Semiotic theory of ID

Upright BiPed has been proposing what he has called a “semiotic” theory of Intelligent Design, for a while, which I have found confusing, to say the least.  However, he is honing his case, and asks Nick Matzke

…these three pertinent questions regarding the existence of information within a material universe:

  1. In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?)
  2. If 1 is true, then is it even conceivably possible to transfer that information without a second arrangement of matter (a protocol) to establish the relationship between representation and what it represents? (how could such a relationship be established in any other way?)
  3. If 1 and 2 are true, then is it even conceivably possible to functionally transfer information without the irreducibly complex system of these two arrangements of matter (representations and protocols) in operation?

… which I think clarify things a little.

I think I can answer them, but would anyone else like to have a go? (I’m out all day today).

1,027 thoughts on “Semiotic theory of ID

  1. But even so, it seems ultimately to rest on the assertion that it is “virtually intractable to purely material causation”, which is just another way of saying “I can’t believe this happened naturally.” Offers to demonstrate that it can were, of course, rejected.

  2. Toronto,

    Random photons striking an object and then being reflected into your eye do not rely on any “protocol”.

    If there is a “protocol” in this case, show it to me.

    If you can’t show me a “protocol” in this case, then your argument has been refuted.

    Toronto, you are willfully ignoring the argument being made. Your equivocation of terms has been addressed at least three times on this thread, and at least one of those instances was directly to you. To “transfer information” is to transfer the information from its representational form to its effect – which includes two entirely distinct material processes: transcription and translation. The former can be achieved without a protocol, while the latter cannot. In other words, there is no protocol involved in a photon striking your eye, and no one has claimed that one is required. On the other hand, that photon striking your eye would have absolutely NO EFFECT unless you have the physical protocol required in order to bring an effect about.   

    Here is just a portion of what you willfully ignore:

    –TORONTO: (May 17) Information can be transferred without a protocol, and without codes. Go to a barbershop anywhere in the world and get a haircut. Without knowing the barber’s language or any other protocol, the information regarding the success of your haircut will be transferred through your eyes

    –BIPED: (May 20th) When you see your haircut, it is not your haircut traveling through your optic nerve; it is instead a representation of that image which has been instantiated (transcribed) into a material representation (neural impulses) …For you to interpret that transcription and translate it into “Hey it’s my haircut” requires a protocol instantiated in your visual cortex.     

    –TORONTO: (May 21) Imagine that a stray photon hits my face and bounces off a mirror into my eye…. What “protocol” had to be agreed upon before this transfer of information?

    –BIPED: (May 21) Here you are talking about sensory input from your environment, specifically the visual transcription of those surroundings into a neural representation to be translated in your visual cortex. The protocol (which exists in order to facilitate that translation) does not play a role in transcription.

    Since you are trying to see this through the eyes of computer technology, allow me to put it this way. Let us say I hook a camera to a computer. The camera has an output signal (a pattern) which the computer will receive and translate into an image it displays on the screen. The protocol which allows the computer to translate the input signal into the screen image does not play a role in the photons of light hitting the CCD sensor of the camera.

    –BIPED: (May 21) Since it’s on the table, let us take Toronto’s example of seeing his haircut. When Toronto sees his haircut it is not his haircut traveling through his optical nerve, it is a representation of that haircut (transcribed into neural impulses) which will result in a cognitive effect, “Hey, it’s my haircut”. To result in that effect, the representation must be translated from the neural impulses into the cognitive effect

    TORONTO: (May 21) This is where problems in communication between you and I occur, and that is at the protocol level. I said that a random photon, without any protocol, can transfer data to me, without having the intention of doing that.

    TORONTO: (May 30) Information can be transferred without a “protocol”. A “protocol” is an “agreed upon process”. There is no “agreed upon process” between myself and any other entity, required to transfer the “information” from my display to my eyes.

    –TORONTO (Jun 7) Looking in a mirror requires no protocol or representation yet  “information” is transferred. Photons “randomly” bounce off the object or “information” that will be transferred to me yet no protocol is required.

    –BIPED: (Jun 7): You are once again getting hung up on the distinction between transcription and translation, which are two very different material things. And when I say that information transfer requires a protocol, it is abundantly clear from the argument that I am talking about being transferred from representation to effect (which includes both transcription and translation). This issue has been dealt with at least twice already on this thread. If you cannot be bothered to concern yourself with the data, or will not take the time to understand it, then I cannot help you.

    – – – – – – – – – – –

    And earlier in the conversation: “You are drawing a distinction between the physical processes of transcription versus translation. You are correct that transcription is reducible to its material properties. The pair bonding which exists in DNA and RNA control the arrangement of nucleotides which will be presented for translation, but neither pair bonding nor the arrangement of those nucleotides physically determines which amino acid will appear at the peptide binding site. The amino acid that appears there in not controlled by the physical arrangement of nucleotides, but by the physical arrangement of the protocol.”

  3. Rhampton,

    Thanks for posting Barbieri. If you read MB, you’ll see that in his original article (as referenced) he provides these two postulates which he claims unified semiotic studies in the biological domain, allowing the further expansion of biosemiotic studies to go forth. The first postulate is that “life and semiosis are coexistent” (from Thomas Sebeok), meaning that semiosis was evident at the origin of life, i.e. the origin of organization stemming from symbolic (informational) control. When he offers this postulate, he gives some substance to it, i.e. that it differentiates the ideas of biosemiosis from pansemiosis and physiosemiosis. This basically separates biosemiosis from the dual ideas that a) inanimate objects demonstrate sign systems or b) that sign systems are purely anthropocentric in nature. These are distinctions which have a material basis and can be defended on material grounds. In the second postulate (which states that semiosis can have nothing to do with the inference to design) he provides no substance whatsoever. It is simply an arbitrary rule which biosemiosis studies must follow in order to be politically acceptable to the scientific establishment. There is no material basis for it whatsoever.

