I recently came across this book:
Biosemiotics: Information, Codes and Signs in Living Systems
This new book presents contexts and associations of the semiotic view in biology, by making a short review of the history of the trends and ideas of biosemiotics, or semiotic biology, in parallel with theoretical biology. Biosemiotics can be defined as the science of signs in living systems. A principal and distinctive characteristic of semiotic biology lies in the understanding that in living, entities do not interact like mechanical bodies, but rather as messages, the pieces of text. This means that the whole determinism is of another type.
Pardon my skepticism, but
- There is no information in living systems.
- There are no codes in living systems.
- There are no signs in living systems.
Biosemiotics is the study of things that just don’t exist. Theology for biologists.
I had a hunch that the idea of codes in living systems would be resisted here at “The Skeptical Zone.” I had no idea though at the time just what might be the extent of that opposition. Apparently Code entails Goddidit. God must not exist, therefore codes cannot exist.
The idea of what a code is that I am trying to follow comes from Information Theory/Coding Theory. I was not particularly concerned with whether the application of information theory and coding theory to biology ought to be taken seriously, I thought at this point that was a given. I was wrong before, I’ll probably be wrong again.
Do the Semiosis Skeptics and Code Denialists here at TSZ reject the concept of biological information?
If so, why?
Warning!: It’s a trick question.
Tell us about the exciting research biosemiotics will bring.
I’m fine with biological information. Nature creates information all the time.
Get ready for another dozen C&Ped pointless Mung posts. It must be hard being the smartest Creationist in the room.
That’s really not saying much, Richardthughes. How does Nature create biological information?
Richardthughes,
Tell us about the exciting research Darwinian evolution has brought?
Evolutionary computation, which I use every day, but is beyond you.
Mung,
Base pairs – they come in twos.
Mung, I think it would advance our collective understanding if you could share a Venn diagram of ‘information’, ‘codes’ and ‘signs’. Thanks in advance!
Richardthughes,
You forgot the part about telling us what was exciting about the research.
The origin of species, the origin of cancer, the origin and nature of sex, both external and internal insemination and embryological developmemt, the origin and nature of metabolism, diversification of metablic enzymes and metabolic diseases, origin, nature and diseases associated with mitochondria , all of ecology and biodivetsity conservation, selective breeding.
Basically evolution is a foundational principle in all of biological science that explains why things are and work as they do.
No, you asked for exciting research, not what makes it exciting. Necessarily that is subjective so if it isn’t exciting to you nobody cares.
@Mung
I still believe the genetic code is a code and that you have managed to show as much. Still waiting for the punchline too…
Moved some posts to guano. Rules, guys, rules!
Mung write;
Unless you’d like to share your personal definition of “information”, “code” and sign, it’s impossible to either agree or disagree with these statements, Mung.
Though I’d certainly agree that we (people) can glean information from biological entities and systems.
The genetic code can be called a code or not. What it is is much more interesting than what you call it.
Signalling happens across biological systems. It’s a very broad term.
Rumraket,
Yeah, I think because one or two of us take a possibly eccentric position on the matter, that is taken as the ‘TSZ Party Line’. Mung is free to tell both those who agree and those who disagree why it matters either way.
I really do swing both ways. Yes, it’s a code in many respects. No, it isn’t in many others. Depends what we are looking at. But for the purposes of antagonising Creationists – no, it isn’t!
Yeah that’s the thing. I’m fine with calling it a code, until ID creationists start insisting this means it was created by a conscious intelligent agent, because then it just becomes a giant non-sequitur.
We already know the genetic code and the translation system evolved, there are multiple lines of evidence that shows this. So if the genetic code is a code (which I’m totally fine with it being), then it’s clear that codes can evolve.
It’s not the only code in nature. Light contain barcodes that correspond to the elements that emit the light. Fraunhofer lines are barcodes for the elemental composition of the light emitting entity. That’s how we know what the stars are made of (and that the laws of physics as we know them still apply 30 billion lighyears away and 10 billion years ago).
Not really a difficult prediction, that one! 😉 The resistance and opposition here is largely to the people promoting “code = Goddidit”, which appears to include you Mung (e.g. you wrote it to me in another thread, though one often doesn’t know if you’re simply playing or not). A semiotician who is not pushing IDism is immediately more trustworthy. That’s a sociological assessment, which you can complain about, avoid or deny as it suits you.
