Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Hi, Figure 1 below may be of some interest to you, because it suggests that the biological evolution (as the result of which we are all here, breathing, thinking, communicating) may be viewed as an example of the irreducibly triadic semiosis discovered by Peirce during the second half of the 19th century: BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION AS SEMIOSIS (072115-1) All the best. Sung -- Forwarded message -- From: Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion To: Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au Cc: PEIRCE-L peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Stephen J, lists, Stephen: . . . this still does not explain the “technology” behind reading DNA and how said data gets transformed to thoughts and actions. Sung: Figure 1 explains a lot about how DNA is read by the living cell to generate thoughts and action in humans, because it (i) suggests that Peirce's irreducible triadic relation (ITR) may be involved (which is a new idea, to the best of my knowledge), and (ii) directs you where to go if you want to KNOW more abut any of the nodes or steps. For example, if you want to KNOW more about how DNA is read, i.e., Step g, just google gene expression and you will find enough papers and books to read for the rest of your life. f g Biological Evolution - DNA - Life (object) (representamen) (interpretant) | ^ | | |_| h Figure 1. DNA as the representamen of the biological evolution. f = encoding during the process of evolution (i.e., origin of life and phylogensis); g = decoding performed by the living cell (also called gene expression or ontogenesis); h = genetic information flow (also called inheritance). The commutativity condition is thought to be held, i.e., f x g = h. All the best. Sung On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au wrote: Sung, this still does not explain the “technology” behind reading DNA and how said data gets transformed to thoughts and actions. If a simulation or model cannot be constructed, or at least imagined, to try to make it real, then the hypothesis is not workable. sj *From:* sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji *Sent:* Monday, 20 July 2015 4:35 PM *To:* PEIRCE-L *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Stephen, Edwina, lists, That is, if people are going to go along with the info-tech narrative that describes genes and DNA in the context of information, then I’d like to see the computer that processes said information. Where is it? If people are going to run with a particular metaphor, like the computing/info-tech narrative, then they really should cover all aspects of it. To understand how DNA works, it may be necessary to know how DNA originated and how it is read by the living cell. I believe that DNA is a component of a complex network of molecular interactions that can be identified as an example of the Peircean triadic semiosis: f g Biological Evolution - DNA - Life (object) (representamen) (interpretant) | ^ | | |_| h Figure 1. DNA as the representamen of the biological evolution. f = encoding during the process of evolution (i.e., origin of life and phylogensis); g = decoding performed by the living cell (also called gene expression or ontogenesis); h = genetic information flow (also called inheritance). The commutativity condition is thought to be held, i.e., f x g = h. All the best. Sung - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen J, lists, Stephen: . . . this still does not explain the “technology” behind reading DNA and how said data gets transformed to thoughts and actions. Sung: Figure 1 explains a lot about how DNA is read by the living cell to generate thoughts and action in humans, because it (i) suggests that Peirce's irreducible triadic relation (ITR) may be involved (which is a new idea, to the best of my knowledge), and (ii) directs you where to go if you want to KNOW more abut any of the nodes or steps. For example, if you want to KNOW more about how DNA is read, i.e., Step g, just google gene expression and you will find enough papers and books to read for the rest of your life. f g Biological Evolution - DNA - Life (object) (representamen) (interpretant) | ^ | | |_| h Figure 1. DNA as the representamen of the biological evolution. f = encoding during the process of evolution (i.e., origin of life and phylogensis); g = decoding performed by the living cell (also called gene expression or ontogenesis); h = genetic information flow (also called inheritance). The commutativity condition is thought to be held, i.e., f x g = h. All the best. Sung On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au wrote: Sung, this still does not explain the “technology” behind reading DNA and how said data gets transformed to thoughts and actions. If a simulation or model cannot be constructed, or at least imagined, to try to make it real, then the hypothesis is not workable. sj *From:* sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji *Sent:* Monday, 20 July 2015 4:35 PM *To:* PEIRCE-L *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Stephen, Edwina, lists, That is, if people are going to go along with the info-tech narrative that describes genes and DNA in the context of information, then I’d like to see the computer that processes said information. Where is it? If people are going to run with a particular metaphor, like the computing/info-tech narrative, then they really should cover all aspects of it. To understand how DNA works, it may be necessary to know how DNA originated and how it is read by the living cell. I believe that DNA is a component of a complex network of molecular interactions that can be identified as an example of the Peircean triadic semiosis: f g Biological Evolution - DNA - Life (object) (representamen) (interpretant) | ^ | | |_| h Figure 1. DNA as the representamen of the biological evolution. f = encoding during the process of evolution (i.e., origin of life and phylogensis); g = decoding performed by the living cell (also called gene expression or ontogenesis); h = genetic information flow (also called inheritance). The commutativity condition is thought to be held, i.e., f x g = h. All the best. Sung