    Congratulations on highlighting yet another example of pure ideology driving science. This second postulate forces biosemiosis into positing the same assumed conclusions which are evident in all materialist explanations of origins. In fact, MB, when addressing the origin of semiosis is left to dance incoherently on the head of those exact same empty assumptions:

     …it just isn’t true that we need pansemiotics to explain the origin of semiosis simply because nothing can originate from thin air. That is equivalent to saying that the origin of consciousness can be explained only by assuming that there is a little bit of consciousness in every atom. No, an origin is the appearance of something that did not exist before, and semiosis had a true historical origin because it did not come into existence with the Big Bang.
    Semiosis is based on copying and coding and originated some 4 billion years ago when the first copymakers and codemakers (not thin air!) appeared on the primitive Earth and started producing molecular artifacts. There is a real divide between matter and life because matter is made of spontaneous objects and life is made of artifacts that cannot be formed spontaneously. The bridge was provided by the molecular machines that appeared spontaneously on the primitive Earth, and one can see that there was both continuity and discontinuity in the origin of life.
    (1) The first molecular machines (bondmakers and copymakers) were spontaneous molecules, and that explains why they originated from inanimate matter.
    (2) The first molecular machines started producing molecular artifacts, and that explains why they gave origin to a real divide between life and matter.
    And that is true not only for the origin of life, but for the origin of all other discontinuities of life.
    Explaining life means explaining the novelties of life produced by preexisting systems, and those systems can only be codemakers. That is what biosemiotics is really about and that is what pansemiotics can never hope to achieve with its appeal to infinite regress.

    In any case, thanks for posting it. You may also notice that (at least in one sense) the structure of the observations made here does a far more satisfying job of “unifying semiotic studies”, if for no other reason than it is based entirely on material observation. It is universally applicable.

  4. Bill,

    You should have just accepted the compliment and left it alone. The first half of your response is no more than you re-asserting your invalided formulation (A->B does not describe the argument) and the second half is no more than you channeling Toronto’s willful and obvious equivocation of terms. You implied that you could demolish the semiotic argument, but you didn’t even make a dent. You tried to get an invalid formulation to stick and whined over my use of the word entailment, going so far as to admonish me for not realizing that these two were indeed the same argument. But then you had to concede that my use was valid after all. Just think of the number of times you’ve said that ID has no verifiable entailments, and have another grape

  5. What horrible special pleading

    That’s an assertion, provided without justification of any kind. In fairness, why not explain what you mean so your reasoning can be examined?

    But I must ask, given the above, do you believe information can exist without an observer / interpreter?

    Information is form about something instantiated into a material medium by the use of representations. To have a functional effect (or, to be “interpreted”) requires a second arrangement of matter which can produce the specified effect from those representations. That second arrangement of matter can be a pattern instantiated in the neural cells in a living thing, or it can be the arrangement of electrical impulses in a CPU, or the arrangement of a chemosensory organ, or even the coordinated placement of tines in a music box. So my answer is that information cannot be “interpreted” (to use your word) without a material protocol. That is the conclusion that universal observation repeatedly verifies. You can falsify it with an observation to the contrary.

  6. Madbat,

    If the letter “a” (the representation) was indeed arbitrary to the “ahh” sound (the effect) then it could simply not function as a representation thereof. 

    Firstly, if the letter “a” is not arbitrary to the “ahh” sound that humans make in speech, then the “ahh” sound that humans make in speech is what determined the letter “a”. Good luck with that.

    Secondly, you offer nothing to demonstrate why the letter “a” cannot act as a symbol for the “ahh” sound while also being arbitrary to it. The only thing the letter “a” needs in order to be a symbol for the “ahh” sound is a material protocol required to establish their relationship. In humans (the source of the letter “a”) that protocol exists as a neural pattern(s) in the brains of those who are familiar with English language.  

  7. Eigen,

    You sort of missed the point (again) don’t you think? Your lengthy response is no different that the guy on trial for strangling the shopkeeper to death with his bare hands and then running away into the woods. Eye witnesses to the crime are said to confirm it. When the prosecution is done with an emotionally stirring description of the dastardly deed, the defense attorney turns back to his client, and returns to the vital piece of evidence he presented during opening statements. He holds his outstretched palm towards his client and invites the judge and jury look upon him. He has no arms and no legs, and hasn’t had any for a dozen years.

    You went through that entire speech and never touched the fact that “physical information” does not explain the observed reality of recorded information. You ignored the observed reality that they share nothing in their material action. One does not explain the other. You simply closed your eyes to that fact and kept talking. Nice job.

    If one wants to witness “special pleading”, by all means, take note when you try to reconcile the anthropocentric insistence of “physical information” with the material reality of recorded information. If you ever get around to it, then perhaps your comments with be worth responding to.

  8. I take issue with Upright Biped’s claim that “You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it.”  As I remember it, and the written record backs me up, Lizzie withdrew her offer to demonstrate that such a system could arise through an evolutionary process when Upright Biped repeatedly refused to commit to any rigorous operational definitions that would allow his claims to be tested.

    Patrick,

    Every time you open your mouth on this issue, you inevitably stick your foot in it. You think the record backs you up? Let us see:

    BIPED July 20, 2011 at 2:19 am:

    Dr Liddle,

    What can be said to someone who summarily rejects the one proven method of finding the very thing she claims to be looking for? Honestly, what else can be said? Nirenberg et al discovered [confirmed] the information in the genome by demonstrating it. They isolated the representations, deciphered the protocols, and documented the effects; the same way that all other recorded information has been discovered. Rather than dealing with these apparently unsophisticated facts, you’ve declared them irrelevant to your simulation

    BIPED: July 23, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Nirenberg and his colleagues confirmed the presence of information recorded in the genome by the same means that anyone at any other time has ever (in the history of life on earth) documented the presence of recorded information. They did it by isolating the representations, deciphering the protocols, and documenting the effects. To point out that this is what they did, and this how they did it, does not constitute a circular argument. It’s simply the recognition of a historical fact. It’s a historical fact that you first ignore, then acknowledge, then ignore.

    BIPED July 29, 2011 at 1:14 am:

    The point here is that within your simulated environment, you could never actually confirm the true existence of information without doing exactly as everyone else (without exception) has had to do. Without this proven methodology, you could not effectively confirm the difference between a simulated footprint and a simulated amino acid. You have to isolate the representations, decipher the protocols, and document the effects – just like everyone else. This is the piece of factual historical advice you simply refuse to accept. Who knows why?

    MUNG July 29, 2011 at 2:38 pm:

    Let me see if I have this right yet:

    1. Isolate the representations.
    2. Decipher the protocols.
    3. Document the effects.

    Almost sounds like a procedure or a set of operations a person could follow to demonstrate the presence of information.

    BIPED July 29, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Dr Liddle,

    The conceptual definition is one that you yourself wrote out, and I agreed with it.
    The only other thing you needed was a set of operations to prove the existence of information.

