RE: [biosemiotics:8910] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Interesting DNA-BRE comparison on the link you provided, Sung, but beyond my 
sphere of expertise. sj

 

From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Sungchul Ji
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2015 8:47 PM
To: PEIRCE-L
Subject: [biosemiotics:8910] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for 
DNA entanglement

 

Tom, Stephen J, lists,

 

I sympathize with the frustrations that Stephen J seems to feel about the lack 
of breakthroughs in our understanding about how the genetic information stored 
in DNA may be converted to cell functions.  I intend to write a more detailed 
post shortly on possible molecular mechanisms that living cells may use to 
achieve this miracle catalyzed by molecular machines, also known as "enzymes', 
but for now I only want to call your attention to the following paper that may 
answer some of the challenging questions raised by Stephen.  For thoses 
interested, this paper is available at my home page, http://www.conformon.net, 
under Publications > Refereed Articles:

 

 

"The cell as the smallest DNA-based molecular computer"
 Sungchul Ji Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Rutgers University, 
Piscataway, NJ 08855, USA

 

Abstract:  The pioneering work of Adleman (1994) demonstrated that DNA 
molecules in test tubes can be manipulated to perform a certain type of 
mathematical computation. This has stimulated a theoretical interest in the 
possibility of constructing DNA-based molecular computers. To gauge the 
practicality of realizing such microscopic computers, it was thought necessary 
to learn as much as possible from the biology of the living cell—presently the 
only known DNA-based molecular computer in existence. Here the recently 
developed theoretical model of the living cell (the Bhopalator) and its 
associated theories (e.g. cell language), principles, laws and concepts (e.g. 
conformons, IDS’s) are briefly reviewed and summarized in the form of a set of 
five laws of ‘molecular semiotics’ (synonyms include ‘microsemiotics’, 
‘cellular semiotics’, or ‘cytosemiotics’)—the study of signs mediating 
measurement, computation, and communication on the cellular and molecular 
levels. Hopefully, these laws will find practical applications in designing 
DNA-based computing systems. 

All rights reserved. Keywords: Molecular computer; Cell language; Cell model; 
Molecular semiotics; Cytosemiotics; Microsemiotics; Conformons

 

© 1999 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd

 

All the best.

 

Sung

 

 

 

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Ozzie <ozzie...@gmail.com> wrote:

Stephen ~

At the close of your posting on DNA, you wrote: "Anyone else interested in 
exploring this further? There seems to be a reluctance for people to step 
beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps for fear of ridicule."

 

Following that invitation, I commented on the role played by DNA in Pragmatic 
logic.  Your response (below): "Your explanation is an example of those 
self-consistent narratives that people construct in order to rationalize their 
assumptions."

 

I am not the first to suggest that DNA is a polymer, so I'm not rationalizing 
my assumptions.  It's a common view among experts:  "DNA is a polymer." 
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/molecular_graphics/dna_structure/dna_tutorial.html.  
I simply explained how to interpret the DNA polymer in terms consistent with 
Pragmatic logic:  DNA memorializes evolutionarily successful "habits" in the 
polymer, and those habits are later engaged (as "instinct") when 
electrochemical changes in the environment trigger the polymer/habit into 
action.  I also suggested an empirical test for your view DNA that 
"communicates" at a distance.

 

DNA as Pragmatic logic:  Successive generations of humans experience "random" 
variations in their genes.  People with those variations are (mainly) unaware 
of it, and go on living their lives.  However, in Pragmatic logic those 
variations are functionally equivalent to abducted hypotheses about superior 
habits that would generate greater survivability.   Life experiences following 
the abducted hypotheses are functionally equivalent to inductive activities 
(tests).  A gene variation that eventually proves to have greater survival 
value represents a new/superior version of the human gene: The offspring of the 
hybrid-human expand to dominate the population.  That updated gene functionally 
corresponds to a deductive model (in the polymer) on how to successfully 
navigate the environment.  Subsequent generations will carry that habit. Then 
the process begins anew:  Deduction, abduction, induction, deduction, 
abduction, induction ...

 

Regards,

Tom Wyrick

 

 


On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Tom, your explanation is an example of those self-consistent narratives that 
people construct in order to rationalize their a

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”If a polymer is cut in two, I am not familiar with any rule of polymers that 
>prevents each segment from reacting to a common field of electrochemical 
>energy.  The "correlation" that exists between the segments is due to the 
>common field (of electrochemical energy) they share.  Why not separate the two 
>DNA strands (or neurons if you prefer) and immerse them in different 
>electrochemical environments?   If they're still communicating or their 
>behavior is still correlated after that, then your hypothesis has empirical 
>support.“

Tom, your suggestion to separate the two DNA strands and test them, as 
described, is interesting. But I have no idea about how to go about stimulating 
one, and testing for a response from the other. I cited the experiment by Pizzi 
et al, because this kind of experiment does what you suggest, but from a 
systemic perspective from which we can only infer DNA entanglement as likely 
but not conclusive. As do some other experiments.

When I first heard of Cleve Backster years ago, he suggested an analogous 
experimental approach. In one his earliest experiments, he removed some cells 
from a female subject (maybe saliva, or a biopsy, can’t remember), and 
connected them to his EEG equipment. As she was walking around outside, the 
blips on his EEG correlated with her experiences outside. The following video 
clip on Backster’s work describes the same kind of experiment, beginning at 
5:44:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7V6D33HGt8 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7V6D33HGt8=youtu.be> =youtu.be

As I see it, there can only be one mechanism that can elicit this kind of 
reaction... DNA entanglement. But there is good reason to be sceptical of 
Backster’s experiments, especially when he ventures into the topic of plants 
having feelings, and his experiments involving eggs and yoghurt [cue 
eye-rolls]. Was he a fraud? Or was he simply too keen to interpret spurious 
results as evidence that supported his agenda? I think that his biopsy-human 
experiments (testing a culture of biopsied cells for responses to the 
experiences of the host subject) are worth having a closer look at... this kind 
of experiment is not costly, and could provide compelling evidence to suggest 
DNA entanglement.

