In the SCS framework, the four code signs derived from the phases of an action potential, are considered as semantic markers as described by Katz and Fodor (1963).  The authors of The structure of a semantic theory proposed that the meanings of propositional units or lexical items, and the structures containing them, should be expressed using combinations of semantic markers that are “intended to relect, in their formal structure, the structure of concepts they represent.” 

According to Hofstadter (1999) the symbols we use for our communication belong to the assembly language of our brain. Below this assembly level, processing takes place via the ones and zeros of a machine language. This seems like a bold statement, but in fact we can find this binary language not only in the action potential of the nervous system, but also in the DNA, the universal carrier of genetic information, described by Dawkins (2004) as “textual information written in a four letter alphabet”.  The four-letter DNA alphabet consists of the nucleobases or 'letters' cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] and thymine [T]. The genetic code is read in groups of three consecutive nucleotides: so-called codons or 'words', which encode amino acids, which in turn are the building blocks for proteins. There are 43 = 64 possible codon combinations of nucleotides.

We are going to use the codon notation from the DNA to create an abstract framework where concept words and non-verbal signs can be encoded and classified. The codon codes, which are combinations of the four semantic markers or code signs, represent the properties of the concept or sign, as prescribed by Katz and Fodor. Moreover, codon notation has a special advantage, namely that it allows for a three-dimensional representation.

Why exactly we choose a 3D structure is because it is crucial in a semantics system. According to the semanticist Greimas (1966) the spacial dimensions are inherent to human thinking. He showed that not only do we think binary, in antagonists, but also dimensionally, according to aspects of depth, height, and width. Dawkins (2004) explains that in the very early embryo, each cell is told which place in the 3-dimensional body it is in through the mediation of special control genes. Also, for the most primitive beings such as the rag worm or even the amoeba, being our ancestors estimated at 600 million years ago and older, front and rear, left and right, and up and down have a clear meaning. Dawkins proposes that this 'knowledge' about spatiality seems to be genetically programmed rather than learned, not only in animals, but “it probably is in us”. We may assume with a certain probability that depth, height, and width are dimensions of imaginary but nevertheless meaningful positions and movements that are instrumental to our thinking. 

That these divisions of a 2-binary into a 3-dimensionality are deeply rooted in us is shown by examples from mythology, anthropology, philosophy, and sociology. The American anthropologist David Anthony (2008) explains that the Indo-European fascination with binary doublings combined with triplets, two's and three's, reappeared again and again, even in the metric structure of Indo-European poetry. The theme of pairs represented both magical and legal power (such as Twin and Man, Varuna-Mitra, and Odin-Tyr), alongside a division of society and the cosmos into three primary roles or functions: the priest (embodying both magical and legal authority), the warrior (the Third Man), and the herder or cultivator (represented by the cow or cattle). This fixed division into divine pairs and tripartites of society occurs in cultures all over the world. In his work, anthropologist Raymond Firth (1962) discusses the depth (communication), height (power) and breadth (class differences) found in the ceremonies and rituals of ancient cultures. The West African Ndembu classify about a hundred words according to their colors: white, red, and black (Turner, 1994). We find the same system among the inhabitants of the South Pacific islands and among the indigenous peoples of India, in the Upanishads (Hume, 1968). The philosopher Martin Heidegger (1970), in What is Metaphysics, distinguishes depth questions (what?) from height (how?) and width questions (why?). The sociologist J.A.A. Van Leent (1972) describes the dimensions of research methods. Research moves in a certain direction, e.g., the in-depth research.