<div dir="ltr"><div>There appear to be problems with the generation of a DOI for this, so let me include the text of my remarks on Terrence's work.</div><div><br></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Terrence Deacon’s „How Molecules Became Signs?” – remarks<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Dear Terrence,<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Thank you for sharing this excellent piece of work with FIS.
You give us insight into your epistemological system of concepts and present
results from experiments, attaching explanations to the observed results.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Your system of thoughts is the state of the art. Please
allow me now to send a message to you from the avant-garde. The relation
between cutting edge research, behind microscopes and basic research behind paper
and pencil, is one of mutual exchanges. You have discovered in vitro the DNA
and that it carries information. We now, some 70 years later, return with the
dossier <i>‘Information Transmission: Linear vs Multidimensional Forms’ </i>with
the proud label: <b>SOLVED. </b>We know now, what underlying facts reduce the
apparent complexities to a long series of combinatorial considerations. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Just as basic research gives you back the last question
solved, you pose new ones to us. You speak about <i>self-repairing mechanisms, </i>expressing
the idea in many forms. This will translate for us into the properties of the <i>Target
Value as such</i>. So far, we have used the target value always in tandem with
an actual value and maintained than an oscillation (exchanging the posts)
between the two is a characteristic of life. Now we have to assume that there
are <i>objectively existing, interpersonally communicable </i>entities that
embody the concept of Nirwana. If the cell tends to maintain its physiological
state, and humans have self-preservation instincts, then there must be a unique
property to that state towards which our mental creations tend to strive. After
reading your article, one has been alerted to the relevance of there being
differing extents of measurements on a dimension of desirability of states the
world can be in. We shall come back on this in due course (expect about 70
years.)<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The message from the avant-garde is embedded in lots of
noise. Efficiency may in such circumstances prevail above politeness; a short,
pregnant message is better style if chances for misunderstandings are many. Let
me offer some feedback thoughts on the fundaments of your thinking. I wish to
talk about the setup and hypotheses of your experiments, not about their
validity.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">1) Basic problem<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i>“What sort of process is
necessary and sufficient to treat a molecule as a sign?” This requires focusing
on the interpreting system and its interpretive competence.<span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The properties of the objects can not be independent from
the procedure of assignments of characteristics by the observer, is being said
here. This echoes the old materialistic question, whether a geyser in
Yellowstone had been beautiful, forceful, regular, rationally caused before
there were humans who have given names of these properties to the natural
processes to which we later gave the name Yellowstone Geyser. It is true that
our conceptual problems are within our heads, therefore dealing with the mechanism
that the interpreter uses, is of great necessity and utility. Yet it is also
true, that objects have their properties and forms, independently of any human
ascribing a meaning or names to their properties and forms.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The author concentrates on the spectator side of the
interpretational experiment and discusses the capabilities of the spectator.
This is in the tradition of investigating spontaneous, individual contributions
of the probands’ neurology, which are generally called <i>projections. </i>The
author discusses – like he should – the relations of the answers to the
Rorschach tables to the properties of the proband. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">This restriction is pointed out and acknowledged by the
author. He avoids the subject, whether there are any actual properties to the
objects. This would be correct, if we were dealing with an idealised Rorschach
type input, where we define that there is no meaning behind the ink blots as
such. The author deals with molecules – which have an a-priori existence and
are not made-up creations of humans -, without addressing the side of the
recognition problem with regard to he objects that are to be recognised. Why
and how molecules are actually different, is a subject he does not address. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">When conducting an experiment in ascribing of properties to
stimuli, (here: “sign” to “molecules”), one should discuss or give reasons for
not discussing the properties of the stimuli. (In the experiments to create
neuroses, the proband is taught to differentiate between ellipses and circles.