    Nirenberg et al gave you those:

    Isolate the representations, decipher the protocols, and document the effects.

    LIDDLE: July 29, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    “Isolate the representations, decipher the protocols, and document the effects.”

    is useless.

    BIPED August 16, 2011 at 12:23 pm:

    Weeks ago, you and I had worked our way through these observable objects, and had begun to work our way through the dynamic relationships they must adhere to. It was at this point in the conversation that I brought up the fact that information has a very specific method which must be used in order to confirm its existence. This is the method Nirenberg and Matthaei used to win the Nobel Prize, and it’s the only method known to exist. To confirm the existence of information – any information – one has to isolate the representations, decipher the protocols, and document the effects. Instead of jumping at the chance to adopt this methodology as a sure fire way of confirming the success of your simulation (against all challenges to the contrary) you did the exact opposite. You positioned it as being irrelevant. And it was at this very point that your lone refrain about having an operational definition became a vacuous sideshow

    BIPED: August 19, 2011 at 10:42 am

    …it has been made perfectly clear that the only valid method of confirming the presence of those dynamics is to demonstrate them by isolating the representations, deciphering the protocols, and documenting the effects. And as if it would have made any difference, that same operation could be worded in the jargon already used in your definition: “isolate the iterative arrangements/patterns of (virtual) matter, map those patterns to specific output effects, then determine which inert intermediary objects are required by each iterative pattern in order to result in the effect – with the cumulative effect being a copy of the system itself”.

    LIDDLE: August 19, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Yes, this makes a huge difference. Thank you.

  9. Upright BiPed,

    TORONTO: (May 30) Information can be transferred without a “protocol”. A “protocol” is an “agreed upon process”. There is no “agreed upon process” between myself and any other entity, required to transfer the “information” from my display to my eyes.

    You insist on redefining the term “protocol”.

    Why?

    Why is it important for you to redefine this one term?

    A “protocol” is a predefined series of “exchanges” of “actions” between intelligent agents

    Yet you use the term “protocol” when you describe a “process”, which requires no consent from any intelligent agent at all.

    A photon striking my eye and “causing” X, whatever we define X to be, is a physical process.

    I don’t get to say “No, I don’t want my eye and brain to accept that a photon has excited my sense of vision”.

    A “protocol” however, gives me that option.

    If I get a data packet with a bad CRC, I can NAK the packet and not accept the “information”.

    Do you understand the difference?

    Explain to me why a “process” and a “protocol” are equivalent.

    If they are not equivalent, show me how I can disregard a photon striking my eye.


  10. Upright BiPed,

    Upright BiPed:”To “transfer information” is to transfer the information from its representational form to its effect – which includes two entirely distinct material processes: transcription and translation.”

    No, no, no, no……….., no.

    If I send you an MP3 file, you will get the “information”, but you don’t have to play, (transcribe and translate) it, ….ever.

    When you “transfer” information, you “transfer” it, you don’t use it unless you perform another step completely unrelated to its “transfer”.

    You have now tried to redefine the term “transfer” to mean “transfer and use”.

    Come up with your own term for this “process” and leave the existing one alone.


  11. UB:

    *snip empty meta-comments*

    Snip the empty meta-comments, and what remains?

  12. UB:

    A->B does not describe the argument.

    Sure it does. It correctly characterizes numerous claims you’ve made, all reflecting faulty logic. An early example:

    Satisfying each of the four physical entailments confirms the existence of recorded information transfer, as it is demonstrated in every form of information transfer known to exist.

    Restated: As the four physical entailments are demonstrated in every form of information transfer known to exist (A -> B, in every known instance), satisfying each of the four physical entailments confirms the existence of recorded information transfer. (B, therefore A). Which fails.

    A recent example, seasoned with a dash of assumed conclusion:

    It is claimed that the observation of these four items confirms the transfer of recorded information. If you cannot provide an example of recorded information transfer that does not involve these four entailments, then…the transfer of recorded information is sufficient to infer the presence of the entailments.

    Which, as another instance of A -> B. B, therefore A, also fails. This remains unrebutted. 

    The dash of assumed conclusion? 

    it is said that the entailments are necessary for the transfer of recorded information

    “It is stated” by you. And you are simply stating an assumed conclusion.

    From the outset I have noted that your argument has the form A -> B. B, therefore A – unless you are simply assuming your conclusions by definition. Your more recent formulation affirms that you are. Specifically, your more recent approach is to claim (assume) that your “entailments” encompass necessary conditions for the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state, then justify reasoning from them to the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state thereby.

    But this only works if we already know through independent means that your “entailments” represent necessary conditions for the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state, of the sort that cannot have arisen by natural means (as you have made abundantly clear elsewhere, while evading such questions here). Hence it is useless inference, as it only tells you either what you already know to be true – or, in your case, assume to be true.

    But that assumption won’t do, since it is exactly your assertion that the informational characteristics of DNA replication and transcription cannot have arisen by natural means that is at issue in this discussion.  

    None of this amounts to anything resembling empirical verification of your theoretical assertions, your fervent hopes notwithstanding, reflecting the fact that you don’t know how to use the concept of “entailment” to do meaningful empirical work. 

    The above remains unrebutted. 

  13. Meanwhile: 

    – Information contained in DNA is acquired through a templating process that does not satisfy your definition of “the transfer of recorded information.” During cell division DNA unwinds and, by means of non-arbitrary templating, duplicate strands are assembled containing the identical information. No protocols are involved in creating those duplicates, the materials involved are not physically separated and there is nothing arbitrary in the process. 

    – Therefore DNA does not contain “recorded information,” because there has been no “transfer of recorded information.” 

    – Therefore the transcription of DNA into amino acids/proteins cannot be an instance of “the transfer of recorded information” because no “recorded information” is present in DNA. 

    – The transcription of DNA into proteins itself therefore exemplifies a process that displays the claimed “entailments” of (necessary and sufficient conditions for) “the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state,” yet there is no transfer of recored information. 

    It is notable that all transfer of information from generation to generation by means of the replication of DNA occurs by means of this process of templating, absent arbitrary relationships, absent protocols, and absent components that aren’t in direct contact with one another. Apparently, then, either “recorded information” with semiotic content can be transferred from generation to generation without those features, or DNA replication doesn’t contain “recorded information” as you define it, or by “transfer” you don’t mean “transfer.” 

    This also remains unrebutted. 

    UB: 

    You should have just accepted the compliment and left it alone.

