I'll disagree on several issues with Howard's comments.
1) Again, I think that terminology is important. I think that using the term
'symbol' to refer to either the whole triadic Sign or the Legisign
Representamen, is confusing.
I understand the term 'symbol' to refer only to the Relation between the
Representamen and the Object. This Relation, as a symbol, means that the input
data is accepted as meaningful (i.e., it is not discarded as noise) even though
there is no indexical connection (direct physical connection) or iconic
connection (mimesis of type). Such acceptance requires, I think, consciousness
and thus, I confine the use of the Symbol to the human species.
The term 'Legisign', however, in my view refers to habits of formation held
within the Representamen. These habits can be generated over time by symbolic,
indexical and/or iconic Relations between the Object and Representamen. Howard
wrote:
" 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 ( 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. "
And I disagree. I consider that the genetic information is not symbolic but, as
a HABIT held within the Representamen, it is not a Relation between the
Representamen and the Object but is a LEGISIGN. A legisign is a representamen
that is 'of the nature of a general type' (8.334) . It is 'a law that is a
Sign. ...It is not a single object but a general type"..(2.246).
It is this rigidity of habit, expressed as a generality, that is the key
characteristic of the nature of a Legisign and thus, of genetic information.
The definitive characteristic of a Symbol, on the other hand, is its
arbitrariness, its openness to change because the Symbol is totally dependent
on interpretation for its information content to have any weight.
2) Howard wrote: "Demanding or not, I find it implausible or meaningless to
imagine an individual sign without a living interpreter."
And, I'll have to yet again, state, that as a confirmed believer in
'pansemiosis', since I agree with Peirce that Mind is evident even in crystals,
I consider that semiosis and thus signs, do not need a 'living interpreter'.
That slips into the semiology of de Saussure...and I'm not interested.
3) I'll also confine the term of 'language' to the human species, although
'communication systems' are evident throughout the natural world.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Howard Pattee
To: Frederik Stjernfelt ; Peirce List ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7252] Re: Natural Propositions Chapter 4
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 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
( 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 ( 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