But if you can suggest an experiment that more directly and conclusively tests 
for entanglement, this would be most interesting. But I know nothing about 
polymers and the experimental approach that you are suggesting. Is there a way 
of somehow providing an input to one DNA molecule and testing for a response 
from the other? My own guess is that such experiments can only be done in a 
living context, such as suggested in Pizzi and Backster above.

sj

PS: Imagine the implications if we can turn DNA entanglement to a practical 
application. Like having a vial of saliva from a subject that is connected to a 
detector... maybe as an alternative to EEG for detecting when someone is lying, 
or maybe as a baby-monitor to detect when one’s infant, in another location, is 
in crisis. Nothing like a practical application to bring a theory to life!

 

From: Ozzie [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2015 6:31 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen ~

At the close of your posting on DNA, you wrote: "Anyone else interested in 
exploring this further? There seems to be a reluctance for people to step 
beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps for fear of ridicule."





Following that invitation, I commented on the role played by DNA in Pragmatic 
logic.  Your response (below): "Your explanation is an example of those 
self-consistent narratives that people construct in order to rationalize their 
assumptions."





I am not the first to suggest that DNA is a polymer, so I'm not rationalizing 
my assumptions.  It's a common view among experts:  "DNA is a polymer." 
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/molecular_graphics/dna_structure/dna_tutorial.html.  
I simply explained how to interpret the DNA polymer in terms consistent with 
Pragmatic logic:  DNA memorializes evolutionarily successful "habits" in the 
polymer, and those habits are later engaged (as "instinct") when 
electrochemical changes in the environment trigger the polymer/habit into 
action.  I also suggested an empirical test for your view DNA that 
"communicates" at a distance.

 

DNA as Pragmatic logic:  Successive generations of humans experience "random" 
variations in their genes.  People with those variations are (mainly) unaware 
of it, and go on living their lives.  However, in Pragmatic logic those 
variations are functionally equivalent to abducted hypotheses about superior 
habits that would generate greater survivability.   Life experiences following 
the abducted hypotheses are functionally equivalent to inductive 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Ozzie]

Stephen ~
At the close of your posting on DNA, you wrote: "Anyone else interested in 
exploring this further? There seems to be a reluctance for people to step 
beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps for fear of ridicule."

Following that invitation, I commented on the role played by DNA in Pragmatic 
logic.  Your response (below): "Your explanation is an example of those 
self-consistent narratives that people construct in order to rationalize their 
assumptions."

I am not the first to suggest that DNA is a polymer, so I'm not rationalizing 
my assumptions.  It's a common view among experts:  "DNA is a polymer." 
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/molecular_graphics/dna_structure/dna_tutorial.html.  
I simply explained how to interpret the DNA polymer in terms consistent with 
Pragmatic logic:  DNA memorializes evolutionarily successful "habits" in the 
polymer, and those habits are later engaged (as "instinct") when 
electrochemical changes in the environment trigger the polymer/habit into 
action.  I also suggested an empirical test for your view DNA that 
"communicates" at a distance.

DNA as Pragmatic logic:  Successive generations of humans experience "random" 
variations in their genes.  People with those variations are (mainly) unaware 
of it, and go on living their lives.  However, in Pragmatic logic those 
variations are functionally equivalent to abducted hypotheses about superior 
habits that would generate greater survivability.   Life experiences following 
the abducted hypotheses are functionally equivalent to inductive activities 
(tests).  A gene variation that eventually proves to have greater survival 
value represents a new/superior version of the human gene: The offspring of the 
hybrid-human expand to dominate the population.  That updated gene functionally 
corresponds to a deductive model (in the polymer) on how to successfully 
navigate the environment.  Subsequent generations will carry that habit. Then 
the process begins anew:  Deduction, abduction, induction, deduction, 
abduction, induction ...

Regards,
Tom Wyrick



> On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> 
> Tom, your explanation is an example of those self-consistent narratives that 
> people construct in order to rationalize their assumptions. We all do it on 
> occasion, some more than others, and we all have to be on guard against this 
> predisposition. One of the ways we might do so is to formalize our thinking 
> in terms of axioms – a framework of best guesses. Within the context of my 
> axiomatic framework, your explanation does not work. Within an infinite 
> universe, minute, complex structures might stumble into existence according 
> to the laws of chance... and then blink out again just as quickly. With all 
> the forces of entropy arrayed against them, the minutest, most complex 
> structures won’t last. It is their persistence across time that is the 
> deal-breaker. Of course I could be wrong, but then I do emphasize that my 
> axiomatic framework is a best guess. Yours is a rationalization... a “just 
> so” story... that is absent of an axiomatic framework to anchor to. sj
>  
> From: Ozzie [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:09 PM
> To: Stephen Jarosek
> Cc: Peirce-L
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement
>  
> Stephen ~ 
> DNA is a polymer that represents habits that persisted and experienced 
> evolutionary success.  That is an exercise in Pragmatic logic.  The polymer 
> is later activated by electrochemical energy in its immediate environment.  
> That is Pragmatic logic, too. 
>  
> The knowing-how-to-be behavior you emphasize may be the result of the DNA a 
> polymer expressing itself as instinct. No computer is required for polymers 
> to work, so the absence of a computer is not evidence of anything (other than 
> a confused analysis).  The logic involving the polymer has already been 
> performed (perhaps millions of years previously), so it responds to a trigger 
> from the environment -- a logical "abduction" that the situation has changed. 
>  
> If a polymer is cut in two, I am not familiar with any rule of polymers that 
> prevents each segment from reacting to a common field of electrochemical 
> energy.  The "correlation" that exists between the segments is due to the 
> common field (of electrochemical energy) they share.  Why not separate the 
> two DNA strands (or neurons if you prefer) and immerse them in different 
> electrochemical environments?   If they're still communicating or their 
> behavior is still correlated after that, then your hypothesis has empirical 
> support. 
>  
> This is a good illustration for my observation yesterday that any 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Thanks Tom, for your clarification. I’m about to bolt out the door, I’ll take a 
closer look at this tomorrow. Cheers, sj

 

From: Ozzie [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2015 6:31 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen ~

At the close of your posting on DNA, you wrote: "Anyone else interested in 
exploring this further? There seems to be a reluctance for people to step 
beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps for fear of ridicule."