    As the purpose of your “compliment” was a backhand to many other participants in this discussion, I disregarded it as yet another empty meta-comment on their contributions.

  14. A->B, B->A and “entailments”.

    BIPED on June 2: I have just observed that every fire requires a fuel, a heat source, and an oxidizing agent. If any of these three elements are removed, then no occurrence of fire will take place. When an occurrence of fire does take place, there is a chain reaction of rapid oxidation called combustion, which is an exothermic reaction between the oxidant and fuel producing heat and usually light. I claim that the presence of these three elements, involved in combustion, confirms the existence of a fire.

    Reciprocating Bill on June 3: Sure it does. Because “these three elements involved in combustion” are essentially the definition of “fire,” not “entailments” of fire.

    Reciprocating Bill on June 10:Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then phenomenon is present – as I stated above (B is the necessary and sufficient conditions for A. Therefore B -> A.

    One down, one to go.

    BIPED on June 10:  Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does its existence entail the existence of those specific conditions?

    Reciprocating Bill on June 11: Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment.”

    Done.

    I understand the predicament you’re in. You go ahead. Repeat it all. Act as if nothing happened.

  15. UB:

    Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does its existence entail the existence of those specific conditions?

    Reserving for yourself this use of “entailment” does nothing for your semiotic argument. In this single sentence you again express your embrace of assumed conclusions.

    “Only exist under specific conditions” describes necessary conditions. But this only works if you already know through independent means that there are necessary conditions and what they are. In this instance, reasoning to your “listed entailments” because you claim/assume they are necessary conditions for semiosis therefore only tells you what you already assume.

    This earlier exchange exemplifies your defense of the defective “A -> B. B, therefore A” through the use of assumed conclusions:

    RB:

    it would no more follow from an observation that all known instances of semiotic information transfer exhibit your “material entailments” that all systems exhibiting these “entailments” are necessarily semiotic, than it follows from the fact that all rainstorms make the ground wet that demonstrating that the ground is wet confirms the existence of a rainstorm – to repeat Thorton’s felicitous example.

    UB:

    The flaw in Thorton’s counter-example… is that there are many ways in which the ground could become wet, none of which has anything to do with rain…On the other hand, if every single time we found the ground wet, throughout all existence, and in no circumstance did we ever find a single instance of wetted ground that did not occur as the result of rain, and we even understood why that it must be this way – then we would have a completely legitimate inference to suspect it had rained if we found the ground wet.

    Parsing this:

    “There are many ways in which the ground could become wet, none of which has anything to do with rain…”

    Correct. Which is why A -> B. B, therefore A is flawed logic.

    On the other hand, if every single time we found the ground wet, throughout all existence, and in no circumstance did we ever find a single instance of wetted ground that did not occur as the result of rain, and we even understood why that it must be this way – then we would have a completely legitimate inference to suspect it had rained if we found the ground wet.

    Your defense of your use of a defective form of reasoning by means of assumed conclusions.

    In the instance of DNA transcription, to state “in no circumstances did we ever find an single instance that did not occur as a result of…” is an assumed conclusion. As is “and we even understood why that it must be this way,” given that “we” understand no such thing in this instance. Rather, we think there are countless instances of systems that meet your entailments, yet arose through natural, unguided, non-semiotic processes, namely all instances of DNA transcription into proteins. Your use of “entailment” to connect observations to assumed conclusions does nothing to establish the accuracy of those assumed conclusions, or help decide this question. So your entire argument – that you have demonstrated that DNA transcription is a semiotic process that cannot have arisen by natural means/unguided processes – collapses once again.

    That you have repeatedly attempted to rescue your use of “A -> B. B, therefore A” in this way shows that even you recognize your use of this faulty reasoning, and that it needs rescue.

    That you attempted to do so by reasoning to and from assumed conclusions shows that you don’t know how to use the concept of “entailment” to do meaningful empirical work.

  16. You are <b>assuming</b> that your specific thing only exists under your specific conditions.

  17. Upright Biped,

    I take issue with Upright Biped’s claim that “You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it.”  As I remember it, and the written record backs me up, Lizzie withdrew her offer to demonstrate that such a system could arise through an evolutionary process when Upright Biped repeatedly refused to commit to any rigorous operational definitions that would allow his claims to be tested.

    Patrick,

    Every time you open your mouth on this issue, you inevitably stick your foot in it. You think the record backs you up?

    Absolutely.  I suggest that anyone interested in the discussion first read this thread on Uncommon Descent where Lizzie tries repeatedly to get you to commit to operational definitions and a testable prediction.  (By the way, did you see what I did there with that link?  It allows people to check out the context of what you choose to quote.  You should try it.)

    After putting up with considerable discourteous behavior on your part, Lizzie finally recognized that getting that commitment from you was simply not possible.  She still, however, invited you to continue the discussion here.  In your final comment on that thread, you do make a slight concession towards agreeing on a definition, which Lizzie graciously agrees to consider in the future. 

    Absolutely nothing in that thread supports your statement that “You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it.”  An objective reading shows that you prevented any testing of your claims by refusing to define your terms rigorously.

  18. So let’s see if I have this straight. First is the claim that DNA’s function, in practice, is semiotic. The argument against that claim is that it fails to meet the requirements of a semiotic process in every important respect. There is no recorded information, the process is not symbolic or abstract, and no protocols are involved according to the accepted meanng of a protocol.

    Second is the argument that if we simply ASSUME the process is semiotic anyway by redefining the words “recorded” and “protocol” and “semiotic” to make them fit this biological process (a redefinition Lizzie was willing to swallow just to see where the argument went), therefore observing the results allows us to conclude that the process meets the definition of semiotic as redefined, and no other process could possibly produce such results.

    So to summarize: The observed results do not qualify as semiotic unless we DEFINE “semiotic” as needed, and even with this redefinition, simply observing the results does not allow us to conclude that ONLY the redefined “semiosis” could possibly have produced them.

    And so we have simply ASSERTED that A is what we say it is, and ASSUMED that it’s the only possible way to produce B. We observe B, so GIVEN both an unjustified assertion and an unwarranted assumption, we can make our desired conclusion come true!    

  19. Madbat: If the letter “a” (the representation) was indeed arbitrary to the “ahh” sound (the effect) then it could simply not function as a representation thereof. 

     

    Upright Biped: Firstly, if the letter “a” is not arbitrary to the “ahh” sound that humans make in speech, then the “ahh” sound that humans make in speech is what determined the letter “a”. Good luck with that.