Then, the ratio of the axes is gradually brought towards unity.) Author should
state clearly, whether molecules are in his views by their nature different and
recognisably different, that is: whether what he discusses is self-exploration
about the difficulties of deciding whether input is a carrier of a message or
not, in circumstances where it is not clear whether the elements of input are
recognisably different. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A contemplation about certitudes connected to recognisance
of possible signs is definitely in order. One should establish, whether one’s
perception bias causes blind spots or projections. As the author discusses difficulties
of recognising the “sign” property observable on “molecules” without stating
that such a property does indeed exist on the stimuli, the treatise belongs in
the category of <i>Confessiones, </i>meditations about the limit of human
knowledge, and has no bearing on any subject of natural science.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">2) Chromosomes as carriers of information<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i>“ …Crick … “central dogma” of
molecular biology (i.e. that information in the cell flows from DNA to RNA to
protein structure and not the reverse) it was taken for granted that that DNA
and RNA molecules were “carriers” of information.”<span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The central fallacy in the central dogma is, that that it is
linear, not circular. DNA <i>carries </i>the information, and then what? The
carrier <i>downloads</i> the cargo and disappears. The carrier will be
re-assembled in the gonads and its load will be again <i>uploaded </i>unto it.
The load is the information, which has been <i>downloaded </i>into the organism
during its early phases of growth and development. There its linear form
remains stored and will be <i>uploaded </i>again as soon as the individual
reaches sexual maturity. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Had the circular idea of the content of the information
remaining basically identical been used, the weak point of the to-fro copying
idea would have become an eyesore. Rather than address the problem, it was
tabooed and repressed. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">If the contents of <i>Source S </i>are copied unto <i>Target
T</i>, the capacity of <i>T </i>to carry information must be minimally slightly
above the capacity of the source <i>S. </i>Otherwise the contents would not
fit. Even if we think target and source to be ideal, some properties of the
exchange run counter to our ideas of capacity and measures. The products of gonads
of a grown organism of 60.000 g weigh less than 1 g. Nature obviously uses <i>two
</i>kinds of measures for counting capacity, one for the unfolded, realised
version and one for the stored construction plans. Yet, in whichever counting
system Nature operates, there is a <i>one-to-one </i>relation between an
unfolded organism and their DNA. Maybe the mass of the carriers is different,
but the <i>number of alternatives </i>and the methods of identifying <i>one
specific </i>among the alternatives needs to be identical, for the <i>load </i>for
the carrier to remain unchanged. (Say there is an <i>Enigma-style</i> coding
and decoding algorithm attached to the DNA in order to do the <i>into unfolding
</i>part of the job, and an <i>Enigma-style</i> coding and decoding algorithm
in the gonads, doing the <i>into registering </i>part of the job, then these
two machines must evaluate an identical number of alternatives so that they can
yield a result matching source and target, in both directions.) This problem
being fundamental and thinking about it severely restricted by systems of
tradition and belief, the problem was left aside.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">3) Interpretations and algorithms<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Both mental processes lead to a final stage, where there is
(are) satisfactory explanations, interpretations, exegeses, methods, techniques
having been shown to or conducted by the subjects themselves until a cognitive
dissonance has become dissolved and the subject reports that he has understood
the interpretation and/or the algorithm. In Terrence’s formulation:<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i>A physical pattern by itself
is not </i><i><span>about</span> anything. The sequence of
nucleotides in a DNA molecule is just a molecular structure considered outside
the context of a living cell. For this structure to be </i><i><span>about</span>
something there must be a process that interprets it.<span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">There is a touch of a teleological thinking in the part: <i>For
this structure to be </i><i><span>about</span> something. </i>In science,
it is outdated to see Nature as a wish fulfilment centre. It is the subject’s
decision, whether he places the molecular structure inside or outside his own
context (which context resides in the skull of the spectator). Either there is
a relation between the molecular structure and the living organism, or there is
none. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The interpretation and the algorithm have in common that
they deconstruct previous relations among the objects discussed and provide a newer
set of relations, which newer set makes more sense for the subject. This the
subject validates by saying Aha. The difference between interpretations and
algorithms is, that we are used to the idea that there are several
interpretations, each equally legitimate and reasonable, but there is – by
convention – only <i>one </i>algorithm that brings forth the desired solution. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The fallacy of the traditional way of treating the
differences between several interpretations and one algorithm lies in the
opportunistic observance of received attitudes towards tautologies. The
algorithm shows the problem to be reducible to a tautology. The interpretations
show the problem not to be reducible to <i>one </i>tautology, but to be a
bouquet of alternatives of tautologies. The timidity shows itself in the
reluctance to redesign the system of tautologies, so that alternatives of
tautologies are possible. Because we can not picture it on our millimetre paper
background, we are helpless. The creative solution is to take <i>two </i>sheets
of transparent millimetre papers, which are slightly in discongruence relative
to each other and <i>hola!</i> there you have a patterned millimetre paper on
which any number of tautologies can be pictured. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The part …<i> there must be a process that interprets it… </i>can