Following that invitation, I commented on the role played by DNA in Pragmatic 
logic.  Your response (below): "Your explanation is an example of those 
self-consistent narratives that people construct in order to rationalize their 
assumptions."





I am not the first to suggest that DNA is a polymer, so I'm not rationalizing 
my assumptions.  It's a common view among experts:  "DNA is a polymer." 
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/molecular_graphics/dna_structure/dna_tutorial.html.  
I simply explained how to interpret the DNA polymer in terms consistent with 
Pragmatic logic:  DNA memorializes evolutionarily successful "habits" in the 
polymer, and those habits are later engaged (as "instinct") when 
electrochemical changes in the environment trigger the polymer/habit into 
action.  I also suggested an empirical test for your view DNA that 
"communicates" at a distance.

 

DNA as Pragmatic logic:  Successive generations of humans experience "random" 
variations in their genes.  People with those variations are (mainly) unaware 
of it, and go on living their lives.  However, in Pragmatic logic those 
variations are functionally equivalent to abducted hypotheses about superior 
habits that would generate greater survivability.   Life experiences following 
the abducted hypotheses are functionally equivalent to inductive activities 
(tests).  A gene variation that eventually proves to have greater survival 
value represents a new/superior version of the human gene: The offspring of the 
hybrid-human expand to dominate the population.  That updated gene functionally 
corresponds to a deductive model (in the polymer) on how to successfully 
navigate the environment.  Subsequent generations will carry that habit. Then 
the process begins anew:  Deduction, abduction, induction, deduction, 
abduction, induction ...

 

Regards,

Tom Wyrick










On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Tom, your explanation is an example of those self-consistent narratives that 
people construct in order to rationalize their assumptions. We all do it on 
occasion, some more than others, and we all have to be on guard against this 
predisposition. One of the ways we might do so is to formalize our thinking in 
terms of axioms – a framework of best guesses. Within the context of my 
axiomatic framework, your explanation does not work. Within an infinite 
universe, minute, complex structures might stumble into existence according to 
the laws of chance... and then blink out again just as quickly. With all the 
forces of entropy arrayed against them, the minutest, most complex structures 
won’t last. It is their persistence across time that is the deal-breaker. Of 
course I could be wrong, but then I do emphasize that my axiomatic framework is 
a best guess. Yours is a rationalization... a “just so” story... that is absent 
of an axiomatic framework to anchor to. sj

 

From: Ozzie [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:09 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen ~ 

DNA is a polymer that represents habits that persisted and experienced 
evolutionary success.  That is an exercise in Pragmatic logic.  The polymer is 
later activated by electrochemical energy in its immediate environment.  That 
is Pragmatic logic, too. 

 

The knowing-how-to-be behavior you emphasize may be the result of the DNA a 
polymer expressing itself as instinct. No computer is required for polymers to 
work, so the absence of a computer is not evidence of anything (other than a 
confused analysis).  The logic involving the polymer has already been performed 
(perhaps millions of years previously), so it responds to a trigger from the 
environment -- a logical "abduction" that the situation has changed. 

 

If a polymer is cut in two, I am not familiar with any rule of polymers that 
prevents each segment from reacting to a common field of electrochemical 
energy.  The "correlation" that exists between the segments is due to the 
common field (of electrochemical energy) they share.  Why not separate the two 
DNA strands (or neurons if you prefer) and immerse them in different 
electrochemical environments?   If they're still communicating or their 
behavior is still correlated 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina, I hope we can avoid returning to the innate-vs-NOTInnate controversy, 
as we have zero chance of agreement there J

No, I’m not reducing causality to only one... far from it. I started writing 
out a spiel of exceptions and interpretations and realized that it would 
culminate in a blather that no-one would want to read. So for the sake of 
brevity, I have left out a lot. I assumed that most of us here are sufficiently 
well-versed on the topic that we don’t need to labour over the detail. But yes, 
strictly speaking, you are correct, of course there ARE other causalities.

So what is it that you are suggesting about how a tree develops from a seed 
into a tree? Is it in the DNA? We both agree, I assume, that DNA is very 
important. All I am doing is suggesting that there is something else going on, 
and it is not the infotech theory of DNA. It CANNOT be the infotech version, 
impossible, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. I could, however, 
be persuaded if someone showed me the computer that processes the tree’s DNA 
software.

>”Furthermore, societal forms, such as the type of work you do, have nothing to 
>do with genes but with learning - and our species is, by definition, heavily 
>focused around learning.“

I get a bd feeling about this. Innate-vs-NOTInnate... nooo!

Edwina, all I’m trying to do is, in the spirit of brainstorming, to introduce 
the question into our narrative. I’m not even proposing definitive answers. 
You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 2:35 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - I disagree; you are reducing causality to only one - efficient 
causality (i.e., proximate). A tree doesn't 'know how to be' merely and only if 
it is growing next to another similar tree.  Furthermore, societal forms, such 
as the type of work you do, have nothing to do with genes but with learning - 
and our species is, by definition, heavily focused around learning. 

 

Edwina

 

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Peirce-L' <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:34 AM

Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

List,

The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion that 
it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not have all 
the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for expanding 
our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA entanglement).

The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature?

Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... with 
no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. SHOW US 
THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric paradigm). It’s 
that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in semiotics, because 
ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA function are semiotic in 
character.

In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations 
between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an 
initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the 
following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort 
of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic 
level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons utilize the quantum 
information to synchronize.”

Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in which 
correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the DNA 
molecules within the neurons .

Other similar experiments in biophysics arrive at similar or analogous 
conclusions. And the most common question raised among researchers in quantum 
biology, including Pizzi et al above, is along the lines of... how do 
mechanisms within the cell utilize entanglement? I would suggest that they have 
their reasoning back-to-front. It is not the mechanisms that utilize 
entanglement, but entangleme

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Ozzie]

Stephen ~ 
DNA is a polymer that represents habits that persisted and experienced 
evolutionary success.  That is an exercise in Pragmatic logic.  The polymer is 
later activated by electrochemical energy in its immediate environment.  That 
is Pragmatic logic, too. 

