AVS writes concerning the comparison between human codes/languages and the biological translation system:
Do you not see how superficial your comparison is between the biological translation system and human codes and languages?
Yes all these systems have a “code” of some sort that translates into “meaning,” but once you start digging deeper into the biological side of the equation, the differences become quite clear.
I think the problem is that we as humans explain the translational system using letters and words (how else would we do it), which makes it seem like there is huge similarities between this system and actual languages themselves.
My point is that when you get down to it, the biological translational system does not read letters and comprehend them into a meaning in any way like we do.
Take a sec to watch this video of robots working on cars:
Now, I take it that the robots run on software. I also take it that the robots don’t “read” the software and “comprehend” it into meaning like a human software engineer would. Now assume all trace of technology, civilization and life vanished from this planet except for these robots, which continued working away. If an alien happened along, under your reasoning he would not be entitled to infer the robots or the software operating them was designed. That is obviously wrong. Ergo, your reasoning is wrong.
At first glance, yes, this alien would be entitled to think both systems were designed. And this is because that first glance at both systems is extremely superficial, just like your semiotics comparison between the two.
As I said, a more detailed look at these two systems would demonstrate the huge differences in their underlying mechanisms, one designed by intelligent minds, the other derived from natural properties and laws.
I am trying very hard to abide by the principle of charity. I have read AVS’s reply several times and attempted to discern even the merest nod toward a logical argument. I have failed to detect any such nod. It seems to me that either AVS’s argument is far too subtle for me to grasp (a possibility I freely admit), or materialists such as AVS believe that mere contradiction is an adequate stand-in for rational argument. I invite our readers to decide.