Not everyone. Firstly I don't think genes do (or did) produce life. — Daemon
But secondly and more relevant to our discussion, it isn't the informational coding mechanism that does the work genes do: DNA is the mechanism. — Daemon
But when you've described the process in terms of deoxyribonucleic acid etc., you've said it all. There isn't any work for "information" or "semiosis" to do. — Daemon
Consciousness is not defined in functional terms, at least not in the relevant sense. — bert1
That's my complaint. You "consciousness" guys are bogged in the mud because you have a dys-functional conception of what its about. The mind can't make causal sense until you adopt a functional, enactive and embodied perspective. — apokrisis
Speechless incredulity. — apokrisis
You are welcome to your opinions but they make little contact with informed thought. — apokrisis
If you think "information" does something in addition to what the nucleic acids and proteins do, then tell us what that is — Daemon
But alas, philosophers tend to think that philosophy is the function of the engine. — unenlightened
I'll repeat my point. Biochemical processes involving nucleic acids and the proteins they interact with are responsible for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of organisms. When you've described those processes, you've described everything that happens in genetics. — Daemon
That's my complaint. You "consciousness" guys are bogged in the mud because you have a dys-functional conception of what its about. The mind can't make causal sense until you adopt a functional, enactive and embodied perspective. — apokrisis
Self-replication requires a distinction between the self that is replicated and the non-self that is not replicated. The self is an individual subject that lives in an environment that is often called objective, but which is more accurately viewed biosemiotically as the subject’s Umwelt or world image. This epistemic cut is also required by the semiotic distinction between the interpreter and what is interpreted, like a sign or a symbol. In physics this is the distinction between the result of a measurement – a symbol – and what is being measured – a material object.
I call this the symbol-matter problem, but this is just a narrower case of the classic 2500-year-old epistemic problem of what our world image actually tells us about what we call the real world. — Howard Pattee
I'll repeat my point. Biochemical processes involving nucleic acids and the proteins they interact with are responsible for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of organisms. When you've described those processes, you've described everything that happens in genetics.
When we talk about processes like this we use language like "information", "encode". We say "A gene is a sequence of DNA that contains genetic information". But there aren't two different things, the information and the nucleic acid. It's the nucleic acid that does the work. "Information" is just a way of talking about it.
If you think "information" does something in addition to what the nucleic acids and proteins do, then tell us what that is. — Daemon
If that is your point, it is a piss poor one. — apokrisis
Do you think information does something in addition to what the nucleic acids and proteins do? What is it? — Daemon
My question is, what does the "informational" account tell us about the phenomenon, in addition to what the biochemical account tells us? — Daemon
Aren't there at least implied dualisms in biosemiotics? Between symbol and matter, between self and other? — Wayfarer
Again we have the two worlds of symbol and matter. — apokrisis
Values are drive by emotion, which is a subjective and intersubjective response , whereas science is fact-based. — Joshs
The shitness of the modern world is largely due to a failure to continue the Enlightenment project. — apokrisis
You state that as though it is a fact; but it's a dogma or else it's merely an opinion, depending on how you look at it. — Janus
Once you assert the primacy of either values or facts, then you have fallen into a deep misunderstanding about how intelligent dissipative structures, or Bayesian mechanics, are meant to work. — apokrisis
Biosemiosis and neurosemiosis build the biological organism - the one that is “driven by in-the-moment emotions”. The semiosis of word and number - language and maths - then build the social level of organism that is the human animal with its extra level of “dispassionate, reasoned, self-regulating behaviour” — apokrisis
And I frame this as falsifiable theory. There are two views in play - dualism and triadicism. Which project laments about all its failures, which gets on with its evolutionary progress? — apokrisis
In any case since humans do not consist of a majority of intellectuals (for better or for worse) our problems are far more basic than a mere failure to grasp semiotics. More broadly, it is a failure to care enough. — Janus
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.