On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au wrote: Edwina, on most of the points you raise, I can see where we are going to be going around in circles. So I’ll just respond to those couple of points where we might stand a better chance of coming to some kind of closure: EDWINA: “I was under the impression that research is quite knowledgeable about how DNA works“ SJ: How could you say that? They are constantly revising what they previously assumed. For example, the latest, I believe, is that “junk” DNA is supposed to be important in some new way that they had never anticipated. And then there is the problem that I raised in my previous post, regarding the missing computer. That is, if people are going to go along with the info-tech narrative that describes genes and DNA in the context of information, then I’d like to see the computer that processes said information. Where is it? If people are going to run with a particular metaphor, like the computing/info-tech narrative, then they really should cover all aspects of it. EDWINA: “Sorry - but this statement, to me, is circular. Who defines 'what matters' and what does 'what matters' functionally mean?” SJ: The “who” that defines what matters is the mind-body that must make choices from its Umwelt. [hmmm... i can see that this is not going to get us anywhere J] Mind-bodies define their own priorities, they need neither
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Actually Sung, as a point of clarification... I do see the gist of your point, though more with respect to genes/hormones rather than DNA. I think it might have been Jesper Hoffmeyer or Kalevi Kull who described a semiosphere at the cellular level inside the body, where genes were analogous to “language.” It’s at the level of the DNA molecule that my thinking diverges. From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2015 11:13 PM To: 'Sungchul Ji' Cc: 'PEIRCE-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Sung, I understand where you are coming from... I recognize your kind of narrative in other articles that I’ve read on biosemiotics. However, the information technology metaphor does not sit well with me at all, in the first instance, because of the absence of specifics for the technology that might read or process the genetic data. What if DNA entanglement plays a central role? If it does, then this might change everything, because it implies something along the lines of Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance that draws on his metaphor portraying the DNA molecule as a kind of receiver. DNA is intricate and complex, like you would expect data to be, but that’s where the similarity ends. In the absence of said processing hardware, DNA entanglement would still rely on the molecule’s complex structure to resonate (entangle) with other equivalent molecules that are entangled with it by virtue of the manner of DNA replication. sj From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2015 7:05 PM To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Stephen J, lists, Stephen: . . . this still does not explain the “technology” behind reading DNA and how said data gets transformed to thoughts and actions. Sung: Figure 1 explains a lot about how DNA is read by the living cell to generate thoughts and action in humans, because it (i) suggests that Peirce's irreducible triadic relation (ITR) may be involved (which is a new idea, to the best of my knowledge), and (ii) directs you where to go if you want to KNOW more abut any of the nodes or steps. For example, if you want to KNOW more about how DNA is read, i.e., Step g, just google gene expression and you will find enough papers and books to read for the rest of your life. f g Biological Evolution - DNA - Life (object) (representamen) (interpretant) | ^ | | |_| h Figure 1. DNA as the representamen of the biological evolution. f = encoding during the process of evolution (i.e., origin of life and phylogensis); g = decoding performed by the living cell (also called gene expression or ontogenesis); h = genetic information flow (also called inheritance). The commutativity condition is thought to be held, i.e., f x g = h. All the best. Sung On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au wrote: Sung, this still does not explain the “technology” behind reading DNA and how said data gets transformed to thoughts and actions. If a simulation or model cannot be constructed, or at least imagined, to try to make it real, then the hypothesis is not workable. sj From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 4:35 PM To: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Stephen, Edwina, lists, That is, if people are going to go along with the info-tech narrative that describes genes and DNA in the context of information, then I’d like to see the computer that processes said information. Where is it? If people are going to run with a particular metaphor, like the computing/info-tech narrative, then they really should cover all aspects of it. To understand how DNA works, it may be necessary to know how DNA originated and how it is read by the living cell. I believe that DNA is a component of a complex network of molecular interactions that can be identified as an example of the Peircean triadic semiosis: f g Biological Evolution - DNA - Life (object) (representamen) (interpretant) | ^ |
