A Scientific Hypothesis Of Design – finally.

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!

828 thoughts on “A Scientific Hypothesis Of Design – finally.

  1. I think it’s more correct to say it will be ignored from all sides.

    Biosemiosis seems to have emerged from the primordial ooze of European philosophy in the 1990s. It generated a book an a couple of web pages that have been ignored by everyone except upright biped. Nothing further has been published. It is as extinct as BioComplexity or any of the other ID journals. It has inspired no research.

    It seems to be a favored for of creationism in the enlightened Continent. Much more sophisticated than American snake handling YECism. For one thing the writers rival the sainted Sokal in wordiness and ability to spell correctly. Also in content.
    rival thecssinted Sokal

  2. walto: What’s “just you” is claiming that nature is “using codes to represent immaterial form/patterns in physical media.”

    I wonder if there might be a way to test this claim? I think there might be.

    Suppose I could recognize immaterial form/patterns in biology the same way I recognize them in the products of human design. For me this would be evidence of possible similar processes going on.

    Of course such a thing would not be proof of design in nature. Like I said we normally don’t demand proof when it comes to other minds.

    peace

  3. fifthmonarchyman: Suppose I could recognize immaterial form/patterns in biology the same way I recognize them in the products of human design. For me this would be evidence of possible similar processes going on.

    Sure, if you were doing the same thing and got the same result in both instances the analogy would be a good one, but you aren’t, which is why it isn’t.

    ETA: In one case you’ve got things that look just like us and do the same sorts of things we’d do when confronted with the same sorts of stimuli in case after case after case. And it turns out, when you crack them open, they’re made the same way too!

    In the other, you’ve got your revelatory assurances from on high.

    Bad analogy.

  4. fifthmonarchyman: Suppose I could recognize immaterial form/patterns in biology the same way I recognize them in the products of human design.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself

    In software engineering, don’t repeat yourself (DRY) is a principle of software development, aimed at reducing repetition of information of all kinds, especially useful in multi-tier architectures. The DRY principle is stated as “Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.”

    Does that sound like the genome fmm?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it

    “You aren’t gonna need it”(acronym: YAGNI) is a principle of extreme programming (XP) that states a programmer should not add functionality until deemed necessary. XP co-founder Ron Jeffries has written: “Always implement things when you actually need them, never when you just foresee that you need them.”Other forms of the phrase include “You aren’t going to need it” and “You ain’t gonna need it”.

    Does that sound like the genome fmm?

  5. fifthmonarchyman,

    Don’t worry there will always be an escape hatch for you to be able to deny design.

    And there could well be a very good reason for that, without invoking the motive fallacy.

  6. OMagain: Does that sound like the genome fmm?

    I have extremely limited programming experience (the understatement of the year) but I will say that I violated both of those principles the very first time out.

    In that case my natural unlearned hacking efforts were very much like what is going on in the genome.

    It seems to me that those “principles” were put in place precisely to limit what we would do naturally as designers.

    peace

  7. Mung: Which would require symbols and codes and representations and language and all that stuff that anti-ID folks love to hate.

    I think most of the posts, namely the exchanges about codes being real, or about whether the arguments being made are about intentionality, or whether it is about design versus arbitrary, are about side issues. Philosophically interesting side issues, but red herrings nonetheless.

    The core issue is about science versus non-science. See this post for details of what I mean.

    As further food for thought, here is a site devoted to semiotic and related ideas and using them naturalistically, without invoking a designer. I think this shows that a scientific argument using semiosis might be made, although I don’t think it has wide support among working scientists. It is mostly philosophers who are interested, I believe.

    And that really should be on-topic for this thread, since the site referenced in the OP seems to be concerned with the conditions required for open-ended biological evolution to occur.

    A couple of other people have also questioned why I said that, so let me explain.

    My post was about empirical results on how people create. Creation is presumably part of the process for any designer.

    But why should empirical results about humans apply to the designer claimed by ID? No ID person claims it was a human, as far as I know. At least not a human from the past.

    They only way I could see ID applying these results to its designer was to recognize that they might require the designer to experiment in the medium (ie us and our world) as part of the design process. I suppose that is possible. Then you could argue that evolution is that process of experimentation by the designer. So you are possibly back to Deism.

    Or maybe you can point to the Flood, not evolution, as the designer’s experimental process? So should I post this idea in the other thread on the Flood?

    Probably not a productive idea.