be deeply and enthusiastically supported. The process that interprets the
written form and translates it into the unfolded form is that what is
interesting us, because this is what is to be explained by words and in the
form of algorithms. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">4) Innate, immanent properties of symbols<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i>In what sense are the
intrinsic properties of a communication medium able to be about anything?<span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The term <i>‘about’ </i>appears to confirm a legitimacy to
some properties to some stimuli. Whether symbols have intrinsic properties or
have no intrinsic properties is one question. It is a completely different
question, whether the intrinsic properties – if any such are there at all –
have a dark foreboding, convey a hidden meaning, relate to a greater something,
are in a context of <i>‘about’</i>. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Again: it is one thing to perceive whether one sees an oval
or a circle. It is a different thing what happens if one cannot distinguish the
two, and why these are sometimes hard to distinguish. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The author does not disclose his opinion on whether the
object he discusses, communication medium’s intrinsic properties, does exist or
does not exist. This would be a promising path. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">5) Unlimited<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i>Determination is not operative
here, since there are unlimited classes of similarity and correlational
relationships in the world.<span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Careless use of the word <i>unlimited </i>appears to signify
a belief not renounced with the necessary inner serenity of the idea of <i>unlimited.
</i>People should be expelled from any self-respecting Faculty of Biology, if
they even carelessly use ideas connected to <i>unlimited. </i>How would people
react in the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering if tutors were referring to <i>miracles,
the Devil’s work, talismans, </i>and be it by loose choice of words, in a
paper? If anyone has ever seen something biologic, this person should know that
trees do not grow to the sky. The un-biologic belief system connected to the
contrast <i>limited – unlimited </i>is easily shown by the growth of cells that
are usual and then cells that are cancerous. It is a part of the canon that in
biology everything is limited and under constraints.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">6) Social success and scientific merit, important and
relevant<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i>Often the semiotically
relevant property of a sign vehicle is only one of its many attributes, and not
necessarily the one most salient. What matters is how the relevant property is
incorporated into an interpretive process, because being interpreted is what
matters.<span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Very positive is the author’s wish to assign different words
to different aspects of sign vehicles. There have been suggestions published to
distinguish <i>important, relevant. </i>(See: Learn to Count in Twelve Easy
Steps, webinar in FIS 2013). The <i>position </i>of a term in the description
of the state of the world is <i>important </i>(the property referred to is
nested hierarchically among other properties that can be referred to, a version
of rank or priority), while the <i>actual use </i>of the term in a description
determines its <i>relevance </i>in the description. (That Joe can swim is not a
very important detail in his CV, and this would be normally not of first
importance in a description of Joe. In a situation, where the ability to swim will
restrict or expand alternatives, that property is <i>relevant.) </i>The
sequence of search criteria is <i>important, </i>but it remains, once set, the
property of the object. The<i> relevance</i> is a product of the situation, of
the spectator’s needs, not of the object. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The author correctly splits <i>{properties of the object </i><i><span>↔</span> needs of the spectator}</i>,
but then the two aspects become conflated again. In a humorous interpretation,
this sentence fits excellent into the background of Hollywood, Berkeley and
Facebook. The <i>Malleus Maleficarum </i>of 1486 was widely interpreted and
mattered much. Many academic careers were advanced by educated treatises on the
subject. Being interpreted much is <i>relevant </i>for the career needs of the
spectator, but is not of the first <i>importance </i>when discussing properties
of objects as such, in a detached, scientific way. In everyday life, it is
important, how much the thing is marketable, whether it can become the focus of
social attention, etc. Wittgenstein’s ideas greet us again, as he says (2.0122):
~ “The thing is the completeness of its relations”. In this sense, being
discussed much was indeed the most <i>important</i> property of the concept <i>phlogiston,
</i>and in hindsight it appears that <i>phlogiston </i>has never had any other <i>relevant
</i>properties.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">7) Defeatism and Timidity<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i>In this way the concept of
biological information lost its aboutness but became safe for use in a
materialistic science that had no place for what seemed like a nonphysical
property. <span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It appears that the author feels a great social
responsibility. If a concept loses its aboutness, it has lost one of its most
important and relevant properties. Aboutness appears to be meaning ‘placed in a
practical, useful, advantageous, innovative, fruitful context’. The attitude is
praiseworthy, as its goals are apparently a furthering of well-being and
quality of life. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The point is, that even without the relevance of aboutness,
the concept of biological information does have remarkable properties about
which it is worth maintaining a discussion. It is with a belittling aside, that
the author notes, that the concept has degenerated into a discussion of
relations of symbols among each other as such, and has no social, economic or
patriotic value. It is true, that the sense of reason diminishes as one wants
to discuss biologic information, but is forced, for lack of better
alternatives, to use that language which is suited for communication about such
occurrences that can be interpersonally spoken about while reasonably
maintaining the idea that those who communicate mean the same things.
