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!
FWIW, I do think OMagain should have put that post in Noyau. FMM isn’t one to ask for stuff to be guanoed, though.
Mung seems to be another “it’s a code, some scientists agree with me, therefore they agree with me about other aspects of codes i.e. their intelligently designedeness” just like fmm. Otherwise why even bring them up?
“Intelligent Design is not opposed to evolution,” I hear you scream. Are you channelling Joe g?
I would like Mung to quit dancing and start explaining where he departs from mainstream biology.
And what new and productive research has resulted from departing from mainstream biology.
KN, you might be interested in the final chapter (Language as a System of Replicable Constraints) in this book:
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9789400751606
See also:
Pooling the Ground
Er, not sure why you provided that link. It seems you are just making the same point I did, that is, even if we take codes as really there independent of us, a natural explanation without a designer is possible.
The page linked in the OP is all about codes needing a designer, as far as I can tell.
What about you, Mung? Lots of people have asked but you are playing your cards pretty close to your chest. Maybe you are playing your own game?
Do codes require a designer?
Well, it’s nice to use sciency words for a simple, lay audience, without having to do any science.
Exactly.
It requires math/reasoning precisely because it’s not intuitively obvious.
They exist in the brain as symbols. But symbols can’t exist in the cell. Symbols, like codes, require brains.
Mung,
The genetic code required a brain?
but brains require…cells!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6o881n35GU
Let’s make sure we aren’t equivocating.
When you say symbols exist in cellular biology, and symbols require brains, does it follow that cellular symbols require brains?
A neuron is a cell.
Therefore, DNA was NOT a code before human-type brains evolved. Hmm, I don’t think that’s where Mung intended this line of thought to go …
Proof that all reasoning is circular.
I think this is another case, like Noah’s Flood, where you don’t see with your eyes.
Except that in this case, you don’t think with your brain.
Doubtful, boats can move against the current and waves, trees not so much.
I probably do typically hold my cards close, and I’ve always played my own game (regardless of what Gregory thinks).
And walto already asked me that question and I already answered it. Which is why when people accuse me of avoiding it I wonder what the hell they are talking about. If you want I’ll try to find it. But see an answer below.
It’s conceivable. That doesn’t make it possible. I’m interested to see where the enterprise leads. It’s one reason why I don’t argue that a code requires [ETA: entails] a designer.
So what does the follow up research look like, Mung?
All SYMBOLIC reasoning is circular.
So after days and days of horse shit about codes and symbols and such, we are left in exactly the same position as we were with Paley, 212 years ago. we cannot prove the non-existence of a Designer, and we do not know the exact history of Origin of life.
Therefore Jesus.
Lucy, meet football.
ok, it looks like some people haven’t been following along and lack the requisite background information.
There have been a few objections lodged to the claim that the genetic code is a code.
Some of those objections have been made due to the perceived nature of symbols and representations and include the claim that the genetic code becomes a code once it’s put into writing but not before.
Hope that helps clarify my comments above. 🙂
One would think that before it could be put into writing, it must first exist in the brain. Which, as some of you have noted, would seem to pose a problem for that theory.
I’ve come up with a donation scheme for Upright BiPed’s site. I am going to donate to it for each argument presented here against the claims made on the site. So far the donation amount stands at zero dollars. And frankly I don’t see Upright BiPed getting rich any time soon.
When is the other shoe going to drop?
Vacuous ideas get no respect.
Mung, there isn’t any there there. Calling something a code or a symbol doesn’t change what it is. Mountains are not made of ink, even if ink is required to represent them on maps.
Chemistry does what it does regardless of whether we observe or understand it.
Evolution does not become-non-physical because we abstract it and call it a semiotic process.
LOL! 😉
That’s not quite right.
It’s the written form of the genetic code that is a code.
That’s not quite right.
That’s like saying you know the form of the code and just put it in writing, at which point it becomes a ‘real’ code.
Brace for ‘atomic structure is a code’, with all those valences and emergent properties and what not.
So the rest of us don’t continually demonstrate our ignorance on public access discussion boards.
I think you at least a couple of bucks for what seem to me cogent remarks made by Bruce and Allan. There may be others too: I’m not reading everything.