  8. walto: Sure, if you were doing the same thing and got the same result in both instances the analogy would be a good one, but you aren’t, which is why it isn’t.

    If by doing the same things and getting the same result you mean actualizing immaterial forms/patterns in physical medium then I would argue that is exactly what we see both with Biology and Human design.

    I even have a game/tool that can be used for comparison purposes and so far it turns out that we get the same signature in both cases.

    peace

  9. Allan Miller: And there could well be a very good reason for that, without invoking the motive fallacy.

    I’m not invoking anything. I’m just stating the fact that the problem of other minds is real and won’t be solved with empirical methods

    peace

  10. Allan Miller: I don’t have a problem with other minds …

    I’m not saying you do. I’m only saying you don’t have empirical justification for their existence

    peace

  11. fifthmonarchyman,

    No, I’m not saying you did invoke it. I was anticipating your next move.

    An obvious reason one could continue to deny design is that there is none. But what tends to happen is that rather than simply accept that possibility, people instead invent reasons for denial beyond a simple appraisal of the evidence – afraid of God, hateful, wilful and so on.

  12. Allan Miller: I don’t need it, where biological evolution is concerned.

    Exactly you don’t need empirical justification for other minds accept when accepting them is not what you want to do. Then you demand it

    peace

  13. fifthmonarchyman,

    Exactly you don’t need empirical justification for other minds accept when accepting them is not what you want to do. Then you demand it

    Since when? I have barely mentioned minds.

  14. Allan Miller: An obvious reason one could continue to deny design is that there is none.

    Seeing design in nature is the default position of the human race. There are plenty of studies that confirm this.

    Allan Miller: But what tends to happen is that rather than simply accept that possibility, people instead invent reasons for denial beyond a simple appraisal of the evidence

    If I see someone going against the default understanding of humanity it only makes sense to try and understand why.

    peace

  15. Allan Miller: Since when? I have barely mentioned minds.

    ID is all about other minds. You deny that there is a mind behind the universe.

    It is the unspoken backdrop of all these conversations

  16. fifthmonarchyman,

    Allan Miller: An obvious reason one could continue to deny design is that there is none.

    fmm: Seeing design in nature is the default position of the human race. There are plenty of studies that confirm this.

    That does not mean it is there.

    Allan Miller: But what tends to happen is that rather than simply accept that possibility, people instead invent reasons for denial beyond a simple appraisal of the evidence

    fmm: If I see someone going against the default understanding of humanity it only makes sense to try and understand why.

    The default understanding of humanity? What a laugh. The default understanding was once geocentric and flat earth.

    Maybe I just see what is actually there and the common herd does not. Consensus omnium is a crap argument for anything.

  17. fifthmonarchyman: I’m not saying you do. I’m only saying you don’t have empirical justification for their existence

    You are using confused terminology. I do have empirical justification for belief in their existence, after all I use my empirical senses to communicate with them all the time.

    The problem is this doesn’t of course PROVE they are “other minds”. They could just be very sophisticated robots that merely appear to be “other minds” in behavior.

    But the problem is nobody has a solution to this problem, including presuppositional apologists. They can’t prove “other minds” exist either, they are in the same boat as the rest of us: It appears as if everyone else are acting in the same way we do ourself, and since we have minds, probably so do they.

    That’s it, that’s all we can do, all of us. Including you.

    No doubt this is where you will respond that your god has revealed to you there are other minds. How do you know? You simply claiming this is so does not prove it is so. You believing strongly this is so does not mean you know this is so. All you have is assertion. You don’t have any proof. This is where you can’t go any further but to just repeat the assertion that you believe on faith: God reveals to me that there are other minds.

    Prove it! – I can say. And you can’t, you can just robotically parrot the claim. Presuppositionalism is bunk, it solves none of the problems it purports to. It merely asserts and then gets nowhere.

  18. fifthmonarchyman: If by doing the same things and getting the same result you mean actualizing immaterial forms/patterns in physical medium then I would argue that is exactly what we see both with Biology and Human design.

    I don’t have any idea what that means so I sincerely doubt that is what I meant. FWiW, I doubt I’ve ever ‘actualized immaterial forms/patterns’ in my life (and I’m no spring chicken). I believe you exist, though.

    And if you now tell me that believing you exist IS actualizing immaterial forms/patterns, I will point out that you are begging the question and we can go on our merry ways of you not wanting to convince anybody of anything and me not being convinced by anything you’re posting (including your insistence that you’re not trying to convince anybody of anything–for one thing, I don’t think such a person makes up games/tools of the sort you so love making).