    No. You seem to think that the antonym to *arbitrary to* is *determined by*. That’s simply not the case. Please read the definition of the word arbitrary (here is a concise one out of many similar ones: *Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system*).
     
    Thus, if the letter “a” were arbitrary to the “ahh” sound that humans make in speech, then, as I keep pointing out, it could simply not function as a representation thereof because writing of the letter would be based on random personal choice (and may thus be a completely different letter, or not a letter at all but an ice cream flavor, or a tea kettle, or whatever, to different people) and not be based on / connected to the former via any reason or system!

     

    Upright Biped: Secondly, you offer nothing to demonstrate why the letter “a” cannot act as a symbol for the “ahh” sound while also being arbitrary to it. The only thing the letter “a” needs in order to be a symbol for the “ahh” sound is a material protocol required to establish their relationship. In humans (the source of the letter “a”) that protocol exists as a neural pattern(s) in the brains of those who are familiar with English language.

    Of course I have offered several times why the why the letter “a” cannot act as a symbol for the “ahh” sound while also being arbitrary to it. I have just summarized it again above.

    The neural pattern in the brain that establishes a relationship between the letter “a” and the “ahhh” sound is exactly that non-arbitrary system that makes the one function as a symbol of the other! That’s what I have been saying in many many posts now. 

     

  20. UB, in that thread:

    1) DNA is an example of recorded information (by means of a sequence of material representations mapped to specific effects).

    2) All instances of such recorded information have certain physical entailments that can be observed [dissociated representations, protocols, and effects]…

    (snip definitions) 

    6) The presence of recorded information can be confirmed by isolating the representations, deciphering the protocols, and documenting the effects.

    A – > B. B, therefore A.

    BZZzzzt.

  21. If I’m not mistaken, the term “arbitrary” in the genetic code means that there is little energy difference between different codons. Therefore chemistry doesn’t favor one over the other.

    The favoring of one over another is done by selection, which UPB seems to have forgotten about.

     

  22. UprightBiped,

    You went through that entire speech and never touched the fact that “physical information” does not explain the observed reality of recorded information. You ignored the observed reality that they share nothing in their material action. One does not explain the other. You simply closed your eyes to that fact and kept talking. Nice job.

    There’s been no problem identified. If I scratch “HELP!” in huge letters on the beach on a desert island where I crashed my plane, I’m recording information. But every step I take back to my hut inland leaves recorded information, just as much. In one case, I’m deploying human language, the symbols for an English word. In the other case, I’m not using language, but in both cases, demonstrably and necessarily, I’m recording information, information that reflects my activities on that beach.

    Human (or non-human) protocols are just one particular means of recording information, among innumerable others. Anything that causes a change in local state is “recorded”. Human recording with symbols “on purpose” does not create any new ontology, it’s just a form of recorded information that corresponds to other bits of recorded information — electrical patterns in the brains of others.

    That’s as non-anthropocentric as it gets.  ‘Recorded information’ includes my “HELP” scratched on the beach *and* my footprints walking away.  The “wet line” on the sand records how far up the beach the last wave that just rolled in and receded went. Etc. Etc. Etc. Humans have their protocols, but these are all meta-protocols, stack on top of physics. Natural law is the fundamental protocol for information, physics the language that all physical interactions are expressed in. The photon that bounces off the water and into your eye gets that information to you by protocol, including the physics of refraction, the speed of light, etc. Your human language, or the biological indirections we find in RNA/DNA are just the top bit of frosting, the umpteenth layer of the protocol stack that is nature behaving naturally.

     
     

  23. UB, in his most comprehensive summary of his semiotic theory to date (his presentation addressed to Dr. Moran), states the following:

    There is a list of physical entailments of recorded information that can therefore be generalized and compiled without regard to the source of the information. In other words, the list is only about the physical entailments of the information, not its source. I am using the word “entailment” in the standard sense – to impose as a necessary result (Merriam-Webster). These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer. And they are observable…

    Observations of systems that satisfy these four requirements confirms the existence of actual (not analogous) information transfer.

    (My emphases.) 

    In short: The “physical entailments” are a necessary result of recorded information transfer. Observing those entailments confirms the existence of actual information transfer.

    A -> B. B, therefore A.

    However, UB now claims “A->B does not describe the argument.” In response to exposure of the obvious logical defects in the above formulation (as presented to Moran and elsewhere), UB has taken (midstream) an entirely a different tack – and denied ever using entailment in the sense quoted above:

    However without even the slightest bit of ambiguity on my part, the word entailment has been used throughout this argument as the required material conditions for the existence of information transfer. …In this same exact perspective, the fire tetrahedron is a listing of the required material conditions for the existence of fire, and has nothing whatsoever to do with what the product of the fire will be (i.e. combustion products, as you attempt to suggest).

    (My emphases.)

    In short:

    – In his missive to Moran, “These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer.

    – Here, his entailments “are the required material conditions for the existence of information transfer.”

    UB, your “entailments” cannot both be a “necessary result” of and “the required material conditions” for the transfer of recorded information. 

    He continues:

    In short, your attempt to change the perspective of the word “entailment” in the middle of the dialogue is a blatant equivocation.

    Yet, as documented by these quotes, it is UB who has wildly equivocated in his use of “entailment,” reflecting the muddle I have identified from the outset.

  24. While I have no truck with UBP’s overall argument, there appears to me to be a misunderstanding here about the sense in which he means arbitrary. The letter “a” is arbitrary relative to the “ahhh” sound in the sense that the initial choice of the graphic symbol “a” to represent that sound was arbitrary. Whoever initially chose could have just as well chosen any of an infinite number of other graphic symbols to represent the “ahh” sound. There is no necessary causal link between the graphic symbol “a” and the “ahh” sound such that no other symbol could have been associated with that sound. Any physical associations between the two (such as neural patterns in a brain) are subsequent to, and contingent upon, the initial arbitrary choice. And they can be changed with no loss of meaning. I can create a simple secret code, as kids do, by shifting all the letters of the alphabet by one place. Then to me and those I share the code with, the symbol “b” is now associated with the “ahh” sound. 

    This can be contrasted with thinking of ACGT (the nucleotides, not the letters) as symbols. Whatever “message” the nucleotides convey about the structure and development of an organism stems from the necessary consequences of their chemical properties. Unlike the kid’s secret code, I’m not at liberty to shift the nucleotides by one and have the message remain the same

  25. So to simplify even further,
    1) Entailments are the results; then later
    2) Entailments are the causes; then later
    3) YOU have changed meanings! 