Anyhow, I’m not sure your stinginess is the best test of how UB’s argument is has actually been faring here, Mr. Scrooge.
Hmm… Either I am not making cogent arguments or I will be a root cause for money going to that site.
Do you have any Yes/no questions about my violent habits with respect to my wife?
When someone asks you whether she was begging for it, do you take that as a rhetorical question?
Cui bono?
Since Grog probably only went a small distance in his short,hard life,I doubt he gave it much thought at all or had time to sit on the seashore watching trees float away.
Grog come from tree. Tree Grog friend. Grog sad tree float.
No, it isn’t.
Rather, it is saying that to put it into writing, you need to use symbols (typically letters). And that use of symbols is what makes for a code.
You obviously have not spent a lot of time with poor simple folk. They might be uneducated but as a rule they are not stupid.
I know of lots of country folks who have taken time to do deep thinking even though their life is hard. I see no reason why the same would not hold for Grog and his kin.
regardless this little rabbit trail is beside the point
Everyone here has conceded that those who argued for a non flat earth provided mathematical and empirical evidence to support their argument. Though we might argue as to when this happened.
Grog’s kin did not simply accept a spherical earth sans evidence and they did not withhold judgement in the matter either. They tentatively accepted what they took to be common sense until evidence to the country was presented.
There has been no empirical or mathematical evidence offered to argue that no mind is behind the universe. Despite the fact that this is the default position of mankind
Instead Atheists demand that simple folks like Grog’s tribe abandon their own common sense impression based on no evidence at all other than the fact that common sense is sometime mistaken. It’s a gargantuan shift in the burden of proof.
Grog would not simply demand that his tribe prove that the earth was flat before they were justified in holding that belief. Instead he would be obligated to offer his own proof that the earth was a sphere if he expected them to abandon their own views.
quote:
“If there are certain principles, as I think there are, which the’ constitution of our nature leads us to believe, and which we are under a necessity to take for granted in the common concerns of life,’ without being able to give a reason for them; these are what we call the principles of common sense; and what is manifestly contrary to them, is what we call absurd.”
end quote:
Thomas Reid
peace
I’m aching to hear more about the first wombat and about essential wombatness.
And now you’re just begging the question.
Why does writing require symbols while speech doesn’t? Why does speech require symbols while representations in the brain do not? What is this immaterial form that must be physically expressed using symbols? If it’s not immaterial, what is it’s physical representation?
Whatever your answers, why not inside the cell? What is missing from the cell that you think is present everywhere else in this chain?
Grog stupid. Like floating tree. Grog eat. Grog defecate. Grog sex. Grog happy wife breasts not like flat earth. Grog like man.
Nope. It’s YOUR burden, nobody else’s.
It’s not though. Not even close. It’s currently the default position of you and a handful of confused and apparently desperate Christians. Maybe it was also the default position a long time ago of some primitive animists. That’s about it. No more universal than the view that Americans are just better than everybody else.
Are you deliberately missing the point? Or are you that confused?
Yes, if you use letters to represent bases in speech, those are symbols too.
The disagreement, all along, is on whether the DNA itself counts as symbols.
Do you always reason by way of fallacy?
I don’t speak in letters. Do you?
Have you ever played a game in which your odds of winning would be improved by thinking ahead?
Hardly.
Why must (whatever immaterial things [forms?] you happen to have in mind, something you have yet to clarify) be written in symbols?
Why must (whatever immaterial things [forms?] you happen to have in mind, something you have yet to clarify) be spoken in symbols?
Why do these immaterial things [forms?] you happen to have in mind, something you have yet to clarify, not exist as symbols in the brain?
Which of the above is non-physical (writing, speech, brain, symbol)?
How do you propose to separate your symbol from the physical world?
If you can’t, then why can’t sequences of physical DNA be symbols?
Speak to us in genetic code, mung. Say something new that isn’t a copy of a sequence invented by evolution.
Demonstrate that it is possible to think ahead in genetic code.
Mung,
Mung seems to have gone off at a tangent.
Neil, when confronted with the challenge of actually making an argument, cowers behind a lame excuse.
Let’s take it one thing at a time, Neil.
What was the first item in my response to you that didn’t make sense?
The reference to an either/or fallacy?