No, codons would also be indexes, since they would represent by causal relation, not by convention or habit.
Peirce’s opinion on what codons would qualify as is unknown, because he’s been dead for over a century.
5 Likes
Hi Ron
The origin of Chemistry is significant in itself.
The transcription translation mechanism is dependent on the origin of the organisation of nucleotides in DNA. This is significantly different than chemical reactions outside of biology. Biology also contains enzymes that are the product of DNA. Again these operate very differently that most non biological chemistry.
No, not at all.
The causal relation between an index (the signifier) and the signified has a particular direction which is that the signifier is caused by the signified, and not the other way around. For example, the signifier « smoke » is caused by the signified « fire ». Therefore the signifier « smoke » stands as an index. Similarly, because the signifier « tree rings» is caused by the signified « environmental condition », « tree rings » stand as indexes.
In the case of codons, the causal relation between the signifier (codons) and the signified (amino acids) is inverse to what happens with indexes for if it might be said that amino acids (the signified) are in a sense caused by codons (the signifiers), it is of course not the case that codons (the signifiers) are caused by amino acids (the signified).
Codswallop. The amino acids are the signifier using that terminology. Unless you think smoke causes fire.
Stop wasting everyone’s time with rubbish you haven’t even thought about.
2 Likes
That would just make amino acids signifiers, and therefore indexes. Codons would then be the signified. All that would mean is you can make a code of the signifieds. And regardless of whether you consider codons indexes or symbols (codons can’t be symbols by the definition of your link, since they’re not defined by culture, tradition, or convention), indexes can still form a code.
But it’s all completely irrelevant. Gonna deal with the evidence that the genetic code evolved, at some point, instead of this endless cycle of appeals to dictionaries, definitions, and credentials?
2 Likes
Hi Roy
Would it be better if his claim was that the specific amino acid type was caused (selected) by the codon?
No. Codons are the signifiers and amino acids the signified, period. There is nothing you can do against this basic fact.
No, amino acids are the signified, period.
Rest reassure, I don’t think smoke causes fire.
Could you please spell out what terminology you are talking about?
Stop insulting people, especially when you’re completely off the mark, as is the case here.
Isn’t the use of signified supposed to refer to conceptual ideas? Amino acids aren’t conceptual; they are material outcomes of the chemical process involved in transcription and translation.
7 Likes
That is his claim.
It is far from clear that anyone other than yourself is “off the mark” here. I am a bit familiar with Saussurean semiotics, since if formed the basis for Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theories. The Wikipedia summary of this subject appears reliable to me:
Saussure, in his 1916 Course in General Linguistics, divides the sign into two distinct components: the signifier (‘sound-image’) and the signified (‘concept’).[2]: For Saussure, the signified and signifier are purely psychological: they are form rather than substance.[5]:
Today, the signifier is often interpreted as the conceptual material form, i.e. something which can be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted; and the signified as the conceptual ideal form.[6]: In other words, “contemporary commentators tend to describe the signifier as the form that the sign takes and the signified as the concept to which it refers.”[7] The relationship between the signifier and signified is an arbitrary relationship: “there is no logical connection” between them.[2]: This differs from a symbol, which is “never wholly arbitrary.”[2]: The idea that both the signifier and the signified are inseparable is explained by Saussure’s diagram, which shows how both components coincide to create the sign.
In order to understand how the signifier and signified relate to each other, one must be able to interpret signs. “The only reason that the signifier does entail the signified is because there is a conventional relationship at play.”[8]: That is, a sign can only be understood when the relationship between the two components that make up the sign are agreed upon. Saussure argued that the meaning of a sign “depends on its relation to other words within the system;” for example, to understand an individual word such as “tree,” one must also understand the word “bush” and how the two relate to each other.[7]
It is this difference from other signs that allows the possibility of a speech community.[8]: However, we need to remember that signifiers and their significance change all the time, becoming “dated.” It is in this way that we are all “practicing semioticians who pay a great deal of attention to signs … even though we may never have heard them before.”[2]: Moreover, while words are the most familiar form signs take, they stand for many things within life, such as advertisement, objects, body language, music, and so on. Therefore, the use of signs, and the two components that make up a sign, can be and are—whether consciously or not—applied to everyday life.
You’re really stretching things if you think that applies to amino acids and codons.
2 Likes
Do you think the animal refered to as Canis lupus familiaris is a conceptual idea? Probably not. Yet in the english language, this animal is commonly signified by the signifier DOG. So no, the use of signified isn’t supposed to refer only to conceptual ideas, not at all.
And the search for just the right words, the exactly crafted syllogism, goes on.
semiotic
“1A” information
“1B” information
Code
Icon
Symbol
Index
Signified
Signifier
All this wordsmithing in the service of somehow extracting metaphysics from biology. That cannot be done, because by now it should be abundantly clear from this thread that the whole endeavor is misconceived.
10 Likes
Certainly.
This is what you wrote: I’ve highlighted the relevant pieces.
The signifier is caused by the signified.
Smoke is caused by fire.
Smoke is the signifier and fire is the signified.
Amino acids are in a sense cased by codons.
So amino acids are signifiers and codons are signified.
But you put them the other way around. You have it backwards
You are insulting the intelligence of everyone here by getting the terminology you introduced backwards and then insisting you haven’t. You should have double-checked.
Not only is your argument backwards and self-defeating, it would be ineffectual and irrelevant even if it wasn’t.
2 Likes
Do you think it isn’t? i.e. Can you not think or talk about a dog or dogs using the term Canis lupus familiaris, with no dog immediately present? If all dogs somehow went extinct, would not the signifier Canis lupus familiaris still have a signified?
1 Like
If a causal relationship exists between a signifier and a signified, its directionality depends on the type of sign considered.
In the case of indexes, the signifier is caused by the signified (smoke, the signifier, is caused by fire, the signified).
In the case of symbols, we have the inverse relationship, the signified is caused by the signifier (amino acid, the signified, is caused by the codon, the signifier).
Hi Gil
Do you agree with these definitions?
Edit: If a causal relationship exists between a signifier and a signified, its directionality depends on the type of sign considered.
I think this is the point you are making that people are not understanding for some reason.
The signifier is caused by the signified. That’s what you wrote. This is your rule. You even gave an example: Fire causes smoke. Because the smoke is caused by the fire, the smoke would be the signifier and the fire would be the signified.
That would make the amino acid the signifier. Because the signifier is caused by the signified.
But now suddenly you’re changing the rules. Now the signified can be caused by the signifier. Your earlier rule is in the trash. It was changed on a whim because for whatever reason you find changing your mind and smearing brown waste on your own rule to be convenient, because you just desperately want the codon to be the signifier. Because you want codons to be symbols instead of indexes.
But the very same article you linked (the one by the “GIANT” in the field of semiotics) to support your distinctions between symbols and indexes also says symbols are defined by culture, convention, and tradition. But codons aren’t symbols, and aren’t defined by culture, convention, or tradition.
But that’s also in the trash. Another rule of yours for the dumpster, changed on a whim. Because you are desperate and have no real principles. You throw away the rules of all your appeals to dictionaries, links, authorities, as soon as you need to argue something else.
Go believe whatever it is you want to believe, but stop making this pathetic argument you lost twenty posts ago. Man up, swallow your pride, admit this argument of yours is worthless, and then just move on with your life.
6 Likes
I’m now wondering whether warning roadsigns, e.g. ‘falling rocks’, cause the hazard to occur.
6 Likes
Yes. If I read words like Canis lupus familiaris or dog, it conveys the concept of the physical animal and I can form a conceptual image of a dog in my mind. Those words are not conveying a literal, physical animal.
3 Likes