The knowing-how-to-be behavior you emphasize may be the result of the DNA a 
polymer expressing itself as instinct. No computer is required for polymers to 
work, so the absence of a computer is not evidence of anything (other than a 
confused analysis).  The logic involving the polymer has already been performed 
(perhaps millions of years previously), so it responds to a trigger from the 
environment -- a logical "abduction" that the situation has changed. 

If a polymer is cut in two, I am not familiar with any rule of polymers that 
prevents each segment from reacting to a common field of electrochemical 
energy.  The "correlation" that exists between the segments is due to the 
common field (of electrochemical energy) they share.  Why not separate the two 
DNA strands (or neurons if you prefer) and immerse them in different 
electrochemical environments?   If they're still communicating or their 
behavior is still correlated after that, then your hypothesis has empirical 
support. 

This is a good illustration for my observation yesterday that any deeper 
analysis of logic must be grounded in physical reality. 

Regards,
Tom Wyrick




> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
> 
> List,
> 
> The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion 
> that it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not 
> have all the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for 
> expanding our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA 
> entanglement).
> 
> The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
> technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
> fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
> obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there 
> is nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream 
> life-science community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they 
> need to be consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of 
> the principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
> impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature?
> 
> Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... 
> with no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. 
> SHOW US THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric 
> paradigm). It’s that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in 
> semiotics, because ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA 
> function are semiotic in character.
> 
> In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations 
> between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an 
> initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the 
> following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort 
> of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic 
> level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons utilize the quantum 
> information to synchronize.”
> 
> Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in which 
> correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the DNA 
> molecules within the neurons .
> 
> Other similar experiments in biophysics arrive at similar or analogous 
> conclusions. And the most common question raised among researchers in quantum 
> biology, including Pizzi et al above, is along the lines of... how do 
> mechanisms within the cell utilize entanglement? I would suggest that they 
> have their reasoning back-to-front. It is not the mechanisms that utilize 
> entanglement, but entanglement that is the source for the mechanisms, 
> properties and predispositions. And this reframes the problem as one that 
> relates principally to semiotics.
> 
> As a tentative description for how this might relate to semiotics, here’s one 
> of my conjectures: Entanglement between DNA molecules, I suggest, enables the 
> body's cells to access the shared mind-body condition, to be informed by it. 
> In this way, DNA entanglement plays a crucial role in knowing how to be. This 
> would be analogous to how our telecommunication technologies provide every 
> person in a city with immediate access to the city's options, to inform its 
> people on how to be. For example, people growing up in working-class or 
> middle-class suburbs are more likely to know how to be tradesmen, 
> shopkeepers, nurses, police or the unemployed, while people growing up in 
> upper-class suburbs are more likely to know how to be professionals, 
> 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
>natural law!”

Excellent! This means that you will be able to do one of two things:

1) You will be able to pinpoint the computer, where it lies, and explain how it 
works; OR

2) You will be able to provide a laboratory demonstration/simulation/proof 
outlining Tom’s (Ozzie) explanation just posted.

I await your account with eager anticipation! Thanking you in advance J

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:03 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - YOU consider that 

 

"You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.
"

But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law! So, as usual, you and I continue to disagree.

 

As for our species being heavily based around learning - yes, but our innate 
capacity for reasoning and logic enables us to learn.

 

Edwina

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Edwina Taborsky' <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>  ; 'Peirce-L' 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:50 AM

Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Edwina, I hope we can avoid returning to the innate-vs-NOTInnate controversy, 
as we have zero chance of agreement there J

No, I’m not reducing causality to only one... far from it. I started writing 
out a spiel of exceptions and interpretations and realized that it would 
culminate in a blather that no-one would want to read. So for the sake of 
brevity, I have left out a lot. I assumed that most of us here are sufficiently 
well-versed on the topic that we don’t need to labour over the detail. But yes, 
strictly speaking, you are correct, of course there ARE other causalities.

So what is it that you are suggesting about how a tree develops from a seed 
into a tree? Is it in the DNA? We both agree, I assume, that DNA is very 
important. All I am doing is suggesting that there is something else going on, 
and it is not the infotech theory of DNA. It CANNOT be the infotech version, 
impossible, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. I could, however, 
be persuaded if someone showed me the computer that processes the tree’s DNA 
software.

>”Furthermore, societal forms, such as the type of work you do, have nothing to 
>do with genes but with learning - and our species is, by definition, heavily 
>focused around learning.“

I get a bd feeling about this. Innate-vs-NOTInnate... nooo!

Edwina, all I’m trying to do is, in the spirit of brainstorming, to introduce 
the question into our narrative. I’m not even proposing definitive answers. 
You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 2:35 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - I disagree; you are reducing causality to only one - efficient 
causality (i.e., proximate). A tree doesn't 'know how to be' merely and only if 
it is growing next to another similar tree.  Furthermore, societal forms, such 
as the type of work you do, have nothing to do with genes but with learning - 
and our species is, by definition, heavily focused around learning. 

 

Edwina

 

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Peirce-L' <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:34 AM

Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

List,

The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion that 
it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not have all 
the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for expanding 
our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA entanglement).

The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in n

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Tom, your explanation is an example of those self-consistent narratives that 
people construct in order to rationalize their assumptions. We all do it on 
occasion, some more than others, and we all have to be on guard against this 
predisposition. One of the ways we might do so is to formalize our thinking in 
terms of axioms – a framework of best guesses. Within the context of my 
axiomatic framework, your explanation does not work. Within an infinite 
universe, minute, complex structures might stumble into existence according to 
the laws of chance... and then blink out again just as quickly. With all the 
forces of entropy arrayed against them, the minutest, most complex structures 
won’t last. It is their persistence across time that is the deal-breaker. Of 
course I could be wrong, but then I do emphasize that my axiomatic framework is 
a best guess. Yours is a rationalization... a “just so” story... that is absent 
of an axiomatic framework to anchor to. sj

 

From: Ozzie [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:09 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen ~ 

DNA is a polymer that represents habits that persisted and experienced 
evolutionary success.  That is an exercise in Pragmatic logic.  The polymer is 
later activated by electrochemical energy in its immediate environment.  That 
is Pragmatic logic, too. 