    I never doubt your sincerity, though.

  19. fifthmonarchyman: I’m not invoking anything. I’m just stating the fact that the problem of other minds is real and won’t be solved with empirical methods

    That, I agree with. But the analogy you’re depending on is no good.

  20. fifthmonarchyman,

    ID is all about other minds. You deny that there is a mind behind the universe.

    It is the unspoken backdrop of all these conversations

    You shove it into every conversation. It is hardly unspoken.

    I don’t know if there is a mind behind the universe or not. I don’t deny it as such. I simply doubt it. I see no evidence for it, certainly not in the design itself.

  21. fifthmonarchyman,

    fifthmonarchyman: Exactly you don’t need empirical justification for other minds accept when accepting them is not what you want to do. Then you demand it

    peace

    If only this analogy weren’t crap, you might have something. But alas…..

  22. You can never empirically prove there are other minds … but look! Design! What more proof do you need?

  23. fifthmonarchyman: Exactly you don’t need empirical justification for other minds accept when accepting them is not what you want to do. Then you demand it

    I have empirical justification for other minds: I’m communicating with one right now.

    If I could talk to god the same way I can talk to you I’d believe it the very moment the conversation starts. It’s that simple. I speak but get nothing back. It’s almost like there’s noone there to respond.

    If I go into my apartment, look around and see noone. Then speak and hear no response. Touch every cubic centimeter and feel nothing, then I’m starting to conclude I’m probably there alone and justifiably so. The issue here is unlike you, I don’t hold a double standard. I’m applying the exact same standard to god as I would apply to you: If when searching for you I can’t see you, hear you, taste you or smell you, I’m pretty confident you aren’t there.

    God has merely to appear and make some demonstration of his godlike powers. For example: Instantaneous divine creation of life, or an entire planet, or another universe. Maybe he can resurrect a herd of wildebeest having died to some illness. I’d believe then too.

    But noone appears. I hear nothing, see nothing, smell, taste or feel nothing. Looks to me like there’s no god then.

    Everything I just said is perfectly reasonable.

  24. fifthmonarchyman: I have extremely limited programming experience (the understatement of the year) but I will say that I violated both of those principles the very first time out.

    In that case my natural unlearned hacking efforts were very much like what is going on in the genome.

    It seems to me that those “principles” were put in place precisely to limit what we would do naturally as designers.

    So heads you win, tails you win.

    If we see complex “garbage” elements in the genome, the designer was just learning.

    You see, that’s the trouble with your position. It does not have any entailments. There is no prediction you can make regarding the genome regarding what you would expect to see if it was designed vs evolved.

    And yet it’s “obvious” it was designed.

  25. fifthmonarchyman: Suppose I could recognize immaterial form/patterns in biology the same way I recognize them in the products of human design. For me this would be evidence of possible similar processes going on.

    Just curious, how do you recognize immaterial forms in human design? I’ve been building things my whole life and never encountered an immaterial form.

  26. newton: Just curious, how do you recognize immaterial forms in human design? I’ve been building things my whole life and never encountered an immaterial form.

    I suspect he’s just talking about the “golden ratio” or similar.

  27. The important question about semiosis and design is not whether it is true, but whether it is a useful and productive idea.

    I will wait for anyone involved to produce a useful research program.

  28. Allan Miller: That does not mean it is there.

    I agree there will always be an escape hatch

    Allan Miller: The default understanding of humanity? What a laugh. The default understanding was once geocentric and flat earth.

    I can agree with geocentric but not flat earth any one who ever watched a ship sail over the horizon would question a flat earth

    We only abandoned geocentrism with respect to the solar system when positive empirical evidence was provided that the sun was at the center.

    Do you have positive empirical evidence that there is no design in nature?

    Allan Miller: Maybe I just see what is actually there and the common herd does not.

    From your perspective it’s possible.

    like I said there will always be an escape hatch. To each his own. You can relax

    peace

  29. newton: Just curious, how do you recognize immaterial forms in human design? I’ve been building things my whole life and never encountered an immaterial form.

    So, you do nothing creative? Just build from blueprints others provide?

  30. Rumraket: I have empirical justification for other minds: I’m communicating with one right now.

    How do you know empirically that I’m not a chat bot or a an animatrom or group of people?

    Rumraket: If I could talk to god the same way I can talk to you I’d believe it the very moment the conversation starts. It’s that simple. I speak but get nothing back. It’s almost like there’s noone there to respond.

