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.
It’s nice to see people admit that in one context they will say one thing and in another context they will say exactly the opposite.
Makes a mockery of the site rules though.
As opposed to imaginary research.
Like Barry’s thought experiments? ‘Can a circle be a square’ what? It can? fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
So the idea of organisms taking measurements and storing the results doesn’t make you feel all weird or anything?
Given that DNA consists of sequences of just four bases, and the information stored in that sequence of basis can be about any number of quite diverse things, doesn’t it follow that the sequences of base pairs must be representations, that they must be information about something other than base pairs?
Aside from amino acids, what are they representing?
What is added to the explanation that is not chemistry?
A question I asked UB times many:
An answer couldn’t be extracted from UB, either.
Well yeah, if they’re about stuff, they’re probably also going to be about stuff.
Apparently IDists just can’t wrap their minds around the fact that structures can have attributes and behavior that are not predictable from the properties of their constituent parts.
The rather important consequence of emergence is that the genetic code cannot be mapped to phenotype or to system behavior. The code does stuff, but it doesn’t mean anything. It has no aboutness.
This has become rather important in medicine. The dream of finding and fixing disease causing alleles has not panned out. Except for a few recessive traits.
Mung,
It seems to be more of a childhood illness that lasts into adulthood in many cases. Oddly, the parents are often the vector.
Patrick,
As evidenced by how it spreads
I could really care less. It doesn’t even matter to me if they don’t represent amino acids. That is beside the point.
If the bases contain information then they do so by way of representation. It’s simple logic.
I’m sure that Richardthughes understand this, having no doubt some familiarity with the world of 1’s and 0’s and how sequences of just two elements can be mapped to an entire word of information that is not composed of sequences of 0’s and 1’s. The key to the mystery is representation.
You always were the bright one! Don’t ever let anyone tell you different.
You’re the smartest Creationist in the room Mung! Don’t let anyone tell you different!
Bases contain information the same way sodium and chlorine contain the information to produce table salt. Therefore THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS THE DESIGNER!!
Simple logic, right Mung?
Map=Territory.
Mountains are made of ink.
Demungest philosopher evar.
This is the conversation I’m waiting for. Or rather, I’d really like it if Mung would say what the point of this is. The genetic code is like language in some respect, and not in others. It’s not terribly like computer code, though, but a little bit. It certainly contains information, but then so does any pattern.
Where do we go from here?
And the key to representation in the genetic code is the set of tRNA molecules. And the key to those is in the DNA, which includes sequences that correspond to them.
So to repeat: where do we go from here?
Exactly. GWAS has been an eye-opener.
I think you are mistaken here, Mung. Context matters. That’s why operational definitions are so important in science – because words need to be precisely defined for the current context. I think you often see contradictions where there are none.
Moved some stuff to guano.
I’m kind of hoping scientists, historians, engineers, etc do this a lot 😉
Mung,
Oh, yes please! Something else we can gibber about endlessly without any particular point!
It might be more useful though.
I’ll withhold judgement
2 kinds of biological information in my view: that conveyed by force and that conveyed by pattern. They are not wholly independent. The info in xNA is of both kinds. A sequence of bases has high affinity for complementary sequence, which can reside in a second strand, a loop of the same strand, a series of bases serially attached, or a separate molecule altogether. Such stretches ‘inform’ each other, and energy leaves the system as they come together under this force.
A sequence of sequences of bases (such as a sequence of triplets) is a pattern that can be followed and copied sequentially by traversing the covalent linkages. Anticodons bind sequentially through ‘forceful information’, and lo, the sequential info is transferred.
The information preserved is also to some extent ‘about’ what has worked in the past, and the raw copying history of the genome.
Leading to … stuff.
Why do they have to represent something other than amino acids
Why is it that you cannot show that it is only chemistry? What is the problem?
Your position can’t explain amino acids.
Your position can’t explain chemistry.
Adapa,
ID explains amino acids and chemistry. The evidence for ID flows from both.
No problem at all. Why do you ask?
Your side can’t explain amino acids or chemistry. Your side has no evidence.
And yet wasn’t petrushka arguing that it was not like language at all?
Then you should go back and read the comments of Allan Miller and Rumraket.
And yet all organisms are not scientists, historians, engineers. Is it only humans that make measurements? Are you going to respond to the necessity of representation?
Are you going to assert the necessity of humans or intelligent entities to make codes and representations?
The point is that your own stated position on why the genetic code is not a code is illogical. It’s based on the claim that the nucleic acid sequences don’t represent anything and are not symbols. If they are a store for information, then your claim is shown to be false.
Now can we go on to information denialism? That is the next logical step.
I’ve already said no. If you want to participate you really ought to pay attention.
Otherwise it would not be information. And it is representational.
And:
symbol: something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention…
Dare I say, symbolic?
I have no idea where you are trying to take this Mung, but the reason people are suspicious of your code mongering is that chemical codes and chemical signalling evolve and do not require brains or intelligent creators.
I cannot prove this, but it appears that you are attempting some map/territory argument.
Or perhaps you are blabbing without any direction or purpose.
Why should anyone care?
His argument is simple, I think. Codes require representation. Representation requires intelligence. DNA is a code. Therefore, DNA requires intelligence.
Not that obscure.
I just wish he’d define these terms so this argument could actually be assessed.
Indeed. The facts don’t matter. The mere thought of the divine foot is what controls the debate. That’s not where I was trying to take things, but that’s what has come to light.
Mung,
And now I disagree with Mung again.
Information requires representation.
I haven’t claimed that representation requires intelligence. In fact I thought I posted something that says the opposite of that.
I’ve explicitly stated that I do not think DNA is a code.
I’ll observe again that it seems to matter little what I say, and that what drives the discussion is where people think I am going.
Theopodophobia?
Finally, someone who will disagree with me!
🙂
Patrick, in this thread I posted two definitions of a code in the OP, one from Abramson (1963) and one from Yockey (2005) citing Perlwitz, Burks, and Waterman, 1988.
Are those two definitions of a code conflicting in any way?
Does either one require intelligence for a code [so defined] to exist?
Now why do you suppose that is?
No rather you’ve gone out of your way to make people despise you. Now you are simply reaping what you’ve sown.
My advice to you would be to retire “Mung” and start a new character. Then never refer to “Mung” ever again.
Whatever let’s you sleep at night…
That belongs in guano.
Definition games do not make chemistry or biology behave differently.
Why are you playing definition games?
What matters, if not facts? Are you suggesting the facts don’t matter to ID critics?
That’s just loose talk. I didn’t take you for a Biblical literalist. God doesn’t literally have feet, does he?
That’s the trouble with dialogue and communication. Not so easy for any one discussant to control in an unrestricted venue.
That’s what happens when God sticks his foot in the door. Skeptics wonder why they can’t see that invisible foot, what the entailments of that foot are. Why do we need to consider that evidence-free imaginary foot?
Why do you create an OP asking What Is A Code? if you don’t care?