Semiotics though, ‘objectifies’ the continuous world by assigning discreet properties (such as cell wall) to much more complex phenomenon. — MikeL
The properties of atoms are simply being harnessed — Jake Tarragon
Such fuzziness is not part of the "design" but neither could it be said to add anything specific other than noise. — Jake Tarragon
Semiotics is needed though for the volume of information is staggering when we enter complex arrangements, and semiotics lets us hold the important information in mind. Semiotics is a necessary cognitive shorthand. Imagine trying to explain neuronal signalling by explaining the energy state changes in atoms – and yet it could be done. — MikeL
Due to the local understanding we derive through semiotics, we might marvel at the sentient nature of energy fields as atoms bind with other atoms, and at the sentient nature of ourselves, but we can’t link them and can’t tie them to a greater concept. — MikeL
Rather than understanding a continuous flow of energy densities into atoms into molecules and seeing the wall as the arrangement of these energy densities, semiotics creates discreet worlds separated from the ones below and above it. — MikeL
Semiotics is great for local explanations of occurrences. By local I mean explanations at the level of examination- So, if we are talking about cells, then semiotics would be talking in terms of plasma membranes, cell walls and transport molecules. If we’re talking about atoms then we would be talking about electrons and protons. Any level beneath the local level could be considered a global level. We don’t talk about cell function in terms of up and down quarks as this more global semiotic language doesn’t fit. —
If I am understanding correctly, the closer something is examined, the more global the level is? — antinatalautist
Isn't this assumption about the nature of the world in-itself a local examination (it's you, examining and explaining the world in a particular way or mode) - just another way of talking about the world? — antinatalautist
I see emergent patterns due to an excess of something in the system that is breaking constraint. When an isolated system suddenly begins to interact with another system to form a more complex system, the interaction happened because there was a capacity or tolerance in the system that allowed this indulgence — MikeL
When we back out of our local level and look at what is truly going on we find the security of semiotic understanding is removed. We begin to search for the fundamental driver of the action. — MikeL
Semiotics (describing things in terms of function rather than design) has been getting a great rap lately – maybe too great. It may be the reason so many scientists and even lay-people attack the idea of a god. What do you think? — MikeL
Semiotics (describing things in terms of function rather than design) has been getting a great rap lately – maybe too great. It may be the reason so many scientists and even lay-people attack the idea of a god. What do you think? — MikeL
But in any case, in this post, you're basically accusing semiotics of the very thing that it supposed to remedy, namely, scientific reductionism. That, I don't think, is characteristic of semiotics, as such, which is consciously anti-reductionist. — Wayfarer
But in any case, in this post, you're basically accusing semiotics of the very thing that it supposed to remedy, namely, scientific reductionism. That, I don't think, is characteristic of semiotics, as such, which is consciously anti-reductionist. — Wayfarer
I think you need to distinguish between semiotics as being the notion that describes all processes of human (and perhaps animal) understanding via signs and manipulation of signs, and the self-conscious valorization of semiotics (as systems or information science) as potentially being 'the answer'. The latter may certainly reflect an anti-theistic and totally anti-mystical, anti-transcendental, stance. — Janus
It says that there is "nothing but" what our reductive explanations tell us, and that reality is thus comprehensively explicable in those terms, with no mysterious 'leftovers'. — Janus
Scientific reductionism is the idea of reducing complex interactions and entities to the sum of their constituent parts, in order to make them easier to study. — MikeL
“A person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them.”
But to say that something is 'a symbol or a sign' is NOT 'reductionist' in the sense that physical reductionism is. That is why it is said that semiotics allows for 'top-down causation' - the notion that meaning itself can have causal powers. No materialist could ever allow for that. So, I don't agree that semiotics is reductionist in that sense, you will find in any textbook on the subject, plenty of criticisms of reductionism. — Wayfarer
But to say that something is 'a symbol or a sign' is NOT 'reductionist' in the sense that physical reductionism is. — Wayfarer
By semiotics as a human understanding via signs and manipulation of signs, I assume you mean communication? In this case a distinction could be made between communication and using symbols to understand the world around us. — MikeL
I would say that visual arts and music are also semiotic, but they embody the more indeterminable dimension of signs. — Janus
Yes, the search for answers comes to a stop and trying to introduce other ideas such as a creative force become superfluous nonsense. It is only by backing out of the semiotic layer we are using that we find a place for such a thing.The horizon shrinks when the focus is fixated by the determinable. — Janus
Yes, the search for answers comes to a stop and trying to introduce other ideas such as a creative force become superfluous nonsense. — MikeL
For semiotics, there is no meaning 'beyond' the signs; no meaning 'out there' or 'in here' in some transcendent sense. So, it is reductionist, just as surely as materialism or physicalism is. — Janus
By assuming a complete knowledge, based on our semiotic understanding, we no longer look for deeper truths. — MikeL
What we're actually discussing here is not semiotics but scientism, — Wayfarer
It is my contention that this fallacy is what has procluded Creative Forces from scientific discussion and rendered it homeless. It is only by backing out of the current semiotic model that we see there are really no substantial answer at all to the 'but why' question. — MikeL
I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.