    I gotta love that word. Entailments as causes, cause themselves when they are results. Nothing circular here, move on along.    

  26. The germ of UB’s confusion is already present in his Moran essay. Dialing down upon the above quote: UB:

    These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer. And they are observable…

    Observations of systems that satisfy these four requirements confirms the existence of actual (not analogous) information transfer.

    In the first sentence his “entailments” are “necessary results.” In the second, “requirements.” Both in the sense of physical causation (not just logical conditional): these are “physical entailments” and “material conditions.” 

    Hence even this single passage is hopelessly ambiguous and contradictory. Which is what I have responded to from the outset.

    Then he accuses others of equivocating when they respond to the contradictory prongs of his confusion, without even the slightest hint of irony on his part.  

    I think this is a genuine conceptual muddle on UB’s part, something he hasn’t quite thought through.

  27. I think this is a genuine conceptual muddle on UB’s part, something he hasn’t quite thought through.

    Given the number of times he’s been corrected and the vehemence with which he resists such correction, I speculate that he suspects that if his “entailments” are NOT both their own cause and effect at the same time, if his argument were NOT circular, it would collapse.

    He can’t allow his “result-entailments” to stand alone without admitting they might have multiple causes. He can’t allow his “cause-entailments” to stand alone without admitting that he must ASSUME they are both necessary and sufficient. Which means biology is either not semiotic at all, or not necessarily semiotic and can’t be assumed to be.

    So he is really obliged to DEFINE his system as fitting his requirements, and then to CONCLUDE that his system fits his requirements by observation – but all he’s observing is his definition.

    So once again, the argument boils down to “I see design because it’s there, and it’s there because I see it.”     

     

  28. Bill, you have now reached the point of pedantic nothingness.

    In the first sentence his “entailments” are “necessary results.” In the second, “requirements.” Both in the sense of physical causation (not just logical conditional): these are “physical entailments” and “material conditions.” 

    UB, your “entailments” cannot both be a “necessary result” of and “the required material conditions” for the transfer of recorded information. 

    Again, let us see:

    With regard to “requirements”:  The existence of a fuel, a heat source, and an oxidizing agent are requirements for the existence of a fire. In the instance of a fire, these elements will be involved in an exothermic reaction called combustion. These three elements, plus combustion, are the required material conditions of a fire.

    With regard to “results”:  I was presenting a list of observations which could be used to verify the existence of the transfer of recorded information. In other words, a test of what specific material conditions would be found as a result of such an instance occurring. If there was a genuine instance of recorded information transfer, then these material conditions would be found as a necessary result of that instance.

    Bill, you’ve argued your case. Your objections ultimately didn’t stand up, and eventually you conceded the points against your attack (i.e. RB: “that would be a valid use…I take your point”). You were given the opportunity to just leave it at that, and were even complimented on your effort. However, you have chosen to traipse back through the argument in an effort to scramble together something anew to attack with. Unfortunately, your new line of attack is based upon nothing more than giving the argument the poorest “fair reading” you could give it. This is indicative of your position. Do you really want to spend another 10 or 20 pages pouring over the word “result”? Your attack on this front will require me to have assigned a “causal” significance to the word “result” in this instance, which is something I have already plainly stated that I do not give it. A fire requires certain things in order to exist, so if a fire has occurred, the existence of those certain things can be found as a necessary result of the fact that a fire has occurred. This does not indicate that the “certain things” were caused by the fire (i.e. a product of the fire) but only that the “certain things” are a necessary condition of the fire’s existence. If you choose to continue with this line of attack, I can assure you that I will start presenting copious examples of the word “result” used in this fashion. Each of them will be a legitimate use of the word. It will not be difficult to defeat your new argument. I am just wondering; given that you just completed a 111 day argument ending in concessions on both your lines of attack (“A->B,B->A” and “entailments”), how excited are you about losing yet another argument over the word “result”?

  29. Upright,

    With regard to “results”: I was presenting a list of observations which could be used to verify the existence of the transfer of recorded information. In other words, a test of what specific material conditions would be found as a result of such an instance occurring.

    In those two sentences you once again commit the egregious logical error that you’ve been making, and that we’ve been pointing out, throughout the entire thread:

    transfer of recorded information -> certain observations;
    therefore certain observations -> transfer of recorded information.

    A -> B;
    therefore B -> A.

    Your reasoning is invalid, and it will remain invalid even if you reiterate it a thousand times.

  30. Your objections ultimately didn’t stand up, and eventually you conceded the points against your attack (i.e. RB: “that would be a valid use…I take your point”).

    I looked at the context, and what Bill said was basically, “that would be a valid use IF AND ONLY IF you could demonstrate that your causes are both necessary and sufficient — that is, that no other set of causes can produce your entailments”. And you simply ignored that requirement, you continue to act as though Bill didn’t say it, you purposely omit it when quote-mining him, and you simply continue to pretend he conceded something he did not concede.

    This is dishonest. Do you think nobody notices? 

     

  31. Keiths,

    The logical formulation of “A->B, B->A” forces an inappropriate relational operator on the argument.

    This has already been conceded:

    Reciprocating Bill on June 10: “Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then phenomenon is present – as I stated above (B is the necessary and sufficient conditions for A. Therefore B -> A.”)

  32. I’ve tried to fight through all this verbiage, and as far as I can tell UB has spent countless long paragraphs arguing forcefully that the rain is wet, that it falls, that the wetness is transferred to the ground, that the mechanics by which rain wets the ground are fully understood, that the ground is really wet, that detailed examination unbiguously shows that the ground is wet, and that every known rainstorm has wet the ground without exception, and we know exactly how and why this happens in great detail.

    And THEREFORE, wet ground means rain!

    Not one thing he’s said about either rain or water or wetness or the ground or the rain process or the rain results is incorrect. So how can his conclusion be illogical? It can’t! and therefore pointing it out has “reached the point of pedantic nothingness.”

    I think we’re seeing here a case where a foregone conclusion is so sincerely believed that nothing else can penetrate or make any sense. The logical fallacy is not correctable because it is not visible and can’t be made visible.     

  33. Upright BiPed,

    “A->B,B->A” has NOT been conceded!

    What was conceded was your description of a physical relationship NOT a “logical” one.