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Sung, I understand where you are coming from... I recognize your kind of narrative in other articles that I’ve read on biosemiotics. However, the information technology metaphor does not sit well with me at all, in the first instance, because of the absence of specifics for the technology that might read or process the genetic data. What if DNA entanglement plays a central role? If it does, then this might change everything, because it implies something along the lines of Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance that draws on his metaphor portraying the DNA molecule as a kind of receiver. DNA is intricate and complex, like you would expect data to be, but that’s where the similarity ends. In the absence of said processing hardware, DNA entanglement would still rely on the molecule’s complex structure to resonate (entangle) with other equivalent molecules that are entangled with it by virtue of the manner of DNA replication. sj From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2015 7:05 PM To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Stephen J, lists, Stephen: . . . this still does not explain the “technology” behind reading DNA and how said data gets transformed to thoughts and actions. Sung: Figure 1 explains a lot about how DNA is read by the living cell to generate thoughts and action in humans, because it (i) suggests that Peirce's irreducible triadic relation (ITR) may be involved (which is a new idea, to the best of my knowledge), and (ii) directs you where to go if you want to KNOW more abut any of the nodes or steps. For example, if you want to KNOW more about how DNA is read, i.e., Step g, just google gene expression and you will find enough papers and books to read for the rest of your life. f g Biological Evolution - DNA - Life (object) (representamen) (interpretant) | ^ | | |_| h Figure 1. DNA as the representamen of the biological evolution. f = encoding during the process of evolution (i.e., origin of life and phylogensis); g = decoding performed by the living cell (also called gene expression or ontogenesis); h = genetic information flow (also called inheritance). The commutativity condition is thought to be held, i.e., f x g = h. All the best. Sung On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au wrote: Sung, this still does not explain the “technology” behind reading DNA and how said data gets transformed to thoughts and actions. If a simulation or model cannot be constructed, or at least imagined, to try to make it real, then the hypothesis is not workable. sj From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 4:35 PM To: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Stephen, Edwina, lists, That is, if people are going to go along with the info-tech narrative that describes genes and DNA in the context of information, then I’d like to see the computer that processes said information. Where is it? If people are going to run with a particular metaphor, like the computing/info-tech narrative, then they really should cover all aspects of it. To understand how DNA works, it may be necessary to know how DNA originated and how it is read by the living cell. I believe that DNA is a component of a complex network of molecular interactions that can be identified as an example of the Peircean triadic semiosis: f g Biological Evolution - DNA - Life (object) (representamen) (interpretant) | ^ | | |_| h Figure 1. DNA as the representamen of the biological evolution. f = encoding during the process of evolution (i.e., origin of life and phylogensis); g = decoding performed by the living cell (also called gene expression or ontogenesis); h = genetic information flow (also called inheritance). The commutativity condition is thought to be held, i.e., f x g =
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen, lists, You may be interested in taking a look at the following article: Ji, S. (1999). Linguistics of DNA http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Linguistics-of-DNA.pdf: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics. *Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.* *879*:411-417. available at http://www.conformon.net under Publications Refereed Journal Articles. The main point of this article is that, just as we humans communicate using 'humanese', so cells communicate using their own language called cellese. Both these languages are based on the common principle of Peircean semiosis, the former at the macroscopic level and the latter at the microscopic, leading to the notions of macrosemiotics and microsemiotics as discussed in the following articles, also available from my web site above: Ji, S. (2001). Isomorphism between Cell and Human Languages: Micro- and Macrosemiotics http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Micro_and_macro_semiotics_2001.pdf , http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Micro-and-macrosemiotics_20011.pdf *in* *Semiotics 2000: “Sebeok’s Century”, *S. Simpkins, J. Deely, (eds.), Legas, Ottawa, pp. 357-374. Ji, S. (2002). Microsemiotics of DNA http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Microsemiotics.docx. *Semiotica* *138 *(1/4): 15-42. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. All the best. Sung On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au wrote: Actually Sung, as a point of clarification... I do see the gist of your point, though more with respect to genes/hormones rather than DNA. I think it might have been Jesper Hoffmeyer or Kalevi Kull who described a semiosphere at the cellular level inside the body, where genes were analogous to “language.” It’s at the level of the DNA molecule that my thinking diverges. *From:* Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 July 2015 11:13 PM *To:* 'Sungchul Ji' *Cc:* 'PEIRCE-L' *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Sung, I understand where you are coming from... I recognize your kind of narrative in other articles that I’ve read on biosemiotics. However, the information technology metaphor does not sit well with me at all, in the first instance, because of the absence of specifics for the technology that might read or process the genetic data. What if DNA entanglement plays a central role? If it does, then this might change everything, because it implies something along the lines of Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of *morphic resonance* that draws on his metaphor portraying the DNA molecule as a kind of receiver. DNA is intricate and complex, like you would expect data to be, but that’s where the similarity ends. In the absence of said processing hardware, DNA entanglement would still rely on the molecule’s complex structure to resonate (entangle) with other equivalent molecules that are entangled with it by virtue of the manner of DNA replication. sj *From:* sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com sji.confor...