    Do you deny that all the people you have not talked to directly have minds?

  31. 5MM asks:

    Do you have positive empirical evidence that there is no design in nature?

    I think a better question would be, “Do you have evidence that certain designs we see in nature can be produced without intelligent guidance?”

  32. William J. Murray: I think a better question would be, “Do you have evidence that certain designs we see in nature can be produced without intelligent guidance?”

    Care to name one of those designs?

  33. fifthmonarchyman: Do you have positive empirical evidence that there is no design in nature?

    ha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

    Russell’s teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.[1] Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell’s teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

    A better question is do you have empirical evidence that there is design in nature?

    When you ask someone else to prove a negative it shows how bankrupt your position actually is.

  34. OMagain: So heads you win, tails you win.

    Yes there is absolutely no way you will ever win this one. Just as there will always be an escape hatch for you

    OMagain: You see, that’s the trouble with your position. It does not have any entailments.

    It has tons of entailments to design it’s just that you will always be able to deny that those entailments are necessary and exclusive.

    It’s simply the problem of other minds

    peace

  35. OMagain: A better question is do you have empirical evidence that there is design in nature?

    I have already said that you can’t prove the existence of other minds empirically.

    you don’t need to

    peace

  36. Actually we do have buckets of evidence that evolution, as commonly understood by biologists and AI engineers, can solve problems and produce designs. The core complex and convoluted the design, the more it becomes necessary to resort to evolutionary algorithms.

    In the software world, protein folding comes to mind as a problem that is unsolvable by any means other than genetic algorithms.

  37. newton: Just curious, how do you recognize immaterial forms in human design?

    I’ve got a tool that is based on that idea. If OMagain get’s it up on the web you will be be able to play around with it pretty soon. If you are forced to wait on me it will take a bit longer

    peace

  38. petrushka: In the software world, protein folding comes to mind as a problem that is unsolvable by any means other than genetic algorithms.

    So a software “designer” can chose to use use algorithms to accomplish his purposes.

    Sounds about right

    peace

  39. Allan Miller:
    You can never empirically prove there are other minds … but look! Design! What more proof do you need?

    We recognize and conclude that something we encounter is being or was produced by a mind because of the kinds of designed output it represents, whether or not we can directly observe what produced the thing in question. We do it all the time in the forums and wrt various forms of interactive mediums.

    Functional code translations and responses through a semiotic system (like language) is really the essential root of recognizing that a mind is at work at the other end of the system (ultimately). Perhaps “mind” can even be usefully defined in terms of semiotic processing.

    I mean – you know – if you’re not a mind denialist. Or a code denialist. Or a semiotics denialist. Or just terrified of letting that foot in the door.
    ..

  40. petrushka:
    Actually we do have buckets of evidence that evolution, as commonly understood by biologists and AI engineers, can solve problems and produce designs. The core complex and convoluted the design, the more it becomes necessary to resort to evolutionary algorithms.

    In the software world, protein folding comes to mind as a problem that is unsolvable by any means other than genetic algorithms.

    The pertinent question isn’t if evolution can solve problems, but whether or not evolution unguided by intelligence can solve any significant problems or building anything significant.

  41. fifthmonarchyman: So a software “designer” can chose to use use algorithms to accomplish his purposes.
    Sounds about right
    peace

    You are conceding that evolution is superior to other design strategies when it comes to difficult and convoluted problems problems.

    I note that we can also produce objects orbiting the earth, so the moon is designed.

  42. fifthmonarchyman: So a software “designer” can chose to use use algorithms to accomplish his purposes.

    Sounds about right

    Look, given that you have all the answers, and all roads lead to god, what is it you are trying to accomplish here?

    No matter what anyone says or does you can just reply with the same tropes. You don’t even understand enough about what people are talking about to make a informative comment. I asked you what you’d expect a designed and an evolved genome to look like and you say “both messy and tidy”. You are simply too ignorant to have a meaningful opinion.

    fifthmonarchyman: It has tons of entailments to design it’s just that you will always be able to deny that those entailments are necessary and exclusive.

    Well, why don’t you fucking try one anyway?

  43. Here’s let’s try it really simply:

    Would you expect an Intelligent Designer who is capable of creating a universe to

    A) Write really shitty code
    B) Write really elegant code

    Where “shitty” and “elegant” are derived from human principles of software design (remember you are using evidence how humans practice design as evidence for design in biology so this is valid).

Leave a Reply