…- A Sign of Unintelligent Design
In a recent thread here at TSZ William J. Murray brought up the subject of semiosis, to which Allan Miller responded:
Allan Miller: Nice to see WJM has absorbed UB’s ‘semiotic’ nomenclature though. Published nowhere, of course…
It never ceases to amaze me how critics of ID will say anything just be contrary regardless of whether what is said is true or even coherent.
Allen then goes on to describe how he thinks a semiotic system could arise HERE.
So perhaps Allan can be the very first to publish in this new and exciting field of semiosis. More likely though, is that his initial claim was just false. (Probability near 1, IMO.)
How does Allan know what elements need to be present in order to establish the existence of a semiotic system?
There are in fact some interesting comments over in the thread that initiated this OP that I may in time copy over here.
Any claim that Upright BiPed created the terms semiosis, semiotics, biosemiosis or biosemiotics is simply ludicrous.
The claim that WJM has absorbed UB’s ‘semiotic’ nomenclature is likewise ludicrous.
The claim that there’s been no publishing in semiosis, semiotics, biosemiosis or biosemiotics is simply ludicrous.
People who make such claims should not be taken seriously.
[title split by Lizzie]
It allows time for populations to adapt – for features that give an individual an edge to become more prevalent. And yes, lineages will end, and new niches will open up.
Sorry, I’m not sure what you are referring to .
Obviously not. But as soon as you have a self-replicating population that self-replicates with heritable variance in reproductive success, no matter how simple, then Darwinian optimisation kicks in.
One species’ destruction is another’s opportunity.
stcordova,
Always appeals to authority! As if we say otherwise. Everybody knows that ‘Darwinian’ NS only applies when there is reproduction. But reproduction changes everything. NS cannot get you to the 1st replicator. But you only need 1 replicator molecule to ignite the entirety of life on earth. As you are fond of computing analogies, look on it as a backup. If you only have 1 copy of a file, any damage to it is fatal. Persistence is unlikely. Create just 1 backup, you have doubled its chances of persistence. Create 4, 8, 16, 32 (…), and the ‘unlikely’ state rapidly shifts towards destruction of them all. Copying is a tremendous hedge against entropic dissipation. If differences arise, those acting against persistence will of course be eliminated. But those enhancing it will persist (Damn! Tautology!).
None of this is to suggest that getting to that first replicator is easy. No-one proposes that ‘Darwinism’ can do it.
Moved discussion of other posters to Guano.
Mung will no doubt be along any minute to apologise for misinterpreting my statement regarding UB’s ‘Semiotic Theory of ID and Protein Coding’ as a statement that UB had invented semiosis.
Any minute now … whistle …
Hi Allan!
1. You claim WJM got his ideas from Upright BiPed.
2. You’ve withdrawn your own claim that the cell is semiotic (you were just going along with WJM).
3. You’ve done a literature search and now you’re certain that Upright BiPed was just making it all up [or something].
What was it that Upright BiPed made up that WJM was taken in by, if not the nomenclature [you know what that word means, right]?
What has not been published anywhere? You all of a sudden switched to a different subject?
I actually want to congratulate you on getting as far as you did. (You got index and symbol but missed icon.) Much better than Carpathian over at UD.
But the meaning of a symbol is not inherent in the symbol.
Otherwise, if you drop the parts about communication between agents, we’d be pretty close to a meeting of the minds.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/
But let’s not get bogged down by Pierce.
Here’s what Wikipedia says:
Semiotics, and semiosis, should not be confused with linguistics.
And:
Not something I made up. Not something Upright BiPed made up. Not us coming up with a new definition. etc. etc.
So to end the “semiotic silliness” I propose that we look at what people not named Upright BiPed have to say on the subject and then compare what Upright BiPed say to what they say.
Anyone want to take the side against biosemiosis?
Well, at least one sane person is here [other than myself of course]!
In what sense is signaling (intra- or inter-cellular) a case of semiosis? Surely it has to consist in more than the fact that the letters s-i-g-n are used in the name. 😉
By the way, here’s an online glossary. This will hopefully help us all decide whether we agree or disagree on terms.
http://codebiology.org/glossary.html
And no, that’s not a site created by Upright BiPed. 😀
Who claimed that “The Semiotic Theory of ID” has not been published? Where?
FTR, Allan has since retracted his claim. He didn’t really mean it.
We’re still left to wonder, however, how Allan could possibly know the elements required for a semiotic system to such a degree that it would allow him to put forth a case for how one could arise. You know, what with it all being “word salad” and such.
One second, let me look into my crystal ball …
Salvador, for what it’s worth, I think you’re a very intelligent person.
My disagreements with you are in the ways you apply that intelligence. In many respects, I think it’s wasted.
God bless.
Everybody knows that making copies of something is not sufficient for Darwinian evolution.
Dream on fantasy boy.
Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs
Or you can continue to deny the evidence, if that’s what it means to be a skeptic.
Mung: Tell us, Alan, from the literature, what is a semiotic system?
Mung: Is the cell a semiotic system?
