Pseudoscience Thread - Biosemiotics Edition

What the fuck is this shit?

youtube.com/watch?v=g5vxMO-q6Fc

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21541001
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16988903
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634023/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC327117/
youtube.com/watch?v=AjNa7nHFju4
timecube.2enp.com/
cubicao.com/
youtube.com/user/Pyramid0rz/videos?disable_polymer=1
youtube.com/watch?v=OG6ynVDQW8E
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosemiotics
link.springer.com/journal/12304
biosemiotics.org
youtu.be/GGalTcF_rzI
academia.edu/14933604/Semiosis_stems_from_logical_incompatibility_in_organic_nature_Why_biophysics_does_not_see_meaning_while_biosemiotics_does
researchgate.net/publication/5487617_Biosemiotics_A_new_understanding_of_life
academia.edu/727564/Towards_a_Semiotic_Biology_Life_is_the_Action_of_Sign
youtube.com/watch?v=HABNe7_D22k
sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

can't be assed to listen to that voice for 10 secpnds

i study biosemiotics and have seen that mans
he is a retard
you can find someone such as that for any given field
have some real biosemiotics
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21541001
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16988903
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634023/
now see how this serves as a general model for thing like this, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC327117/

its application is ubiquitous in the life sciences
from RNA to self organization and adaption in complex ecosystems and the dynamics of biological networks
you call it pseudoscience because you dont understand.
reminds me of the beginning of germ theory

itsa new field with radical implications so its not surprising that a few uneducated, old guard dogmatists like yourself may crawl out of the woodwork and give a knee-jerk "pseudoscience". Also not surprising is the fact that such views never result in a valid criticism

Bump

>Go to YouTube channel
>Look for more videos
>Scroll down see:
>EVOLUTION IS DESTRUCTION
>Decide to click as title is obviously clickbait, right?
>First sentence: Let's look at evolution as destruction as it moves away from the original form...
Wat? Fukin wat?

Not OP here.
Despite your trips, you screwed up by adding that last paragraph of personal attack.

But I might go and look up those links anyway - I had never heard of this (but I'm not a biologist).
Thanks for that.

>Despite your trips, you screwed up by adding that last paragraph of personal attack.
Yeah it was immature of me. I've had a bad experience with a particularly pig headed user regaurding this subject in the past.

tf is the "original form?" A single celled microorganism?

youtube.com/watch?v=AjNa7nHFju4
timecube.2enp.com/
A classic, basically this is if Terry A Davis was a physicist instead of a computer scientist, some backstory details makes it even more "what":
Gene Ray creator of Time Cube had attracted another schizophrenic as a follower who named Richard Janczarski who dedicated his life to proving this gay dumb theory eventually meeting Gene Ray in real life, Gene Ray to make a long story short said he wasn't a worthy follower and dejected him as apart of the "time cube enlightment" leading to a series of forum posts by Richard saying he "seriously needed to rethink his life over" before briefly committing suicide by jumping in front of a commuter train during rush hour.
Richard's Time Cube forum and defenses of the theory is still archived: cubicao.com/
As is his meeting with Gene Ray shortly before Gene's dejection of him and suicide: youtube.com/user/Pyramid0rz/videos?disable_polymer=1

Another weird but notable point on the mathematics side of this "theory" is that Gene Ray had attempted to disprove all of mathematics by saying Imaginary Numbers weren't real numbers and only a concept anyone who dejected this being "academically retarded".

>he doesn't believe in time cube
Begone foul wretch.

Your field needs better outreach then. If you look up biosemiotics on the net, what you find are crackpots like this hippie who spew new-age garbage.

A fag hijacking science, stetching and misconstruing it to fit his hippie bullshit.

Basically John Green pop history meets a bunch of psychoactive substances.

>dude weed lmao

This is fucking great. More of this plz.

Most of it is long gone, but learning about Time Cube and anything of It's backstory is a huge fucking rabbit-hole that's mostly been refilled with whatever dirt was originally dug out of it. There's 1 or 2 other community leaders that mostly ended up fucking off the face of the Earth after Gene Ray's death, one of them was a one-shot comic book writer I cannot remember the name of unfortunately.
There's also always this ancient shitpost that worked at trolling Gene Ray himself: geocities ws/devilcube2000/

For double offense, Time Cube still has a very very minor following mostly dwindling from what it had once been of only the most extreme schizoids and general batshit insane nobodies, just check out the comment section for vid related: youtube.com/watch?v=OG6ynVDQW8E
There are people trying to argue in there that Time Cube can't be possible because the Earth is flat.

>There are people trying to argue in there that Time Cube can't be possible because the Earth is flat.
We should capture these people and exhibit them in zoos.

Holy shit, Gale went off the deep end. Is he synthesizing serotonergics now?

Gene Ray makes me sad. He's a diagnosed schizophrenic, and most of these people were just doing this for keks. His #1 follower (the guy who interviews him and follows him around) is diagnosed with autism, and eventually killed himself before Gene Ray died. The whole thing is depressing, and the concept of the Time Cube is both obvious and dumb. Of course, right now, there are people all over the world experiencing daylight, sundown, sunset and nighttime. This poor man was just delusional.