 

The knowing-how-to-be behavior you emphasize may be the result of the DNA a 
polymer expressing itself as instinct. No computer is required for polymers to 
work, so the absence of a computer is not evidence of anything (other than a 
confused analysis).  The logic involving the polymer has already been performed 
(perhaps millions of years previously), so it responds to a trigger from the 
environment -- a logical "abduction" that the situation has changed. 

 

If a polymer is cut in two, I am not familiar with any rule of polymers that 
prevents each segment from reacting to a common field of electrochemical 
energy.  The "correlation" that exists between the segments is due to the 
common field (of electrochemical energy) they share.  Why not separate the two 
DNA strands (or neurons if you prefer) and immerse them in different 
electrochemical environments?   If they're still communicating or their 
behavior is still correlated after that, then your hypothesis has empirical 
support. 

 

This is a good illustration for my observation yesterday that any deeper 
analysis of logic must be grounded in physical reality. 

 

Regards,

Tom Wyrick

 

 

 


On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

List,

The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion that 
it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not have all 
the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for expanding 
our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA entanglement).

The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature?

Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... with 
no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. SHOW US 
THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric paradigm). It’s 
that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in semiotics, because 
ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA function are semiotic in 
character.

In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations 
between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an 
initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the 
following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort 
of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic 
level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons utilize the quantum 
information to synchronize.”

Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in which 
correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the DNA 
molecules within the neurons .

Other similar experiments in biophysics arrive at similar or analogous 
conclusions. And the most common question raised among researchers in quantum 
biology, including Pizzi et al above, is al

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Edwina Taborsky]

Stephen - YOU consider that 

"You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.
"
But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law! So, as usual, you and I continue to disagree.

As for our species being heavily based around learning - yes, but our innate 
capacity for reasoning and logic enables us to learn.

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Stephen Jarosek 
  To: 'Edwina Taborsky' ; 'Peirce-L' 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:50 AM
  Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement


  Edwina, I hope we can avoid returning to the innate-vs-NOTInnate controversy, 
as we have zero chance of agreement there J

  No, I’m not reducing causality to only one... far from it. I started writing 
out a spiel of exceptions and interpretations and realized that it would 
culminate in a blather that no-one would want to read. So for the sake of 
brevity, I have left out a lot. I assumed that most of us here are sufficiently 
well-versed on the topic that we don’t need to labour over the detail. But yes, 
strictly speaking, you are correct, of course there ARE other causalities.

  So what is it that you are suggesting about how a tree develops from a seed 
into a tree? Is it in the DNA? We both agree, I assume, that DNA is very 
important. All I am doing is suggesting that there is something else going on, 
and it is not the infotech theory of DNA. It CANNOT be the infotech version, 
impossible, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. I could, however, 
be persuaded if someone showed me the computer that processes the tree’s DNA 
software.

  >”Furthermore, societal forms, such as the type of work you do, have nothing 
to do with genes but with learning - and our species is, by definition, heavily 
focused around learning.“

  I get a bd feeling about this. Innate-vs-NOTInnate... nooo!

  Edwina, all I’m trying to do is, in the spirit of brainstorming, to introduce 
the question into our narrative. I’m not even proposing definitive answers. 
You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.

  sj

   

  From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
  Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 2:35 PM
  To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

   

  Stephen - I disagree; you are reducing causality to only one - efficient 
causality (i.e., proximate). A tree doesn't 'know how to be' merely and only if 
it is growing next to another similar tree.  Furthermore, societal forms, such 
as the type of work you do, have nothing to do with genes but with learning - 
and our species is, by definition, heavily focused around learning. 

   

  Edwina

   

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek 

To: 'Peirce-L' 

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:34 AM

    Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

List,

The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion 
that it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not 
have all the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for 
expanding our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA 
entanglement).

The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature?

Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... 
with no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. SHOW 
US THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric paradigm). 
It’s that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in semiotics, because 
ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA function are semiotic in 
character.

In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations 
between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an 
initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the 
following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort 
of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic 
level, we 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Sungchul Ji]

Stephen J,

What is the mechanism of DNA entanglement ?
Without any realistic mechanism to go with it, wouldn't it be just a name ?

Sung

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek 
wrote:

> List,
>
> The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion
> that it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not
> have all the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for
> expanding our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA
> entanglement).
>
> The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information
> technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is
> fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most
> obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA,
> there is nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream
> life-science community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then
> they need to be consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in
> violation of the principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics
> (entropy), it is impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in
> nature?
>
> Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules...
> with no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”.
> SHOW US THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric
> paradigm). It’s that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in
> semiotics, because ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA
> function are semiotic in character.
>
> In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations
> between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after
> an initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the
> following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a
> sort of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a
> macroscopic level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons
> utilize the quantum information to synchronize.”
>
>
>
> *Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in
> which correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the
> DNA molecules within the neurons .*Other similar experiments in
> biophysics arrive at similar or analogous conclusions. And the most common
> question raised among researchers in quantum biology, including Pizzi et al
> above, is along the lines of... how do mechanisms within the cell utilize
> entanglement? I would suggest that they have their reasoning back-to-front. 
> *It
> is not the mechanisms that utilize entanglement, but entanglement that is
> the source for the mechanisms, properties and predispositions*. And this
> reframes the problem as one that relates principally to semiotics.
>
> As a tentative description for how this might relate to semiotics, here’s
> one of my conjectures: Entanglement between DNA molecules, I suggest,
> enables the body's cells to access the shared mind-body condition, to be
> informed by it. In this way, DNA entanglement plays a crucial role in *knowing
> how to be*. This would be analogous to how our telecommunication
> technologies provide every person in a city with immediate access to the
> city's options, to inform its people on *how to be*. For example, people
> growing up in working-class or middle-class suburbs are more likely to *know
> how to be* tradesmen, shopkeepers, nurses, police or the unemployed,
> while people growing up in upper-class suburbs are more likely to *know
> how to be* professionals, investors, office-workers or, simply, the idle
> rich. This interpretation would be consistent with how stem-cells develop,
> contingent on their location within the organs of the body. A stem-cell has
> to *know how to be* before it can become a productive cell with its role
> in an organ properly defined. And the stem-cell’s proximal/local context is
> what teases out its predispositions, in order to define its ultimate
> purpose. This line of thinking seems to resonate with aspects of David
> Bohm’s implicate/explicate order. [What I have in mind here is also
> analogous to Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance, where he
> regards the DNA molecule as analogous to a receiver (antenna).] *In
> summary, proximal context (face-to-face or synapse-to-synapse) is what
> teases out both the neuron’s AND the human’s nonlocal predispositions, to
> define their ultimate trajectories.*
>
> Anyone else interested in exploring this further? There seems to be a
> reluctance for people to step beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps
> for fear of ridicule. But in any interdisciplinary endeavour, this needs to
> be done. We are ill-served when we allow The Establishment to dominate with
> a broken genocentric narrative. At the very least, these ideas merit
> brainstorming.
>
> sj
>
> Pizzi, R., Fantasia, 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Excellent question Sung, and a most important one!