The dialectician in you, as much as there is one, Mung, should be asking: what then are not codes? I.e. what are the limits to code theory? IDists, who play on semiotics are pretty much guilty of codism, the ideology that makes everything about or into codes; and exaggeration of what the special science of semiotics actually studies.
Similarly, Mung, until you face the ideology of semioticism, you won’t convince your opponents that you are not simply fanatical in pushing semiotics as a variety of theological apologetics (which is does, frankly, appear to be your ‘motive’, as it is with UB). Neither you (yet of course, you won’t claim to be trying) nor anyone else I can think of in the IDM has presented anywhere near a balanced position yet (instead of being simple-minded “if it looks like it, it is” rhetoric). Indeed, much of the IDM is rather extremist, which is why they are marginalised; not just because they are not producing ‘strictly scientific’ results.
Gregory,
Other than the appeal to motive, I would broadly agree. It is a reactionary view, though the reasons for that reaction are not particularly deep-and-meaningful.
Were I lucky enough to have been involved in the genetic code research effort, I would have been engaged in filling the matrix of assignments. It was clear that there was a matrix to be filled in – a relationship between genetic sequence and protein sequence. The monotonous polymers came first, then the more tricky (at the time) oligonucleotides, and the gaps steadily fell.
I would not be muttering under my breath, as I incubated my reactions “not a fucking code though, is it?” 🙂 But ‘Semiotics’ did not affect what was done, and I don’t think coding theory can claim retrospective credit for this work.
Allan Miller,
Yes, I agree.
It’s a shame that our personal views on God’s existence tend to colour our discussion on more general and practical issues.
Hey Mung,
UB has admitted the following:
– It does not follow from biosemiotics that any particular class of causation – e.g. “intelligence,” “agency,” etc. is required for the origination of “semiotic systems” in biology.
– It does not follow from biosemiotics that any class of causation, e.g. unguided natural processes, selection, etc., is excluded from the origination of “semiotic systems” in biology.
You have characterized “real codes” as symbol-bearing, and therefore as semiotic systems. You argue that the translation of DNA utilizes a “real code.” Therefore you maintain that DNA and its translation employ a biosemiotic system.
Does it not follow from UB’s admissions that biosemiotics is silent on the origins of “semiotic systems,” and therefore the origins of symbol bearing codes, in nature?
What difference does it make?
Amen to that one
peace
By what difference, I mean the problem of origin of life is not changed in any way by mapping the chemistry to philosophical abstractions.
The questions remain in the realm of chemistry.
fifthmonarchyman,
So when are you going to stop?
Alan Fox,
It’s a shame how religion poisons so many minds.
Hypocrite, you wouldn’t mind one iota if every single one of us were to declare “I believe due to something read in the bible, that god has made things to be so and so” and then went ahead and tried to prove this.
To you, godbelief coloring your thinking is absolutely okay if godbelief comes first and all the thinking that takes place is done to try and support that preconcieved conclusion.
To you, any kind of thinking that doesn’t lead to god is by definition wrong.
All presuppositionalists are hypocrites. But to you, it is okay to be a hypocrite as long as you are a hypocrite in defense of godbelief.
That’s pretty well known Mung. The biological information of DNA is defined as the precise determination of sequence either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein. The new information in each individual in every generation comes from the mechanisms that create new genetic sequences such as sexual recombination, duplications, frame shifts due to indels, SNPs, HGT. The new information that is retained long term is that which becomes fixed in the population either through filtering by selection pressures or genetic drift.
Any other topics in evolution you need tutoring on? 🙂
Mung commit to definitions? You’re a pretty funny guy. 🙂
It’s an unbound solution class that can search higher dimensional space. Everyone else understands that and is excited. Sadly I don’t have a paper on it that you can just read the abstract of.
That would sting if there were anything about Mung capable of perceiving error.
Well, the field of semiotics itself is certainly not a ‘reactionary view’. It is a rich and productive field of study, and the several professional semioticians I’ve met have shown this amply. I credit Mung at least for taking time to explore it, in so far as it is not just to try to build-up his particular IDist approach.