Translating biology into Physics or Mathematics is bad, because these lack the
subtlety of language, e.g. by not being able to speak about non-physical
occurrences. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Once one knows that one has something to say which is
interpersonally communicable and one believes that this message should indeed be
communicated, one stands before the same problem as was addressed by the author:
…<i> materialistic science that had no place for what seemed like a nonphysical
property. </i>Specifically, it appears, it is the reluctance of materialistic
science to acknowledge <i>a-priori existing structures </i>to, indeed, a-priori
exist, that makes the task formidable. In such a case, one has to rewrite the
catechism in force until it allows for such observations that we wish to share,
to be expressible. This is indeed possible. You <i>know </i>that there is a
rational solution to the transmission methods of biological information, because
the thing evidently works. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Egon Friedell writes in Cultural History, that great
innovations can by their nature not originate from mainstream research. He who
is mainstream, is by definition not an outside freak who could dream up such an
unusual concept. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The unusual concept is not that much unusual, merely a
suggestion to use the properties of the background alongside the properties of
the foreground. The DNA being a <i>linear, sequential </i>collection, and the
organism being a <i>multidimensional, concurrently existing </i>collection, it
is but a small step to see the one being the foreground of the other, and then
the roles reversed. It helps to have found the underlying numeric fact, that
there are differently many similarity and diversity relations on a collection
of <i>n </i>objects, <i>in dependence of n. (<a href="http://oeis.org/A242615">oeis.org/A242615</a>).<span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">All of sudden, <i>materialistic science </i>has a
well-defined, numeric extents supported, access to <i>what seemed like a
nonphysical property. </i><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Once we set up <i>two </i>orientation reference senders, we
are able to triangulate our position to a much greater exactitude, compared to
the traditional model where everything is measured from the one and only <i>Zero
</i>away. Our <i>two </i>reference senders broadcast distance and density signals.
The are situated near <i>11, 66 </i>to make use of maximal distortion
(inexactitude, relative deviance), and their two repeaters at <i>32, 97 </i>to
make use of maximal congruence. Their message is: <i>“If you are <so many: n<sub>i</sub>>
expect terms of trade for diversity/similarity 1/3, 1, 3, 1} for n<sub>i</sub>:
{11, 32, 66, 97}”. </i>In the <i>Bazar </i>there is a <i>three-way trade </i>between
<i>n, n!, n?.</i><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">If there are any social controversies regarding the idea,
that the world is in many respects a compromise between many parts (and these
many are best studied at first in their most simple form of <i>a,b</i>), because
there exist mathematical facts of combinatorics, which our brain uses but does
not recognise (cf Wittgenstein: The eye cannot see itself), then these
controversies are to be suffered stoically. The interdependence between
foreground and background, diversity and similarity, exists irrespective of our
acknowledgement of its existence. The duality expressed by <i>A242615 </i>offers
lots of affordances, is highly <i>relevant </i>but in the present social
context relegated to an outsider position, not being <i>important </i>for
social success (yet). But do not blame the language and the keepers of the
lexica and of the grammar rules. You are allowed to speak your mind, even if it
appears agrammatical at first. The only way you can make yourself understood,
then, is to deictically define each and all of the steps you take. If the
sequence of the deictic definitions is correct, and any reasonable person would
(and does) understand what you are saying, then it is indeed the level of
social desirability which determines whether science merits rewards. The
author’s main idea, that it is more lucrative to have a trendy idea people talk
about than a profound idea that is a conversation stopper, is empirically
verified.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">For the record: materialistic science <i>does have </i>a
place for what seems a nonphysical property.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">8) Central Tautology<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 11.6pt 5.8pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i>Any property of a physical medium can serve as a
sign vehicle of any type (icon, index, or symbol) referring to any object of
reference for whatever function or purpose because these properties are
generated by and entirely dependent upon the form of the particular
interpretive process that it is incorporated into.<span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is praiseworthy that the author maintains the required
rigidity in logical texts, namely that they are basically a tautology. Of
course, the spectator can set any sign vehicle in any relation with any other
vehicle, and this will reflect nothing else but the acts of the spectator. This
is like saying that any answer to the Rorschach table is a property of the
proband and not of the table.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The definition may be formally in order and in everyday economic
