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.
I did not create that thread to get a long and pointless list of dictionary definitions.
I started the thread to ask why the issue is important.
I’m wondering what significance there is in calling the genetic code a code except as a matter of convenience and history. Is there any? We refer to sections of DNA in chromosomes of an organism that don’t appear to have any useful function to the organism as “junk”. It merely signifies a sub-category of DNA sequences based on current knowledge.
Mung,
I was disagreeing about the “foot in the door” reference, but I’ll answer your questions before getting to that.
No.
No.
If you can get to “Therefore Design!” from those definitions, without equivocation, more power to you.
Now, what I was disagreeing about was this statement of yours:
Based on the excerpts I’ve read at AtBC, when Richard Lewontin is referenced at Uncommon Descent, this is the usual quote:
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Here are those sentences in context:
“Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. … Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
Unlike what some UD regulars would like to suggest, namely that scientists have an a priori commitment to philosophical materialism, Lewontin is explaining why invoking gods is useless.
The same is the case here. If you want to have your gods considered as an explanation, provide some evidence for them.
One group implores me to define my terms. Another rebukes me for playing definition games. The life of the anti-skeptic is not an easy one.
🙂
Find us a foot!
Definitions do not matter. What we are asking is why you think the concept of a code is important in biology. why are you posting all this stuff?
Mung,
I appreciate you are in a minority here. Please invite ID proponents to join us. Lizzie has said even Kairosfocus would be welcome.
I’ve not been trying to get to Therefore Design.
I’ve explicitly stated that I would not be making that argument because I did not think I could make the case that a code entails a Coder/Designer (or code, therefore Designer).
I don’t know if people just didn’t believe me or if they just weren’t paying attention.
Well, I thought you were advocating UB’s “Semiotic argument”. Aren’t you?
hotshoe_ already said even if the foot was there she’d refuse to kiss it. 😉
We don’t believe you because on other forums you have expressed admiration for people (Uprightbiped) who do argue that there is a “necessary discontinuity” between a code representation and a physical effect.
Are you going to try denying that most people who read this do not think this “discontinuity” is bridged by a foresightful agent? Or by a chemical system exhibiting foresight?
No.
But this illustrates the point I was trying to make with my “divine foot” comment.
Where people think I am heading with what I write leads them to say things that are simply not warranted by what I actually write. And that’s the mild version of what I could have said.
Unlike some historical women, hotshoe does not appear to be a foot fetishist.
Mung,
Well, why not just say what you think needs saying?
One might get the wrong impression from what you post elsewhere.
I don’t know many who are masochists like I am. 🙂
Mung at UD:
Dare I suggest, Mung, that you believe there is a problem originating the code and translation system of the cell in the absence of a designer?
If this is not what you believe, then you must share with Szostak and other researchers, the profound delight of a great challenge. Explaining the origin of biology.
Mung, your reference to a magic wand leads me to suspect there is no love for Szostak and other OOL researchers in your heart. You do not think the challenge they have accepted to be winnable.
That you don’t believe me explains a lot. But it’s hardly in keeping with the [stated] spirit of this site. IOW, it’s not an excuse.
That’s pretty obvious. Why would I deny it? It’s what makes his view so controversial.
But there are lots of contemptible little trolls who deny their motives three and more than three times.
I am not accusing you of dishonesty. I am accusing you of avoiding discussion of the importance of your posts on codes and translation. You have refused to say why the discussion is important to you, so I have imported what you have said elsewhere.
Here, you deny that the code and translation system implies a designer. Elsewhere you speak of magic wands being involved. Or have accused mainstream biologists of avoiding the question.
So why is the issue important to you? I would not be misinterpreting your motives if you would simply state them in your own words.
Well, this contemptible little troll is off to see the new James Bond movie.
Perhaps by the time I return petrushka will have created an OP discussing my comments over at UD in their context and will have replaced the insinuations and innuendo with an actual argument.
Cheerio!
Mung, in contemplating your OPs on biological codes and the response from TSZ posters, I have this question:
What would you say to the theory that, in fact, you and Dr Liddle are engaged in a secret conspiracy to drive traffic volume to the site?
I have it on good authority that you have passed coded messages to her.
I don’t see what all the fuss is about. I’m sure that some folks would like to suggest that this or that is a hallmark of intelligence (is evolution intelligent?) but I think we all know how this will play out, I’ll just be another FIASCO for Uncommon Descent folks to pretend is a real science thing. It’ll sell a minimal number or wrist bands, have Joe G swear at folks if it has open fora,Google search the work of others for “Code”, “Symbol’ etc. but generate no research programs or new knowledge of its own.
But here’s some inspiration for them: http://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mf55-spoiler.html
Good luck, guys. Don’t popularize until you actually have something, please.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
I don’t recall calling Mung a Contemptible little troll. I was referring to folks at UD who might be invited. I don’t desire that trolls be invited.
I would prefer people — whether I agree with them or not — who make clear arguments and attempt to support them.
I do lot like it when people stir up animosity over pointless definitions.
So again I ask, for the refreshed and reinvigorated Mung, when he returns: What is the point? What if we have a code and translation system embodied in biology?
What follows?
Is there a way to explain it’s existence without researching the chemistry?
Sadly, Mung, if you’re heading nowhere, then why start moving? This is a case where neither you, nor UB, nor anyone in the IDM (which hint, wink, nudge, we know you are actually promoting IDism) is competent to say: GO! (thus implying a direction)
By which I mean that altering maps does not alter the territory.