    Do you agree that if your child smiles when seeing a picture of Santa Claus, that you can conclude that every time he smiles, he must have seen a picture of Santa Claus?

    It seems you believe exactly that.

     

     

  34. This has already been conceded:

    Reciprocating Bill on June 10: “Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then phenomenon is present – as I stated above (B is the necessary and sufficient conditions for A. Therefore B -> A.”)

    Now, let’s read that quote carefully. I notice the third word is IF. Bill has said IF the necessary and sufficient conditions are present, then the relationship is valid. The IF is being ignored here as though it’s not even there.

    Elsewhere Bill has written that it has not been shown that the necessary and sufficient conditions are present. Bill has even pointed out that they are NOT present, and uses the very example of protein formation as an example where those conditions are absent. UB’s logical error not only makes it possible for his conclusion to be false, it leads in practice directly to a false conclusion! And UB simply ignores and omits every bit of that.

    Now, I can see that Bill made a tactical error here. Bill essentially said “IF a dog’s tail is a leg, THEN a dog as five legs. BUT it’s not a leg.” And UB continues to extract from this quote the excerpt “a dog has five legs”, and repeatedly reproduces this mined quote as though it were the whole context.

    Maybe Bill lost sight of how creationists work?   

  35. Flint,

    Bill equivocated in his rebuttal by applying an inappropriate logical operator to my argument, while at the same time accepting appropriate relational operators in examples which are virtually identical to my argument. He then used that equivocation to repeatedly argue for the past 110+ days that “no evidence was even necessary” in order to defeat my argument. On the contrary, I have tried repeatedly to move the argument to the observable evidence for the simple reason that that is where its strength is. I have given the origin argument; I have presented the definitions of terms, provided the premises, and restated the argument in relation to the logical deduction of necessary and sufficient conditions.

    Transfer of recorded information: the material transfer of form about something.

    Representation: an arrangement of matter to evoke a material response within a system, where the arrangement of matter is arbitrary to the effect it evokes because the matter it’s instantiated in is not the effect it evokes in the system.

    Protocol: an arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise arbitrary relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system; it physically facilitates the transfer of form from the representation by isolating the representation and the effect, thereby preserving the necessarily arbitrary arrangement of the representation.

    Condition: to be materially identifiable, representations and protocols must be operating within a system, producing an unambiguous functional effect.

    X is necessary for Y          Negation: Examples of Y but not X

    X is sufficient for Y          Negation: Examples of X but not Y.

    ·         The use of representations and protocols is a necessary condition for the transfer of recorded information. Negation: An example of the transfer of recorded information that does not use representations and protocols.

    ·         The use of representations and protocols is a sufficient condition for the transfer of recorded information. Negation: An example of the use of representations and protocols that does not involve the transfer of recorded information.     

    ·         The transfer of recorded information is a necessary condition for the use of representations and protocols. Negation: An example of the use of representations and protocols that does not involve the transfer of recorded information.     

    ·         The transfer of recorded information is a sufficient condition for the use of representations and protocols. Negation: An example of the transfer of recorded information that does not use representations and protocols.

    Conclusion: The argument is valid if there are no examples of the transfer of recorded information that do not use representations and protocols, or, if there are no examples of the use of representations and protocols that do not involve the transfer of recorded information?

    Your implication that Bill is begging me to get around to the evidence doesn’t even pass the smell test.

  36. Upright BiPed,

    The transfer of recorded information is a sufficient condition for the use of representations and protocols. Negation: An example of the transfer of recorded information that does not use representations and protocols.

    There is no “protocol” involved in hearing, which is  a “transfer of information”, while there are “processes” involved.

    Please show me the differences between a “protocol” and a “process”.

    Are there any?

    Do you believe one of those terms are redundant?

     

  37. Upright Biped,

    Here aren’t you just saying that you are using the terms “transfer of recorded information” and “the use of representations and protocols” as synonyms?

    This seems to be why everyone who has been following the discussion sees your argument as circular.

    If these terms identify exactly the same real world referents, what purpose is served by using both?  Why don’t you just make it clear that these are your definitions and proceed with making your argument?

  38. Toronto, your continued equivocation of the terms used in the argument has already been dealt with at least four times. When people engage in debate, it is customary for one to ask the other to define their terms. Perhaps you’ve heard of the practice. This is done so that any refutations of the arguments can be seen as valid, as opposed to being a refutation of equivocated terms.

    Well, I provided my definitions in purely material terms. You have thus far either ignored them, or complained about them because you cannot invalidate them on the material basis in which they are presented. Consequently, it doesn’t really seem that there is anything left to say.

  39. Patrick, replace “information transfer” and “representations and protocols”, with “fire” and the “fire tetrahedron”.

    Now ask yourself why we even need the word “fire”. Why not just replace it with “fire tetrahedron”?

    – – – – – – – –

    Of course, this objection was dealt with long ago on this thread, but don’t let that get in your way.

  40. Upright BiPed,

    When people engage in debate, it is customary for one to ask the other to define their terms. Perhaps you’ve heard of the practice. 

    That’s why I am asking you for an answer.

    It is you, not I,  who are using the terms “protocol” and “process” as if they are equivalent.

    Please show me the differences between a “protocol” and a “process”.

    If you can’t, how can you claim a “protocol” instead of a “process”?

     

  41. Upright BiPed,

    I’ll start off the description of the terms.

    A “protocol” requires an intelligent agent at each end.

    A “process” requires no intelligence at all.

    So, if “information” is not transferred by “protocol”, there is no requirement for an intelligent designer and ID is not implied by the “transfer of information”.

     

  42. Toronto,

    I have never described the protocol as a process. I have only ever described it as a material object, i.e. an “arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise arbitrary relationship between the representation and its effect within the system”.

    Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again….I have said the exact same thing.

    Are you assured enough of yourself to simply admit that your claim about me describing the protocol as a process has no merit whatsoever, or will you continue to justify it in the face of my posts here which are 100% to the contrary?

  43. Here aren’t you just saying that you are using the terms “transfer of recorded information” and “the use of representations and protocols” as synonyms?

    This seems to be why everyone who has been following the discussion sees your argument as circular.

    If these terms identify exactly the same real world referents, what purpose is served by using both?  Why don’t you just make it clear that these are your definitions and proceed with making your argument?

    Patrick, replace “information transfer” and “representations and protocols”, with “fire” and the “fire tetrahedron”.