reality reasonable. There is, however, the small detail about which the author
does not speak, namely the properties of the Rorschach tables themselves and in
what respects these are different and similar among each other. It is a
pleasing definition that the tables contribute nothing towards the imagination,
that ascribing is unprovoked and unbiased. Practitioners know and theory deals
with the fact that tables I – X are in themselves different and offer each a
different <i>sujet</i> to talk about. With the improved version of the same
idea, the TAT is an even better example.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The author states, that given an assembly of diverse
objects, he is free to order and group the objects as he sees fit, and that’s
all. This statement is true, but misses the point by far and wide. The point is
not, how the spectator can order the objects, but how the objects are ordered <i>by
themselves</i>. Do the objects show a <i>natural tendency </i>to assemble into
groups? Will there appear <i>archetypical constellations </i>due to the
artefacts of the objects being that many and so diverse cum similar? The answer
to both questions is <i>yes, </i>but the author does not discuss the central
problem of biological information, namely that there are <i>rules, structures,
limits, thresholds and constraints</i> for the procedure to function. This may
be the result of a subjective hopelessness, <u>falsely believing</u> that
because it is not expected that one uses sentences of an innovative grammar,
such a grammar is somehow unappetizing, wrong, unheard-of, not listed in the
lexicon of idioms, therefore <u>illegitimate</u>. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">9) Full support<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i>But as a relatively inert
linear molecule, the structural properties of nucleotide polymers make them
ideal to serve as templates. This is because conformation differences along the
length of the molecule caused by the local nucleotide sequence provides a
heterogeneous linear surface onto which other molecules can weakly bind. These
structural differences will determine corresponding differences in how other
molecules will tend to attach to the polymer due to their shape and charge
complementarities. Since there will be both catalysts and polynucleotides
within the inert autogen capsid, free catalysts will tend to associate with
free nucleotide polymers with respect to these structural complementarities.
The attached catalysts will therefore tend to be arranged into distinct
sequences along the length of an extended nucleotide.<span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">This appears to be a very reasonable general chart of
relations among objects. Lacking the necessary knowledge in cell chemistry,
this person can only express his general support of the idea that <i>heterogeneous
surface … structural differences … structural complementarities … tend to be
arranged … distinct sequences … </i>are terms which refer to concepts which can
be naturally and easily integrated into the system of natural numbers (well,
maybe after some massaging).<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Congratulations on this great work. In the body of the
article, the author introduces several realisations of a <i>circular and
self-referencing </i>mechanism. The idea is present in the lexicon of concepts
in the hard sciences, under the name <i>cycles. </i>You are discussing
something that can be reasonably expressed, nothing metaphysical about cycles.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Thank you for sharing this work with us.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Karl<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<br> </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Sa., 19. Feb. 2022 um 22:12 Uhr schrieb Pedro C. Marijuán <<a href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Dear FISers,<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We are going to start the new discussion modality based on
specific publications. The initial contribution to comment is:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>"How Molecules Became Signs</b><b></b><b>."</b> By <b>Terrence
W. Deacon</b>, recently appeared in Biosemiotics.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At his earlier convenience, Terry will send a leading text to
start the discussion. <br>
</div>
<div>Now, given that there is a doi <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9</a>
(for freely downloading the paper), <br>
</div>
<div>interested parties may read in advance the publication.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best greetings to all,</div>
<div>--Pedro</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>PS. Given that there are another three contributions
tentatively arranged, a time span of around 2-3 weeks could be
adequate. But we will see on the spot.<br>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_6326270647360967041DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br> <table style="border-top:1px solid rgb(211,212,222)">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:18px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" width="46" height="29"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:17px;color:rgb(65,66,78);font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Libre de virus. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" style="color:rgb(68,83,234)" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="#m_6326270647360967041_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div>