One could do some unproductive science as a result of bad definitions, but reality would win out.
Sure, your comments meant something in context other then what they clearly said. You know that people can read the thread for themselves right?
Has it been working?
I can’t believe I missed that one. Thanks.
Sadly, Gregory, that is a non-sequitur. That I was not headed where people thought I was headed is not a reason to think I was headed nowhere.
Perhaps in twenty or thirty more threads you will favor us with a description of your destination.
Mung,
So where are you headed, then; what’s your destination if not towards IDism, the ideology you have beloved? As I understood, you are still pushing IDism here, as if you think any Abrahamic theist simply *must* accept IDism and that it’s the ‘magic bullet’ apologetic vs. atheism (for a renewal of your USA culture). Silly Mung. 🙁
My ‘directions’ are easy to understand and entirely clear at TAMSZ: I reject IDism, think ‘skepticism’ (even as smarmy apostate Lizzie demonstrates it) is a depressing and humanistically desolate worldview (and especially when advocated by radical undereducated USAmerican skeptic idiots [cuz ‘moron’ is anathema to mr. Fox] – they’ll respond to this, thus defining themselves, watch them! 😉 ) and that most atheists posting here are (if not only intellectually) ‘damaged goods’ (who are likely evil minions in their communities).
You, otoh, have admitted that you keep your cards close to your chest, playfully avoiding specifics. This is typical coy IDism, which I saw firsthand among IDists at the DI. You IDists play naughty as if you are unfairly treated underdogs, while even those closest to you recognise you’ve offended good sense and proportion with your (still apparently willing comrades’) ‘scientific revolution!’ claims.
What if the Discovery Institute-based ideology you are promoting is actually fool’s gold, Mung? You’ve said you’re ‘in’ with them before. Who knows when you expect to be taken seriously or to believe you are sincere or not, or instead just some Seattle-based right-wing PR effort? There’s so much more out there that you seem distracted from by IDism, which simply isn’t on the radar of TAMSZ people, yet which uplifts humanity instead of reducing them to the pit of despair (echo “The Princess Bride” or “God’s Not Dead” as it suits you).
Self-anointed internet ‘gurus’ that deny biosemiotics aren’t worth one’s time or attention. So why not stop giving it?
Obviously, looking at the number of posts to your threads.
Further, if posters took an evasive attitude toward specifying the goals and theories motivating their posts, that would in turn drive more volume by motivating interlocutors to repeat the same questions and requests for clarification.
Of course, that is just a hypothetical, since I believe being specific about attributing that attitude to any poster would violate site rules.
Oh, I believe you. That is why I keep asking what the point of your question is. And why the characterisation of some of us as “TSZ code-denialists”. What do you think we are denying?
Sorry, Lizzie, but your ‘we’ is rather flimsy and forlorn. Please don’t try to dictate the existence of a collective where there is none. Participants at TAMSZ are mainly atheist individualists living in USA and UK. A few of you are apostates, who once believed better. Largely you are skeptics who reject soul, spirit and life after death. At least one is a secular (atheist) Jew. That’s a simple reality based on responses by people here.
No, I’m not about to let an architect, music, cogsci schizophrenia specialist tell a professional sociologist that they have or represent a ‘we,’ when really they mean only ‘I think such and such.’ What a farce that would be otherwise! You have no data as a scientist, Lizzie, to pretend otherwise for TAMSZ. And you likely won’t ever claim to have it either.
Same thing I get all the time here. Responses here are driven, for the most part, by theophobia. Or, what did you call it? Theopodophobia?
Gregory, please learn to read.
Mung is the one asserting that TSZ is a collective. Mung and Gregory and several others who mostly frequent UD. I notice quite a bit of variation among the skeptics.
Mung,
It is not a matter of ‘logic’ to regard the triplet as either symbolic or non-symbolic. Nor does it affect how one does science.
The triplet is ‘informative’ of its own complement. It does not symbolise that complement. Unless you can have two things that symbolise each other and nothing else.
Does a promoter region symbolise the molecules that bind to it? They are informational in much the same way as triplets, except that they do not contribute to protein sequence. There seems to be some privileged position in your symbolology for amino acid triplets that is not justified in my book. YMMV – it doesn’t matter a damn either way.
Biosemiosis reminds me of the groom who spends his wedding night telling his bride how great sex is going to be.
Mung,
The first instance of a sequence stands at the gates of selection in single copy. Nothing has happened to it yet.
After passing through the sieve of selection, at some point a large collection of descendant copies suddenly come to ‘symbolise’ – suggest, nod to, raise an eyebrow towards, stand in for, represent – a past environment? What sim-bollocks!
That’s biosemenosis.
Patrick,
My initial comment that sparked this off made no mention of the Divine Foot (” you know I don’t think the GC is really a code, don’t you?”). I was messing with him, because I know it bugs IDists. The evidence that it bugs IDists being the subsequent kerfuffle. But no, apparently I was all along trying to slam the door on the Designer’s bony foot. Despite that apparently having nothing to do with the debate from Mung’s recently-stated pov.
You brought it up! No, you brought it up! No I didn’t! Why do you keep talking about it then? ‘Cos you do! Hee, hee and hee.
Mung,
Credit where it’s due – that’s not bad.
Then one wonders how you explain the theists giving you short shrift also.
William J. Murray,
Assert it and lo! It is so.
Must … nnnngh … believe … triplet-acid relationships aren’t a …. mmmnk … coding relationship! Otherwise God will get me.