The mechanism of DNA entanglement requires rethinking existing assumptions. I 
was hoping to initiate conversation around this theme in a spirit of 
brainstorming, but it seems that the forum is not overly receptive to this 
style of conversation... with due fairness, perhaps they’re right, as it 
diverges considerably from the established Peircean narrative. If you are 
interested, we can take the conversation further, offline from the forum.

sj

 

From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Sungchul Ji
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 8:14 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen J,

 

What is the mechanism of DNA entanglement ?

Without any realistic mechanism to go with it, wouldn't it be just a name ?

 

Sung

 

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

List,

The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion that 
it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not have all 
the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for expanding 
our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA entanglement).

The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature?

Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... with 
no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. SHOW US 
THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric paradigm). It’s 
that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in semiotics, because 
ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA function are semiotic in 
character.

In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations 
between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an 
initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the 
following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort 
of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic 
level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons utilize the quantum 
information to synchronize.”

Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in which 
correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the DNA 
molecules within the neurons .

Other similar experiments in biophysics arrive at similar or analogous 
conclusions. And the most common question raised among researchers in quantum 
biology, including Pizzi et al above, is along the lines of... how do 
mechanisms within the cell utilize entanglement? I would suggest that they have 
their reasoning back-to-front. It is not the mechanisms that utilize 
entanglement, but entanglement that is the source for the mechanisms, 
properties and predispositions. And this reframes the problem as one that 
relates principally to semiotics.

As a tentative description for how this might relate to semiotics, here’s one 
of my conjectures: Entanglement between DNA molecules, I suggest, enables the 
body's cells to access the shared mind-body condition, to be informed by it. In 
this way, DNA entanglement plays a crucial role in knowing how to be. This 
would be analogous to how our telecommunication technologies provide every 
person in a city with immediate access to the city's options, to inform its 
people on how to be. For example, people growing up in working-class or 
middle-class suburbs are more likely to know how to be tradesmen, shopkeepers, 
nurses, police or the unemployed, while people growing up in upper-class 
suburbs are more likely to know how to be professionals, investors, 
office-workers or, simply, the idle rich. This interpretation would be 
consistent with how stem-cells develop, contingent on their location within the 
organs of the body. A stem-cell has to know how to be before it can become a 
productive cell with its role in an organ properly defined. And the stem-cell’s 
proximal/local context is what teases out its predispositions, in order to 
define its ultimate purpose. This line of thinking seems to resonate with 
aspects of David Bohm’s implicate/explicate order. [What I have in mind here is 
also analogous to Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance, where he 
r

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina, if you accept the CAS interpretation as appropriate, while rejecting 
the mainstream’s preference for the infotech narrative, then there is still no 
solid theory, as far as I am aware, of how DNA engages within the context of a 
CAS. So whichever way we look at it, there is no adequate explanation anywhere, 
of how DNA works. For one, the paradigm is broken, while for the other, the 
question is not addressed. sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 9:58 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - maybe you think that the 'existing model' of the Mind is a computer. 
But I don't. I think it's a neurological semiosic networked process, a CAS 
(complex adaptive system). 

 

Edwina

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Edwina Taborsky' <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>  ; 'Peirce-L' 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:52 PM

Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

>”But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
>natural law!”

Excellent! This means that you will be able to do one of two things:

1) You will be able to pinpoint the computer, where it lies, and explain how it 
works; OR

2) You will be able to provide a laboratory demonstration/simulation/proof 
outlining Tom’s (Ozzie) explanation just posted.

I await your account with eager anticipation! Thanking you in advance J

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:03 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - YOU consider that 

 

"You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.
"

But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law! So, as usual, you and I continue to disagree.

 

As for our species being heavily based around learning - yes, but our innate 
capacity for reasoning and logic enables us to learn.

 

Edwina

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Edwina Taborsky' <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>  ; 'Peirce-L' 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:50 AM

Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Edwina, I hope we can avoid returning to the innate-vs-NOTInnate controversy, 
as we have zero chance of agreement there J

No, I’m not reducing causality to only one... far from it. I started writing 
out a spiel of exceptions and interpretations and realized that it would 
culminate in a blather that no-one would want to read. So for the sake of 
brevity, I have left out a lot. I assumed that most of us here are sufficiently 
well-versed on the topic that we don’t need to labour over the detail. But yes, 
strictly speaking, you are correct, of course there ARE other causalities.

So what is it that you are suggesting about how a tree develops from a seed 
into a tree? Is it in the DNA? We both agree, I assume, that DNA is very 
important. All I am doing is suggesting that there is something else going on, 
and it is not the infotech theory of DNA. It CANNOT be the infotech version, 
impossible, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. I could, however, 
be persuaded if someone showed me the computer that processes the tree’s DNA 
software.

>”Furthermore, societal forms, such as the type of work you do, have nothing to 
>do with genes but with learning - and our species is, by definition, heavily 
>focused around learning.“

I get a bd feeling about this. Innate-vs-NOTInnate... nooo!