He's probably talking about a concept introduced in The Beak of the Finch in which it is claimed that humans decide what lives and dies and thus alter evolution. It's about the generation of diversity but the author called it generation of destruction.

sounds like the author is smoking good crack, I would like some as well.

Sounds reasonable to me

These are the first three results

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosemiotics
link.springer.com/journal/12304
biosemiotics.org
Not exactly new age hippy garbage, although I can see the confusion, the rhetoric is shared with the elan vital and whatnot.
Outreach will be better as it moves from a qualitative to a quantitative science and the theory being developed yields more and more experimental results. Also I think the unfortunate lack of philosophical experience in the research community and higher education is to blame for some people not "getting it". The same sort of materialist dogmatism that puts some folks off of deep ecology.(not claiming deep ecology is science) By that I mean the science is there but the philosophical implications fly over some people's heads.
Biosemiotics are hinted at all the time, for example in pic related(a hypothetical model for an "information-processing actor")
Biosemiotics offers a theoretical framework for how "percepts" are translated to "memories + programs" avoiding problems(for example in olfactory systems how chemicals dfg are translated to Smell a, where d f and g are chemical compounds and a is the smellers favor meal) by axiomizing meaning making is an essential element of biological systems

Do you smoke crack as well?

That's true. Youtube however has nothing but pseudo-scientific new age stuff on biosemiotics.

Actually upon further inspection the guy in OP not only seems legit, he seems a lot like me interest wise, just much more outgoing. He has my approval and is a good promoter of his scientific and philosophical interests.
There is a semiotic explanation to why he is being conceived as new age, and quite frankly it's root cause is bigotry. I'll admit he isn't completely factual, he has a hypothetical tendency which I think is healthy.
Anyhow he is great for YouTube but if you want biosemiotics read the fucking literature.

I can hardly resist the urge to take the bait.

i assure you its not.
he is an enthusiastic and overzealous student, but very reasonable as i realized in this video, i recommend you watch and if you still feel the same way tell me why.

opps
youtu.be/GGalTcF_rzI

I think he's not cautious enough of a thinker. He may not be stupid, but you can't do good science if you don't tread lightly. Matter of fact, his views about language are very contentious.

I'm not sure about what he thinks about language, you've probably seen more of him than me. on that note and from what I can tell I only see him as discussing science and not has a practitioner. His views seem to be more or less grounded in facts and he is somewhat self aware.
. He is fine by youtube standards. As far as the science of biosemiotics goes you need to go to the scientific literature for it

I don't get it

>These communication processes are primarily sign mediated interactions and not simply an exchange of information
>we recognize that the coordination of growth and development in plants [...] is possible only by using signs rather than pure mechanics
How does one distinguish these two cases? What makes them different?

academia.edu/14933604/Semiosis_stems_from_logical_incompatibility_in_organic_nature_Why_biophysics_does_not_see_meaning_while_biosemiotics_does

t. angry primordial liposome

Am I reading this right? I didn't read much further than the abstract and introduction but it kind of sounds like they're saying biological systems cannot be described in a logically consistent framework because things like logical paradoxes are in fact integral to how these systems operate?

Sorry but that sounds like complete BS. Also I'm not sure how it answers my question.

He is so full of shit.
Its difficult to listen.

>Am I reading this right?
no
read the whole paper. ill give you the just of it first, in quotations
>they're saying biological systems cannot be described in a logically consistent framework
no they are saying that meaning cannot emerge from a logically consistent framework.
The paper is actually oriented towards developing a physical model that can account for meaning making. as discussed in 7. Towards the physiological mechanisms of phenomena: umwelt-generating systems


>Many processes of living systems can be described as operations of the general form IF a THEN DO b, where the connection between a and b in the process is not deducible from the physical or chemical laws,but is acquired through history, evolution learning,compiling
i.e. by some process in the living realm.
>This point may require additional explanation. The physical world is necessarily described via non-contradictory laws. By deļ¬nition, the physical laws (both deterministic and stochastic) cannot contradict each other, nor can they have exceptions (this is a fundamental assumption for physical theories). Operations are not laws.Operations are
rules that are worked out in behaviour and used in behaviour. Operations are not universal,they are local. Operations may have exceptions even within one individual. Operations may contradict each other. Thus, if operations have contradictions, then this does not contradict the non-contradiction of laws.
>By incompatibility we mean that there can be incongruent operations.
For instance, consider the pair of alternatives: (operation 1) IF G THEN return
and (operation 2) IF G THEN go straight, do not return.
However, taken one by one, in a sequence, these two operations (1 and 2) can be seen as congruent. An incompatibility appears only if the operations have to be executed
simultaneously
and finally picture related

>Also I'm not sure how it answers my question.
it was a poor choice for an introduction on my behalf
see
researchgate.net/publication/5487617_Biosemiotics_A_new_understanding_of_life
academia.edu/727564/Towards_a_Semiotic_Biology_Life_is_the_Action_of_Sign

>read the whole paper
Not until I feel like it will be worth my while.

