginning. The problem is you can’t seem to get past the beginning.
peace
OK, as soon as you put the tool on the web we can begin testing hypothesis together. Can’t get more sciencey than that
peace
Sigh. Very well.
So would you know if you were wrong about knowing what God would choose and how He would choose to do it?
Only if he chooses to reveal it to me. There is no privileged position by which I can view the world and judge. I am not God
I am at his mercy.
It’s a good thing he is merciful
peace
I tell myself that the more money I spend, the richer I get.
I don’t see that as a bad thing, or as evidence that “faith is useless and counterproductive. And in retreat.”
petrushka: You appear to be in the same boat (so to speak) as Erik.
hotshoe_: Good thing their god isn’t real. They’d be sunk.
Just how much do you think God weighs?
petrushka,
Perhaps you should listen more and talk less. Do you know what a code is yet?
I already said in a reply to Reciprocating Bill that the code doesn’t determine the phenotype. Just one more reason the organism as machine metaphor is flawed. just one more reason reductionism is a failure. Just one more reason demands for mechanisms are misguided.
Do try to keep up good sir.
If you ever say anything, I’ pay attention. So far you are just babbling.
Absolutely. I have started both A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans: with A Theory of Meaning and Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs.
No doubt I’d be much less boring if I were not so one-dimensional.
I just love it when TSZ “Skeptics” throw up a quote from some other web site and then say “discuss.” That’s sure to get everyone off on the left foot.
Mung:
Where was that? I must have missed it. Link please.
If that was your reply, it was badly off point. In my recent questions I have repeatedly asked you about “classes of causation” – a very broad term that, in my question, encompasses “intelligence,” “agency,” “unguided natural processes” and “selection,” and has nothing to do with a machine metaphor.
Moreover, I am asking about the processes that originated what you, and UB, characterize as a symbol bearing code, not “mechanisms” by means of which the phenotype is determined.
UB admits the following:
– It does not follow from semiotic theory that any particular class of causation – e.g. “intelligence,” “agency,” etc. is required for the origination of “semiotic systems” in biology.
– It does not follow from semiotic theory that any class of causation, e.g. unguided natural processes, selection, etc., is excluded from the origination of “semiotic systems” in biology.
I gather you would characterize “real” codes as symbol-bearing, and therefore semiotic, systems.
Does it not follow from UB’s admissions that semiotic theory is silent on the origins of “semiotic systems,” and therefore the origins of symbol bearing codes, in nature?
Are you going to answer my question? Or start another thread?
So you would only know if you were wrong about revelation if it were revealed to you. Therefore even if you were wrong about revelation you would be correct about it. A perpetual confirmation machine.
I do agree with the second part.
Or twice as boring.
Semi-idiotic biology. Why am I not surprised at the direction this is going?
Sure, see, God revealed to me that he’s just been BSing you all of these years. He says, “Sorry, but it has been pretty funny.”
Glen Davidson
The part of faith that conflicts with empiricism is in retreat. The revealed part. The authoritarian part. The current pope is popular because he is ditching the spook baggage and aligning himself with political progressives. He is behaving like a populist politician. He could do worse, but his message is social an not theological.
If you simply must lay a wager, I’d suggest you go with “start another thread.”
I have no idea how what you’re asking me has any relationship to my threads on the genetic code. I have no idea what the context of your conversation was with UB. I have no idea what you mean by “Semiotic Theory.” And now that UB has his site up you can go ask him yourself.
Or perhaps you could re-phrase your questions in a way that makes them relevant to my arguments.
As far as the connection between what I wrote and the phenotype, I can see how you missed that, as it was not explicit in what I wrote, only implicit.
I had just finished Robert Rosen’s Life Itself and it had pretty much closed on that very note.
🙂
Is that even possible? Would more insults and name calling help? That’s what people around here seem to find fascinating.
I’m trying to be a good boy and stay on topic in the “What A Code Is” thread. Short of Noyau this seems to be the best place to go to let off steam. 🙂
Someone wake me up if a serious discussion ever gets started on Upright BiPed’s new site. Thank you.
I hope you have a good alarm clock, because upright’s tome is being treated with all the seriousness it deserves.
Heh.
God sank all the other boats besides Noah’s. No matter how ready the fishermen were to cast off as the water rose around their moorings, no matter how much more seaworthy and maneuverable than Noah’s clumsy ark their boats were, no matter how much more skillfully sailed, no matter how much more sober, worshipful, and innocent than Noah their captains were, God sank ’em all.
Erik thinks Noah’s “global” flood is real. Assuming Erik doesn’t mistake himself for one of Noah’s (or his boys’) un-named four wives, then Erik knows his boat would be sunk just like all the rest of his god’s genocide victims.
Yeah, yeah, I know petrushka wasn’t talking about a literal boat. That’s what makes it fun! An alternate reading of the “text” … and a callback to the literal stupidity of Erik’s defense of the Flood tale being real history.
Don’t ask me! I guessed once at the State Fair and lost my three dollars.
Guessing his age is easy, on the other hand.
Could you imagine the discussions on this site if God were a Buddhist?
I’ve asked a simple, explicit and relevant question. In so doing I underscored the relevance UB’s semiotic theory to your “real codes,” to wit: “I gather you would characterize ‘real’ codes as symbol-bearing, and therefore semiotic, systems.”
Yet you, Mung, contributed ~300 comments to the UD thread to which I refer, more than 200 after I began my participation there. The thread explicitly headlined UB’s “semiotic theory'” (“UB Sets it Out Step-by-Step”) and included an extensive exchange between Biped and myself upon which you commented times many. Your comments span more than a year and the final comments on the thread are yours. You went out of your way to bump the thread a year later. I linked to that thread when I quoted UB to first pose my question to you a few days ago.
NOW you claim not to know what I mean by “semiotic theory,” and claim to be unaware of context of my conversation with UB.
You know, I believe that.
Buddha wasn’t a christian but Jesus would have made a good Buddhist.
Of course you know that a god who would “BS” can not be trusted so knowledge would be impossible in any universe he created.
It’s a good thing the Christian God is not like that.
peace
I finally followed your link to a thread that started more than three years ago.
So yeah. Sue me.
Well now you know Mung, fancy a pop at Bill’s questions?
He fooled you, and it looks like that’s not likely to end soon.
Glen Davidson