Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9159 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 915,009 Year: 2,266/9,624 Month: 111/1,588 Week: 40/267 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
Porosity
Member (Idle past 2069 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 1 of 5 (701274)
06-15-2013 3:00 PM


Hello all...
This is my first post, I'm a long time lurker here and I feel like I know you guys. I don't have any degree's in anything but I'm fascinated with origins and have participated on other sites, doing research, debating and learning.
It seems like the latest creationist sales talk is this new semiotic argument for ID. I did search here and came up blank. I was doing research on the subject and this was the first place I looked into trusting the great minds here.
From what I can conclude, is that if these guys use enough excessive, ill-defined verbiage, they can somehow justify making these supportive assertions. Hoping nobody can figure out what the hell they are saying?
The way I see it this will become another creationist fallacy, until they offer a genuine explanation/hypothesis of their own.
What do you guys think? here are some links to get started.
Semiotic theory of ID | The Skeptical Zone
mouse trap illustration vs. 3-glasses-3-knives illustration — Irreducible Complexity, Depth of Integration – Uncommon Descent
Anyway... I figure, if anyone can make sense of this argument this is probably the best place to start.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 06-15-2013 3:10 PM Porosity has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 5 (701275)
06-15-2013 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porosity
06-15-2013 3:00 PM


You could supply more than links
I followed those links and had a quick look at it. I think it is possible to do something of a summary of what you think the argument is. To be fair I think you should attempt that as best as you can before this is promoted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 3:00 PM Porosity has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 3:25 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Porosity
Member (Idle past 2069 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 3 of 5 (701276)
06-15-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
06-15-2013 3:10 PM


Re: You could supply more than links
I think they are trying to say that translation is a semiotic process. That RNA/DNA code is non physical, informatics and semiotics.
Part of the argument is that physical processes become semiotic (epistemic cut) and cannot be explained by materialism. Also they are asserting semiosis is not physics. That the nature and irreducibility of the origin of code demands a conscious agent and that the origin of semiosis is not often talked about because it defies the materialistic framework and no answers can be found in it.
It is difficult to research and that is why I'm here to see what you guys think of this. They seem to reference Biosemiotics research, they say it's an emerging discipline.
In the end it sounds like (insert god here)
Edited by Porosity, : spelling
Edited by Porosity, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 06-15-2013 3:10 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Porosity
Member (Idle past 2069 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 4 of 5 (701277)
06-15-2013 3:45 PM


Here is a quote from another site that seems to outline the idea.
quote:
But let us say that it is true, we have a chemical link between codons and amino acids. Now at some point we have to replace these physical constraints with the formal rules that are the genetic code. The question then becomes where did these formal rules come from? Formal rules are not physical they seem to have come out of nowhere. How?
There are no physical constraints linking a sign (codon) to what it represents, called the object in semiosis (amino acid). No physical connections.
The formal rules linking the object to the interpretant are also non physical. They are intangible you cannot touch them, they are not physics. It defies mechanistic physicality quite clearly.
The semiotic triad is irriducable all three must exist, sign, object and interpretant. It defies reductionism quite clearly. The only way to build the system is by a top down flow of information that must be telelogical.
Semiosis is the fundamental quality of mind, it is how our minds work. We relate to the world by the interpretation of signs. Signs can be anything that we apply meaning to. We accumulate experience through a life time of interpreted meaning of signs through our physical senses, (consciousness) we then use signs to interpret even more signs.
Semiosis requires mind, in fact it is the basis of mind.

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 5 of 5 (701282)
06-15-2013 4:14 PM


Thread Copied to Intelligent Design Forum
Thread copied to the Semiotic argument for ID thread in the Intelligent Design forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024