Just give me a straight answer to my question. Why is a "sign mediated interaction" mutually exclusive from a mere "exchange of information"? What distinguishes the two? Why is the development of plants "possible only by using signs rather than pure mechanics"? Why wouldn't a complete physical description of a plant in its environment down to the subatomic level paired with the appropriate physical laws be enough to simulate its development?

>Not until I feel like it will be worth my while
your problem. everything in the post you replied to should be sufficient to answer that question. If it isn't sufficient, and you wish to have your question answered, then you need to read more.
i even linked easier to digest introductory publications here It is not my job to spoon feed you knowledge, learning is work.

That's a really bad way of convincing people to take your "subject" seriously.

>briefly committing suicide

I don't take people incapable of learning by themselves seriously. If you lack intellectual curiosity and a drive to learn then you won't be of any value anyhow.
The only reason I needed to study biosemiotics was the see also section of Wikipedia. I was buying used textbooks and teaching myself how to model dynamic systems when I was 16, and it wasn't so I could tutor charity cases too inept to do the same.
If you prefer argument to inquiry then youtube university is the place for you.

lmfao

Did you acquire the fundamentals of logic at age 12(ish)?

>not learning the fundamentals of logic at 8

Nice try but no one can be above the Godking.

>not being above the Godking

Bumping this thread, in hope someone reads about biosemiotics, I may even answer that question I rejected(I would have answered yesterday but the first sentence offended me) if I'm more sobered up after I milk my goats and eat breakfast.
Okay, welcome to my blog
I wish, I think I could have handled a course in symbolic logic at a young age. If I ever have kids I'll try my best to teach them asap. I'm no Peirce. I read Paul Tellers book and more over the summer right after I turned 15 by my calculus teachers recommendation. I was already interested in systems before, through my interest in ecology I was good at systems thinking. Around 12 is when I really began to read scientific literature. Ive been in love with the life sciences since I was a tot, I'd demand my mom, who was a teacher to read me encyclopedias at bedtime. 12ish is the time when global change and biodiversity loss really struck me. I was angry, grieving and felt powerless. I when I wasn't sleeping or destroying excavators, I would read research papers, I got them conceptually but didn't into the math. So I had enough understanding do some of the philosophizing to be done, which was rather formative for me, but not the science i wanted to do. That frustration was what motivated me to teach myself so early. Knowing what I wanted to use helped me learn rapidly and get into practice.

Please don't ask me any more personal questions, this thread is about the science of biosemiotics.

Sounds like some sort of postmodern garbage.

He looks like Ginzburg from Mad Men but w/ a blond/e Afro.

Don't watch the video ffs read It couldn't be further from pomo. It's a science that researches the fundamental processes producing the phenomenon that pomo rejects, like meaning, and reason.

no u

pure cringe.

you make it sound like incredibly retarded popsci, but it's a serious field of study

This made me very sad for some reason man :(

It should fill your heart with joy given how correct it is.

>whenceforth

>whencesoever

sounds like vitalism 2.0

>
>9326659
>sounds like
>sounds llke
explain ideas, our audible sound for that matter can "sound like" anything, using anything but biosemiotics
you cant
semiotics can
read

youtube.com/watch?v=HABNe7_D22k

The science of biosemiotics explains those things. Materialist doctrines draw a blank and use metaphors, biophysics is beginning to be able to explain it, because the existence of biosemiotics is beginning to be recognised.
Biosemiotics explains how higher level phenomenon in biological systems such as; biological codes, meaning, logics, qualia, reason, cognition, and linguistic symbols, can arise out of lower level systems of physical information.

And somewhat like the elan vital biosemiotics are what orient the function of biological systems towards living
Elan vital was just one of many attempts to describe the phenomenal qualities of life.Biosemiotics offers a valid conceptual framework for investigating such qualities

>The science of biosemiotics explains those things
How?

by explaining biosemiotics of course (the science has the same name as its subject)
Explaining biosemiotics is a very conceptually dense subject, especially explaining what and how biosemiotics does.
More difficult still is the current topic of biosemiotics as a necessary bridge between phenomenology and the life sciences
which is discussed in detail in the articles here sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119

What a massive faggot lmao

You seem like a smart dude, tell me how to get into this stuff?

What is the prerequisite of getting into biosemiotics? Philosophy? Mathematics? What level?

Hey now, be nice.

Clearly I'm going to read that whole book.

Official lolcow thread

But that last bit is true. No numbers are real, as per the world models intrinsically tied to all Numeric thinking, all Number is a Symbol-based construct with no Empirical footprints. Epistemologically indistinguishable from ancient aliens or Mormon myth.

>[numbers are] epistemologically indistinguishable from ancient aliens or Mormon myth.
kek. you are one of the weak minds out there.

So Science is trying to get into Religion now? This is hilarious. Remember last year when Scientists realized we can from star dust, then they found out that trees talk, and now they are trying to qualify the concept of Self. Way behind religion science, lots of catch up to do.

>So Science is trying to get into Religion now?
No.
>So crock "scientists" are trying to get into religion now?
ftfy.

Christcuck is triggered as fuck.

Just ignore it

>Just ignore it
>bumps from page 10

Deal with it.