Edwina, all I’m trying to do is, in the spirit of brainstorming, to introduce 
the question into our narrative. I’m not even proposing definitive answers. 
You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 2:35 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - I disagree; you are reducing causality to only one - efficient 
causality (i.e., proximate). A tree doesn't 'know how to be' merely and only if 
it is growing next to another similar tree.  Furthermore, societal forms, such 
as the type of work you do, have nothing to do with genes but with learning - 
and our species is, by definition, heavily focused around learning. 

 

Edwina

 

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Edwina Taborsky]

Stephen - maybe you think that the 'existing model' of the Mind is a computer. 
But I don't. I think it's a neurological semiosic networked process, a CAS 
(complex adaptive system). 

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Stephen Jarosek 
  To: 'Edwina Taborsky' ; 'Peirce-L' 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:52 PM
  Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement


  >”But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law!”

  Excellent! This means that you will be able to do one of two things:

  1) You will be able to pinpoint the computer, where it lies, and explain how 
it works; OR

  2) You will be able to provide a laboratory demonstration/simulation/proof 
outlining Tom’s (Ozzie) explanation just posted.

  I await your account with eager anticipation! Thanking you in advance J

  sj

   

  From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
  Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:03 PM
  To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

   

  Stephen - YOU consider that 

   

  "You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.
  "

  But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law! So, as usual, you and I continue to disagree.

   

  As for our species being heavily based around learning - yes, but our innate 
capacity for reasoning and logic enables us to learn.

   

  Edwina

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek 

To: 'Edwina Taborsky' ; 'Peirce-L' 

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:50 AM

Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Edwina, I hope we can avoid returning to the innate-vs-NOTInnate 
controversy, as we have zero chance of agreement there J

No, I’m not reducing causality to only one... far from it. I started 
writing out a spiel of exceptions and interpretations and realized that it 
would culminate in a blather that no-one would want to read. So for the sake of 
brevity, I have left out a lot. I assumed that most of us here are sufficiently 
well-versed on the topic that we don’t need to labour over the detail. But yes, 
strictly speaking, you are correct, of course there ARE other causalities.

So what is it that you are suggesting about how a tree develops from a seed 
into a tree? Is it in the DNA? We both agree, I assume, that DNA is very 
important. All I am doing is suggesting that there is something else going on, 
and it is not the infotech theory of DNA. It CANNOT be the infotech version, 
impossible, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. I could, however, 
be persuaded if someone showed me the computer that processes the tree’s DNA 
software.

>”Furthermore, societal forms, such as the type of work you do, have 
nothing to do with genes but with learning - and our species is, by definition, 
heavily focused around learning.“

I get a bd feeling about this. Innate-vs-NOTInnate... nooo!

Edwina, all I’m trying to do is, in the spirit of brainstorming, to 
introduce the question into our narrative. I’m not even proposing definitive 
answers. You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 2:35 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
    Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - I disagree; you are reducing causality to only one - efficient 
causality (i.e., proximate). A tree doesn't 'know how to be' merely and only if 
it is growing next to another similar tree.  Furthermore, societal forms, such 
as the type of work you do, have nothing to do with genes but with learning - 
and our species is, by definition, heavily focused around learning. 

 

Edwina

 

  - Original Message - 

  From: Stephen Jarosek 

  To: 'Peirce-L' 

  Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:34 AM

  Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

   

  List,

  The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the 
opinion that it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do 
not have all the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for 
expanding our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA 
entanglement).

  The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the 
information technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a 
computer, is fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but 
the most obvious one is that for all this purporte

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Please ignore my last post, Edwina (trying to do too many things at once)... 
I’m referring to the pervasiveness of the infotech narrative that persists down 
to the level of the cell... the idea of DNA as information. This assumption 
persists, even in CAS. The implication being that we need to find that computer 
that runs the DNA “software.” Take the field of epigenetics, for example... it 
is still a genocentric paradigm, even as it purports an explanation for 
phenotypic plasticity subject to environmental pressures. Norman Doidge’s “The 
brain that changes itself” and Howard Bloom’s “The global brain” are influenced 
by the same infotech narrative, even though the former is a pioneer in neural 
plasticity and the latter an innovator in CAS. The infotech narrative is a 
persistent beast that just refuses to go away, even within the context of 
complex adaptive systems. So what I want to know is, where within the cell is 
it that this “computer” resides? Is the computer in the nucleus of the cell? In 
the bloodstream? In a limb? In the pituitary gland? On the head of a pin? Point 
to this computer, this processor of DNA “software”, describe how it works, and 
then we’ll all be happy.  sj

 

From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 10:21 PM
To: 'Edwina Taborsky'; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Edwina, if you accept the CAS interpretation as appropriate, while rejecting 
the mainstream’s preference for the infotech narrative, then there is still no 
solid theory, as far as I am aware, of how DNA engages within the context of a 
CAS. So whichever way we look at it, there is no adequate explanation anywhere, 
of how DNA works. For one, the paradigm is broken, while for the other, the 
question is not addressed. sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 9:58 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - maybe you think that the 'existing model' of the Mind is a computer. 
But I don't. I think it's a neurological semiosic networked process, a CAS 
(complex adaptive system). 

 

Edwina

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Edwina Taborsky' <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>  ; 'Peirce-L' 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:52 PM

Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

>”But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
>natural law!”

Excellent! This means that you will be able to do one of two things:

1) You will be able to pinpoint the computer, where it lies, and explain how it 
works; OR

2) You will be able to provide a laboratory demonstration/simulation/proof 
outlining Tom’s (Ozzie) explanation just posted.

I await your account with eager anticipation! Thanking you in advance J

sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:03 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Stephen - YOU consider that 

 

"You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in 
inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law.
"

But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with 
natural law! So, as usual, you and I continue to disagree.

 

As for our species being heavily based around learning - yes, but our innate 
capacity for reasoning and logic enables us to learn.

 

Edwina

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'Edwina Taborsky' <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>  ; 'Peirce-L' 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:50 AM

Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

 

Edwina, I hope we can avoid returning to the innate-vs-NOTInnate controversy, 
as we have zero chance of agreement there J

No, I’m not reducing causality to only one... far from it. I started writing 
out a spiel of exceptions and interpretations and realized that it would 
culminate in a blather that no-one would want to read. So for the sake of 
brevity, I have left out a lot. I assumed that most of us here are sufficiently 
well-versed on the topic that we don’t need to labour over the detail. But yes, 
strictly speaking, you are correct, of course there ARE other causalities.