Alan Fox punts. No surprise there.
You ignore it, therefore it’s not an issue and has never been an issue. What do you suppose this literature says? If it’s respectable why do you disrespect it? What makes it respectable, Alan?
Mung,
I claim that WJM would not be calling the translation system ‘semiotic’ were it not for UB’s extensive references to “the semiotic theory of ID” – in many, many threads both here and at UD
I never made the claim that the cell is semiotic. It’s a cell. It does stuff. What you want to label that activity is up to you. WJM (following UB, I argue) has declared that the translation system is semiotic, and demanded to know how such a system could arise. So I told him. If he thinks it’s a semiotic system, that’s how such a ‘semiotic’ system could arise. It’s not about the label.
I’ve done a search and discovered that the usage of ‘semiotic’ to refer to the translation system is not unique to UB.
UB has been very active in promoting the ‘semiotic theory of ID’, specifically in relation to the translation system. Is it pure coincidence that WJM (a UD regular) should refer to the system as semiotic?
Not me, no. The Semiotic Theory of ID has not been published anywhere (to my knowledge). The fact that there are extensive publications on biological ‘semiosis’ is hardly relevant.
Mung,
I put forward the elements of possible evolution of the translation system which, I am assured, is ‘semiotic’. I would hardly need to know if it was ‘semiotic’ or not in order to do so.
Mung,
Sure. Your point?
A stunning refutation, professor. So what limits this potential for exponential expansion, once you have a single replicator molecule?
People will argue all day against the idea that the cell is semiotic, but when you get right down to it they just aren’t interested in discovering whether or not it actually is.
Why the fear? Whatever the source of that fear, it’s hardly rational.
Semiotic Silliness
I suggest “semiotic” needs defining in the context of cell biology. Do have a definition that you consider appropriate?
PS Here if you have time.
Well, define semiotic in this context, Mung, and it should be easy to tell.
Why is it even important?
ninja’d by Alan.
Why are you asking me to define something that is already in the literature? Again, what is it that compels people here to avoid the literature that already exists on the topic? Is it because it might lend some legitimacy to what Upright BiPed has written?
Mung,
Does “the literature” ever disagree? *Which* literature? What is the definitive source? Vaguely pointing elsewhere isn’t helping you make a strong case, Mung.
Because in the original literature on semiosis the word doesn’t apply to biology – it’s about communication between intelligent agents. And while I know IDists want to infer that the cell was made by an intelligent agent, it’s not at all clear to me what the analog is for the agents in question when it comes to talking about transcription and translation.
Not that it matters – if people want to make the analogy, fine. It doesn’t “lend legitimacy” to Upright Biped’s argument, unless he can make his point that there’s something about “semiosis” (whatever that means in a cellular context) that is inherently unevolvable.
So far he hasn’t succeeded.
In fact, if you eliminate the words “semiosis” and “semiotic”, it does not weaken Upright Biped’s argument at all. Like biology is about life but we don’t need to worry about whether an organism should be considered as living or not. It’s much more useful to get into the detail of what goes on inside cells. UB might just as well delete “semiotics” and derivatives from his argument and avoid the distraction. It would focus discussion on the meat of his argument; something I’d like to see happen one day.
ID is big on inserting esoteric, technical terms but not so much on defining and measuring them.
Which points back to the original prompt for this thread: Allan Miller noted that WJM had apparently adopted UB’s argument, and apparently without taking on board our previously-expressed (in threads at TSZ with UB) reason why “semiosis” is not a killer ID argument.
There’s nothing to suggest that WJM had read any scientific literature on semiosis and come up for himself the idea of extending the term “semiosis” into an argument for ID in exactly the same way UB uses it. Could have happened, but balance of probability is that WJM adopted it wholesale from UB at UD, which makes Allan Miller (probably) right in what Allan said about WJM.
Which is that UB and WJM are both using “semiosis” as a placeholder for their unworkable analogy of gene transcription as signaling between known intelligent agents.
And they both apparently think identically (though expressed somewhat differently) that cellular signaling must have been designed/intended in advance by another intelligent agent (be it little-d designer, big-D Designer or god). They both apparently think that the mere fact they see “semiosis” is sufficient to prove, with no other supporting evidence, that it simply must have had a designer. And they think they don’t have to consider any other possible explanation, eg, evolvability of signaling, because in their view evolution is a priori ruled out. That’s a telling mistake.
Their view not something I can find any support for in the scientific literature on bio-semiosis. I challenge Mung to present literature which he thinks supports WJM/UD/ID’s idiosyncratic linkage of “semiotic” with “designed” as opposed to “evolved”.
Contra Mung, here’s the opening of a major paper on bio-semiosis:
[emphasis mine] Theses on Biosemiotics, pdf
Interesting, the authors are from Berkeley, Denmark, and Estonia. I idly wonder if Gregory has met any of them in his worldwide rambles. I idly wonder why Gregory hasn’t chosen to scold Mung for confusing the general, and valid, concept of “bio-semiosis” with the concept of “ID-semiosis”. Maybe it’s just because Mung hasn’t mentioned a Designer so far. 🙂
Looks like Mung is stealing your best lines:
Mung [in a comment at UD] June 3, 2015 at 9:22 am
Elizabeth, can you please explain how you located “the original literature on semiosis”? Just wondering.