    Now ask yourself why we even need the word “fire”. Why not just replace it with “fire tetrahedron”?

    No, thank you, I’d rather get an understanding of your actual argument than go down another analogy rat hole.

    You made the following points about your terms “transfer of recorded information” and “the use of representations and protocols”:

    The use of representations and protocols is a necessary condition for the transfer of recorded information.

    The use of representations and protocols is a sufficient condition for the transfer of recorded information.

    The transfer of recorded information is a necessary condition for the use of representations and protocols.

    The transfer of recorded information is a sufficient condition for the use of representations and protocols.

    Operationally, you are using these terms to mean exactly the same thing, as far as I can tell.

    If “transfer of recorded information” is in any way different from “the use of representations and protocols”, please explain how.  If there is nothing in your definition of these two terms to distinguish them, there is not only no need to use both, using both does not in any way advance your argument.

    So, do these terms refer to different concepts or not?
     

  44. Upright BiPed,

    I have never described the protocol as a process. I have only ever described it as a material object, i.e. an “arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise arbitrary relationship between the representation and its effect within the system”.

    The term “protocol”, as used by anyone else anywhere, does not refer to a material object.

    You have tried to redefine the term.

    A “protocol” is a set of predefined actions and responses agreed upon by one or more parties.

    If during any debate I started to redefine terms to mean something completely different to their accepted usage, I would expect to be called on it.

    My opposition might also fairly ask, why I was doing that.

    So, why are you using the term “protocol” to mean something other than its commonly accepted usage?


  45. Brazenly following up to my own comment, it occurs to me that an easy way to determine the difference between “transfer of recorded information” and “the use of representations and protocols”, if one exists, is to explain exactly how to measure each process.
    How, exactly, would one determine that a “transfer of recorded information”, by your definition, has taken place?  Similarly, how, exactly, would one determine that “the use of representations and protocols”, again by your definition, has taken place?
    If the two measurement mechanisms are identical, those terms refer to the same concept.
     

  46. Patrick:

    If “transfer of recorded information” is in any way different from “the use of representations and protocols”, please explain how. If there is nothing in your definition of these two terms to distinguish them, there is not only no need to use both, using both does not in any way advance your argument.

    Which is, by the way, exactly my earlier oft asked, never answered question:

    What does “a semiotic state” entail that “the transfer of recorded information” does not? If something, then what? If nothing, then why invoke it?

    (Don’t hold your breath.)  

  47. Upright BiPed,

    Upright BiPed: Are you assured enough of yourself to simply admit that your claim about me describing the protocol as a process has no merit whatsoever,…

    I have made no claim that you have described the “protocol” as a process.

    What you have described in all your arguments regarding your semiotic theory of ID, are processes, not protocols.

    You have however, redefined the term “protocol” to mean “an arrangement of matter”, a term no one else uses but you.

    A process doesn’t need intelligence, while a protocol does.

    Without an actual protocol, your semiotic theory of ID doesn’t need an intelligent designer.

     

     

     

  48. Leviathan,

     there appears to me to be a misunderstanding here about the sense in which he means arbitrary. 

    No, I don’t think that I am misunderstanding the sense in which he uses the word arbitrary. I agree with you (and him) about the infinite number of other graphic symbols that may theoretically be chosen to represent the “ahh” sound. The important point is this (in your own words, emphasis mine):

    Any physical associations between the two (such as neural patterns in a brain) are subsequent to, and contingent upon, the initial arbitrary choice. 

    Because the association between the two is contingent upon the symbol initially chosen (and the changes to this choice such as in a secret code), the letter is exactly in this context – i.e. in it’s function as a representation of the “ahh” sound – not arbitrary to it!

  49. RB,

    You are, of course, correct.  I’ll have to look back to see when “semiotic state” evolved into “the use of representations and protocols.”

    Regardless of the words used to denote the underlying concept, I do think that a clear description of how to identify or measure each process would quickly demonstrate whether or not the terms are synonyms, by Upright Biped’s definitions.
     

  50. UB doesn’t agree that “A -> B. B, therefore A” characterizes his argument. He feels I derive this conclusion from an unsympathetic reading of his bafflegab. 

    Let us therefore look more carefully at his missive to Larry Moran. All quoted passages are UB, unless otherwise noted. I’ve occasionally interjected a clarification in brackets.

    This same dynamic is [the entailments are] found in all forms of recorded information; including those used in the information processing systems created by intelligence…

    All forms of recorded information exhibit the entailments. (A -> B, in all instances, including those created by intelligence.)

    So here we have a series of observations regarding the physicality of recorded information which repeat themselves throughout every form – no matter whether that information is bound to humans, or human intelligence, or other living things, or non-living machines.

    We have a series of observations that find B in all observed As, regardless of origin. (A -> B.)

    There is a list of physical entailments of recorded information that can therefore be generalized and compiled without regard to the source of the information. In other words, the list is only about the physical entailments of the information, not its source. I am using the word “entailment” in the standard sense – to impose as a necessary result (Merriam-Webster). These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer. And they are observable.

    A series of observations enable us to generalize and compile B from many instances of A, regardless of source. (A -> B.)

    Observations of systems that satisfy these four requirements confirms the existence of actual (not analogous) information transfer…

    (A – > B implicit from the above. B. Therefore A.)

    These observations establish that the entailed objects (and dynamic relationships) exist the same in the translation of genetic information as they do in any other type of recorded information (in every example from human language, to computer and machine code, to a bee’s dance).

    B is observed in the translation of genetic information, as with all instances of recorded information. (B is found in the genome. All A -> B.)

    As it turns out, [information transfer in the genome] faithfully follows the same physical dynamics [exhibit the same entailments] as any other form of recorded information.

    (B is found in the genome. All A -> B.)

    Demonstrating a system that satisfies the entailments (physical consequences) of recorded information, also confirms the existence of a semiotic state. It does so observationally. genomic information transfer (as it is found to exist) …demonstrates the readily-observable physical entailments of being semiotic, just like any other form of information transfer ever observed, without exception.

    B confirms C, a semiotic state. (B, therefore C, out of left field.)

    ChasD:

    This does not mean that all symbolic representations must necessarily be intentionally generated.

    UB:

    No it doesn’t. It also doesn’t mean that two objects of opposing charges (+/-) must repel each other, just because they always do.

    This is here only because UB is so utterly wrong, yet so confidently emphatic

    …how excited are you about losing yet another argument?

    Ditto.

Leave a Reply