So what is it that you are suggesting about how a tree develops from a seed 
into a tree? Is it in the DNA? We both agree, I assume, that DNA is very 
important. All I am doing is suggesting that there is something else going on, 
and it is not the infotech theory of DNA. It CANNOT be the infotech version, 
impossible, because it v

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Edwina Taborsky]

Stephen - I disagree; you are reducing causality to only one - efficient 
causality (i.e., proximate). A tree doesn't 'know how to be' merely and only if 
it is growing next to another similar tree.  Furthermore, societal forms, such 
as the type of work you do, have nothing to do with genes but with learning - 
and our species is, by definition, heavily focused around learning. 

Edwina

  - Original Message - 
  From: Stephen Jarosek 
  To: 'Peirce-L' 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:34 AM
  Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement


  List,

  The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion 
that it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not 
have all the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for 
expanding our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA 
entanglement).

  The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature?

  Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... 
with no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. SHOW 
US THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric paradigm). 
It’s that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in semiotics, because 
ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA function are semiotic in 
character.

  In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations 
between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an 
initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the 
following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort 
of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic 
level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons utilize the quantum 
information to synchronize.”

  Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in which 
correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the DNA 
molecules within the neurons .

  Other similar experiments in biophysics arrive at similar or analogous 
conclusions. And the most common question raised among researchers in quantum 
biology, including Pizzi et al above, is along the lines of... how do 
mechanisms within the cell utilize entanglement? I would suggest that they have 
their reasoning back-to-front. It is not the mechanisms that utilize 
entanglement, but entanglement that is the source for the mechanisms, 
properties and predispositions. And this reframes the problem as one that 
relates principally to semiotics.

  As a tentative description for how this might relate to semiotics, here’s one 
of my conjectures: Entanglement between DNA molecules, I suggest, enables the 
body's cells to access the shared mind-body condition, to be informed by it. In 
this way, DNA entanglement plays a crucial role in knowing how to be. This 
would be analogous to how our telecommunication technologies provide every 
person in a city with immediate access to the city's options, to inform its 
people on how to be. For example, people growing up in working-class or 
middle-class suburbs are more likely to know how to be tradesmen, shopkeepers, 
nurses, police or the unemployed, while people growing up in upper-class 
suburbs are more likely to know how to be professionals, investors, 
office-workers or, simply, the idle rich. This interpretation would be 
consistent with how stem-cells develop, contingent on their location within the 
organs of the body. A stem-cell has to know how to be before it can become a 
productive cell with its role in an organ properly defined. And the stem-cell’s 
proximal/local context is what teases out its predispositions, in order to 
define its ultimate purpose. This line of thinking seems to resonate with 
aspects of David Bohm’s implicate/explicate order. [What I have in mind here is 
also analogous to Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance, where he 
regards the DNA molecule as analogous to a receiver (antenna).] In summary, 
proximal context (face-to-face or synapse-to-synapse) is what teases out both 
the neuron’s AND the human’s nonlocal predispositions, to define their ultimate 
trajectories.

  Anyone else interested in exploring this further? There seems to be a 
reluctance for people to step beyond their spheres of expertise

[PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

List,

The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion that 
it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not have all 
the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for expanding 
our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA entanglement).

The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information 
technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most 
obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is 
nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science 
community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be 
consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the 
principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is 
impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature?

Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... with 
no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. SHOW US 
THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric paradigm). It’s 
that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in semiotics, because 
ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA function are semiotic in 
character.

In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations 
between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an 
initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the 
following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort 
of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic 
level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons utilize the quantum 
information to synchronize.”

Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in which 
correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the DNA 
molecules within the neurons .

Other similar experiments in biophysics arrive at similar or analogous 
conclusions. And the most common question raised among researchers in quantum 
biology, including Pizzi et al above, is along the lines of... how do 
mechanisms within the cell utilize entanglement? I would suggest that they have 
their reasoning back-to-front. It is not the mechanisms that utilize 
entanglement, but entanglement that is the source for the mechanisms, 
properties and predispositions. And this reframes the problem as one that 
relates principally to semiotics.

As a tentative description for how this might relate to semiotics, here’s one 
of my conjectures: Entanglement between DNA molecules, I suggest, enables the 
body's cells to access the shared mind-body condition, to be informed by it. In 
this way, DNA entanglement plays a crucial role in knowing how to be. This 
would be analogous to how our telecommunication technologies provide every 
person in a city with immediate access to the city's options, to inform its 
people on how to be. For example, people growing up in working-class or 
middle-class suburbs are more likely to know how to be tradesmen, shopkeepers, 
nurses, police or the unemployed, while people growing up in upper-class 
suburbs are more likely to know how to be professionals, investors, 
office-workers or, simply, the idle rich. This interpretation would be 
consistent with how stem-cells develop, contingent on their location within the 
organs of the body. A stem-cell has to know how to be before it can become a 
productive cell with its role in an organ properly defined. And the stem-cell’s 
proximal/local context is what teases out its predispositions, in order to 
define its ultimate purpose. This line of thinking seems to resonate with 
aspects of David Bohm’s implicate/explicate order. [What I have in mind here is 
also analogous to Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance, where he 
regards the DNA molecule as analogous to a receiver (antenna).] In summary, 
proximal context (face-to-face or synapse-to-synapse) is what teases out both 
the neuron’s AND the human’s nonlocal predispositions, to define their ultimate 
trajectories.

Anyone else interested in exploring this further? There seems to be a 
reluctance for people to step beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps for 
fear of ridicule. But in any interdisciplinary endeavour, this needs to be 
done. We are ill-served when we allow The Establishment to dominate with a 
broken genocentric narrative. At the very least, these ideas merit 
brainstorming.

sj

Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004). 
Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor, A. Pirick, 
& H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and Computation (Proceedings of SPIE), 
5436(II), 107-117. Retrieved August 2, 2015, from
http://faculty.nps.edu/baer/CompMod-phys/PizziWebPage/pizzi.pdf