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 July 2015 7:05 PM *To:* Stephen Jarosek *Cc:* PEIRCE-L *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Stephen J, lists, Stephen: . . . this still does not explain the “technology” behind reading DNA and how said data gets transformed to thoughts and actions. Sung: Figure 1 explains a lot about how DNA is read by the living cell to generate thoughts and action in humans, because it (i) suggests that Peirce's irreducible triadic relation (ITR) may be involved (which is a new idea, to the best of my knowledge), and (ii) directs you where to go if you want to KNOW more abut any of the nodes or steps. For example, if you want to KNOW more about how DNA is read, i.e., Step g, just google gene expression and you will find enough papers and books to read for the rest of your life. f g Biological Evolution - DNA - Life (object) (representamen) (interpretant) | ^ | | |_| h Figure 1. DNA as the representamen of the biological evolution. f = encoding during the process of evolution (i.e., origin of life and phylogensis); g = decoding performed by the living cell (also called gene expression or ontogenesis); h = genetic information flow (also called inheritance). The commutativity condition is thought to be held, i.e., f x g = h. All the best. Sung On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au wrote: Sung, this still does not explain the “technology” behind reading DNA and how said data gets transformed to thoughts and actions. If a
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
EDWINA: ”...Are you trying to say that Peirce's view of the origin of life and its evolution/adaptation was pure Darwinism?“ SJ: Not at all, nothing of the sort. I am, however, suggesting that Peirce, in synthesis with von Uexküll, might be the closest we’ve come to an Isaac Newton for the life sciences. I don’t have your breadth of knowledge on Peirce, so I am in no position to comment on the other nuances that you refer to. sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2015 2:50 PM To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Ozzie' Cc: 'Stephen C. Rose'; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Stephen - I'm not sure of the point of your post. Are you trying to say that Peirce's view of the origin of life and its evolution/adaptation was pure Darwinism? If so, this is incorrect. His analysis of The Origin of Species merely extends politico-economical views of progress to the entire realm of animal and vegetable life (6.293). Peirce analyzed three modes of evolution, the 'evolution by chance' or 'fortuitous variation' (6.296) of Darwin - and he acknowledged that chance, as a mode of Firstness (freedom) was existent - and then, 'those theories which attribute all progress to an inward necessary principle, or other form of necessity (6.298). This was 'mechanical necessity' as the chief factor of evolution (6.298). Then, there was Lamarck's which is 'evolution by the force of habit' (6.300). Then, he says, Three modes of evolution have thus been brought before us: evolution by fortuitous variation, evolution by mechanical necessity, and evolution by creative love. We may term them tychastic evolution or tychasm, anancastic evolution or anacams, and agapastic evolution or agapasm. 6.302. And he considers 'tychasm and anancasm' as 'degenerate forms of agapasm'. 6.303. Obviously, we can see that each mode represents one of the three categories: Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. All three modes therefore play a role in evolution and adaptation. And this means that life is neither fully accidental (Firstness) or fully inevitable (Secondness) but is a process of Mind extending itself within forming habits-of-association (Thirdness. ). As to why life exists, there can be no answer; my individual opinion is that abiotic morphologies developed to prevent the dissipation of matter, and that biotic morphologies then developed as more complex measures to fufill the same role. Edwina - Original Message - From: Stephen Jarosek mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au To: 'Edwina Taborsky' mailto:tabor...@primus.ca ; 'Ozzie' mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com Cc: 'Stephen C. Rose' mailto:stever...@gmail.com ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:44 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion Edwina, we are going off at tangents here, and I want bring our focus back to the axiomatic approach that inspires my own thinking. Isaac Newton’s laws of motion provides some semblance of what I am getting at – you know, generality, inevitability, simplicity. What are the assumptions that we should be making? Peirce’s triadic scheme is perfect for such a paradigm, but because Peirce did not have access to the sort of information that we now do, he was never in a position to liberate his thinking from its anthropocentric constraints. The arrival of biosemiotics changes all that... we are now in a position to extend Peircean semiotics more generally to any organism that lives... including single-celled organisms, like neurons. So, back to that question... what are the assumptions that we should be making? Is life accidental, or is it inevitable? If it is accidental (Darwinism, strong/weak anthropic principle), then can “accidental” life persist and expand across time? I say... and that is a guess on my part (an axiomatic framework can only ever be a best guess)... no, it can’t. The fact that life persists and expands across time is the end-game to THAT conversation. If it is inevitable, then why? If it is inevitable, what are the principles that can make it so? That’s where “knowing how to be” comes into the picture. sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 8:33 PM To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Ozzie' Cc: 'Stephen C. Rose'; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion 1) Stephen - Howard Bloom's analysis of the knowledge function within groups, and his focus on the social group as the agential system - is a completely different issue than the analysis of Sign production and storage in the human brain. Bloom does not, to my knowledge deal with this aspect; his focus is psychological - and on the nature of the individual within the domination of the group. [Minor irrelevant point - i don't agree with his rejection of individual freedom,
