Howard wrote: "I will add that genetic information is symbolic because (110214-1) the primary function necessary for life, which is self-replication, requires copying information without initiating its control function. That is, for self-replication, symbols must be copied and transmitted without being interpreted, i.e., without constraining action (von Neumann).The most efficient and reliable communication from genes to the Internet is executed by one-dimensional sequences of simple symbols."
"That is why symbols must be arbitrary coded structures (110214-2) with no direct physical connections to their function (i.e., not indexical, iconic or mimetic structures). The arbitrariness of the relation of the symbol to its object (Monod’s “chemical gratuity principle") is illustrated by how the symbolic codon is coupled to its amino acid by the tRNA's completely separate binding sites." I agree with these statements. It is in the sense of "symbol" defined here that we can view DNA as a molecular symbol for RNA, proteins, and ultimately organisms. This conclusion is consistent with Monod's concept of "gratuity", de Saussure's concept of "arbitrariness of signs", and Peirce's definition of the symbol as the arbitrary/conventional/habitual relation between the representamen and the object. Like all words, "symbol" has many meanings, so that one can define it in such a way that DNA is not a symbol. But such a definition, although logically correct, would be empirically and theoretically indefensible. 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 > At 02:45 PM 11/2/2014, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: >>Dear Howard, Gary, lists, >> >>I think Howard and myself are on the same main line here, even if >>not in all details. >>I think Howard's generalization of "language" goes too far because >>that seems to require an elaborated system to exist as a >>prerequisite to even the very first occurrences of signs in early >>life. I find it implausible such a system was in place well before >>any individual sign. My own generalization of "proposition", I >>think, is less demanding. > > HP: Demanding or not, I find it implausible or meaningless to imagine > an individual sign without a living interpreter. That is, I agree > with the (non-Peircean) Biosemiotic Principle (for some, "Sebeok's > Principle") that semiosis and life are coextensive.That demand is > just the origin problem. I also assume life and evolution begins with > self-replication. > > What I mean by "language" in this context I repeated in my > <https://www.academia.edu/5988491/Response_to_Umerezs_paper_Where_does_Pattees_How_does_a_molecule_become_a_message_belong_in_the_history_of_Biosemiotics_>Response > to Umerez: > "The genetic language and human language are the only > general-purpose languages that are known, according to this principle > of evolutionary potential > (<https://www.academia.edu/863874/Unsolved_problems_and_potential_applications_of_hierarchy_theory>Pattee, > 1973b, p. 152). This potential is the crucial metaphorical > similarity. They both have unpredictable potential expressive power > because of their unlimited information capacity for generating > functions and meanings. Again, by this evolutionary criterion, other > symbol systems and codes, including all forms of signal transduction, > cell signaling and chemical messengers, and all communication forms, > such as bee-dances, spider drumming, and bird songs, should be > recognized as special purpose languages, or better, special symbol > [sign] systems that are limited to specific functions (e.g., Hauser, > Chomsky, and Fitch, 2002). Except for very limited learning > potential, like imprinting, these symbol [sign] systems depend on > genetic information for their construction and for their evolution. > Sebeok (2000) clearly appreciated this distinction between a > general-purpose language and a special-purpose symbol system, but he > applied it only to animal and human languages. As he expressed it, > "All animals paleontologists classify generically as Homo, and only > such, embody, in addition to a primary [special-purpose] modeling > system (Theorem I), a secondary [general-purpose] modeling system, > equivalent to a natural language. The difference amounts to this: > while the Umwelten of other animals model solely a (for each) > 'existent world', man can, by means of the secondary system, also > model a potentially limitless variety of 'possible worlds' > (containing sentences with alethic, deontic, or epistemic modalities)." > Of course I would agree with Sebeok that the rich modalities of > human expressions cannot be compared with the primitive modalities of > genetic expressions. Perhaps this lack of human modalities is why > Sebeok did not want to call genetic information a language; but it is > still the case that only these languages have the crucial potential > to describe a limitless variety of possible worlds. > The fact remains that no matter how important the modalities of > human language appear to linguists, they are not necessary for > evolution or even for intelligent behavior. We cannot even be > confident that the technologies based on human language will promote > the survival of the species. Whatever the case, genetic language will > exist as long as life exists. Genetic language is the primal > general-purpose language from which all other symbol systems and > human language evolved." > > I will add that genetic information is symbolic because the primary > function necessary for life, which is self-replication, requires > copying information without initiating its control function. That is, > for self-replication, symbols must be copied and transmitted without > being interpreted, i.e., without constraining action > (<http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs379c/archive/2012/suggested_reading_list/supplements/documents/Neumann1966.pdf>von > Neumann). The most efficient and reliable communication from genes to > the Internet is executed by one-dimensional sequences of simple symbols. > > That is why symbols must be arbitrary coded structures with no direct > physical connections to their function (i.e., not indexical, iconic > or mimetic structures).The arbitrariness of the relation of the > symbol to its object (Monod's "chemical gratuity principle") is > illustrated by how the symbolic codon is coupled to its amino acid by > the tRNA's completely separate binding sites. > > Howard > > Hauser, M. D, Chomsky, N, and Fitch, W.T. (2002) The faculty of > language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: > 1569-1579. > > Sebeok, T.A. (2000) Semiotics as Bridge Between Humanities and > Science. In Semiotics and Information Sciences, P. Perron, L. G. > Sbrocchi, P. Colilli, and M. Danesi (Eds.), Ottawa: Legas Press, p. 86. > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