I wonder if the key hesitancy here is that semiotics is just not a very well known field in much of N. America (nor is ‘philology’). As I wrote in another thread, Denmark, Estonia and Russia have well-established schools of semiotics. There are several important French thinkers and Umberto Eco’s an acclaimed semiotician. The only major figure in the USA appears to be C.S. Peirce. I hadn’t heard of John Deeley before, but will give him some notice now.
Surely you agree, Allan, that the attitude from some here of, “I’ve never heard of it so it doesn’t exist,” doesn’t come across as a very attractive or intelligent place on the ‘skeptic’ spectrum.
The problem is not that we never heard of it, but that it adds no value to any aspect of biology.
Again, mung, define “code” and “denialist” and I’ll be happy to give you my opinion.
Mung, $1 please.
Ah yes, the presumed intelligence of the armchair internet guru. 😉 With a straight face as a non-IDist, go out and learn something instead of spouting off your unenlightening ideological ‘skepticism’.
Biosemiotics is admittedly a new field, already with an International Society, Journal, Springer book series, and a considerable movement of highly competent scholars. This has a lot more traction and possibility than ‘memetics’! You might want to start with Deacon in USA, but the Europeans are apparently well ahead on this.
This is not your little, easy-to-understand whah, whah IDist topic. Grow up or move over!
You could simply shatter my assertion by providing contrary evidence.
Gregory, just provide an example of a piece of productive research in biology that was inspired by biosemiotics. No fair using ideas like codes and signalling, which arise out chemistry.
Gregory,
Evidence?
Gregory,
Didn’t say it was. My insistence that the code is not a ‘true code’ is. I wouldn’t make a big deal of it were it not for the fact that Creationists make such a deal of the contrary position.
It is actually what I think, but my sticking to it is as much informed by its annoyance value than any deep metaphysical commitment. When multiple threads appear denigrating the viewpoint, I chuckle to myself like a common troll.
The terms code and chemical signalling are almost as old as knowledge of the DNA structure.
What arose in the 1990s was folks trying to advance otherwise unproductive careers by slinging jargon. That’s what Sokal parodied.
Bullshit in a tuxedo is still bullshit.
I have no interest in the code wars. I simply see nothing in the ouput of biosemiotics that gets cited in real research. It should be rather easy to prove that wrong.
I have posted dozens of times giving my reasons why it’s a dry well.
I haven’t been following this conversation too carefully, but certainly biosemiotics is a real field. Why wouldn’t it be?
One early theorist in biosemiotics, Jakob von Uexkull, discovered the structure of the organism-environment transaction independently of Dewey and Gibson, but around the same time. His work has been an important influence on embodied cognition, which in turn has contributed to, among other things, robotics. Andy Clark uses his neurocomputational version of embodied cognition to suggest new explanations of schizophrenia and autism. Clark doesn’t mention Uexkull in his new book but he does single him out as an important theorist in Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again.
But, hey, I’m just a shallow despairing philosophist, so what do I know?
Aside from obscure and out of print publications, can anyone cite any productive research inspired by biosemiotics? Any citations in important biochemistry papers?
Schitzophrenia and autism seem most likely to be genetic in etiology. Possibly with an overlay of epigenitics. OOP does not appear to be a route to AI.
Do you mean base pairs create information or are repositories of information? Given your previous comments it’s not at all clear what you think the role of base pairs are relative to information.
Nature creates information all the time.
Do you mean base pairs create information?
Mung,
I mean that ‘2’ is information. Any objective or subjective measurement is information. Facts are information, observations are information. I can think of no domain without information.
This is just classic. Allan’s position is at least slightly more principled than this.
Maybe we should drop the code talk in this thread and stick to information.
From what little I know, biosemiotics is mostly used in theorizing the organism-environment relationship. If it’s been useful at explaining what’s going on at the molecular level, I’m not aware of it.
Ah yes. Those comments were tongue in cheek. I had shortly prior to that taken pretty much the exact opposite position when asked by walto. I was a bit miffed that you didn’t read my responses before making that post of yours.
How do you suppose that happens? Religious symbols get into the brain somehow and affect it’s chemistry?