Clark wrote in response to my statement (091114-1) below that "DNA stands for (phenotypes of living cells) for people." (091214-1)
Which I agree with. But the point Clark seems to be missing is the fact that "DNA stands for phenotypes for living cells as well." (091214-2) The truth of (091214-2) is evident because cells have been reading DNA long before we humans appeared on this planet (in fact we would not be here if cells could not read DNA) and long before the 20th century when humans discovered this fact. With all the best. Sung ___________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > >> On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I agree. ÂZ stands for X for Y would be an example of smiosis. A >> concrete example of this would be >> >> >> ÂDNA stands for phenotypes for living cells. (091114-1) > > > If I understand him correctly, I donât think that would count as an > example. While I donât want to speak for Frederik, I suspect heâd say > properly that is > > DNA stands for (phenotypes of living cells) for people > > So thereâd be indexical relationships between phenotypes and parts of > DNA but that stands for would be on the human side. (Assuming I have your > example correct - apologies if Iâm misreading you) > > I think he wants something more like > > Mice have eyes to see > > There we could break that down as > > eyes -> seeing for mice > > What Frederik is getting at is that âfor miceâ or âto miceâ is > possible in biology but thereâs nothing equivalent in physics. The > âforâ is always âfor humansâ or more accurately âfor physicists > thinking about this." Now as I quibbled I think observers play an abstract > role in both QM and GR. As such itâs quite possible to treat observers > as a general (in the Peircean sense) that allows the phenomena to change. > (Collapse of the wave function not being tied merely to human observers, > for example) However I think nearly all physicists see that as an > artifact. That is most see it as at best an embarrassment of the way we > speak about it and at worse an highly unlikely interpretation. > > I do think that this distinction between âwhatâs really going onâ > and âwhat scientists think about itâ leads to problems. (Itâs an > ambiguity that I think frequently plagues philosophy of science - > especially naive discussions of physicalism) However ignoring that much > more subtle issue I raised in my last post, I have to concede > Frederickâs point. At best I think it possible physics will change in > the future. > > Iâm actually very sympathetic to getting rid of observer talk out of > physics - I think itâs often a remnant of the neo-kantian approach to > science from the early 20th century. Theory is often cast in an > epistemological framework rather than an ontological/physical one. However > Iâm also quite open to it being impossible to get rid of - especially > given my Peircean commitments regarding the universe being filled with > mind. > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