Also, if you would read the literature before talking about it you’d understand that biosemiotics is not based on analogy to what humans do. Next you’ll be admitting to being a dualist, so do be careful.
richardthughes,
And I ask you the same questions about the literature on evolutionary theory.
Also, ID is not the source of the terms. If you read the literature you’d know that.
And how do you measure a symbol or a code, anyways?
More semiotic silliness.
(1) The semiosic–non-semiosic distinction is coextensive with the life–nonlife distinction, i.e., with the domain of general biology.
.
Nothing to do with the advent of humans or how humans communicate. Therefore, not based on analogy with human communication.
[Thanks hotshoe_]
Mung,
Oh, FFS! I deliberately avoided that argument! If WJM or you think it is, then it is and here is a possible means by which such a system could arise. If you don’t think it is, then it isn’t and here is a possible means by which such a system could arise. So far, you’ve moaned at me for both saying it is and for saying it isn’t. It’s the protein manufacturing system. That’s what it is and that’s what it does.
No fear. I simply don’t think it fits very well with the concept of semiosis, but YMMV. Why the big push on labels? “It’s a CODE! It’s even called TRANSLATION! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CAN’T YOU SEE?”
Indeed.
Hi Elizabeth, is this the source for your “the original literature on semiosis” claim:
Tractatus de Signis: The Semiotic of John Poinsot
Or did you go back even further than that? Augustine? Aristotle?
Some people will go to any lengths to avoid the argument that the cell is semiotic.
Feel better?
Fuck off, Mung. That’s uncalled for.
IF you meant it as a witticism, you failed badly enough that you should go hang your head in embarrassment.
So very vague again, Mung. What do you think is the best example? I’ll have a look and we’ll go from there, otherwise you’re just courtier’s responsing.
Ah the old reverse-black-swan gambit! I hereby challenge Mung to find anything anywhere in the literature where anyone talks about any aspect of DNA replication or protein synthesis as semiotic or biosemiotic. Rather than sending people off on wild black swan chases (didn’t want to mix metaphors) why don’t you find the black swan.
PS, if you have time, there are comments here and on down I’d be interested in seeing you reply to.
Alan Fox,
To be fair, such usage can be found. Nowhere, however (to my knowledge), is a link made with ID, nor is it claimed that the system is unevolvable. That is UB’s pet project.
Mung,
Oh much, ta. I’ve avoided it to the extent of participating in 3, maybe 4 extensive threads about it, and even accepted it arguendo in my response to WJM. I’m such a slippery customer!
I think at UD they call it “literature-bluff”. Funny that.
I went to Saussure.
But rather than get bogged down in whether we call the cellular process of translation or transcription “semiotic” or not – can someone (Mung?) explain what it has to do with ID?
So Mung, in your understanding of semiosis as applied to translation and transcription: Who/what is communicating semiotically with who/what?
In response to this remark by me:
Allan writes:
Are you saying that instances of people using “semiotic” or “biosemiotic” as a descriptive for DNA replication or aspects of protein synthesis occur in the scientific literature ?
ETA some degarbelizing
Here you go, Alan.
Introduction to Biosemiotics
The New Biological Synthesis
Editor: Marcello Barbieri
http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1-4020-4814-9
Some chapters:
Towards a Darwinian Biosemiotics.Life as Mutual Understanding
Anton Markoš, Filip Grygar, Karel Kleisner, Zdeněk Neubauer
RNA As Code Makers: A Biosemiotic View Of RNAi And Cell Immunity
Marcella Faria
A Biosemiotic Approach To Epigenetics: Constructivist Aspects
Johannes Huber, Ingolf Schmid-Tannwald
The Necessity Of Biosemiotics: Matter-Symbol Complementarity
H. H. Pattee
Biosemiotic Entropy of the Genome: Mutations and EpigeneticImbalances Resulting in Cancer – Berkley E. Gryder, Chase W. Nelson and Samuel S. Shepard
Technically that qualifies, but a couple of self published books and articles in a journal that lasted two issues is not exactly high level activity. Springer is not exactly discriminating.
Why has this line produced so little in 30 years?
Thanks, William. I was, however looking for something a little more precise. Repeating my question, originally directed at Allan Miller, I wrote: “Are you saying that instances of people using “semiotic” or “biosemiotic” as a descriptive for DNA replication or aspects of protein synthesis occur in the scientific literature?”
Now, the ebook you point me to, Introduction to Biosemiotics seems to be promoting the idea that there is a coherent unifying concept called “biosemiosis” but one chapter heading, Towards a Standard Terminology for (Bio)Semiotics, suggests work very much in progress. From the abstract:
Sounds a bit like a mission statement. By “the literature”, I meant peer reviewed papers.