Thanks, Christophe.

These days I am involved in a paper on "prokaryotic intelligence", and 
have laterally approached the problem of cellular meaning. I am copying 
a fragment below (not corrected yet). Rosen's "impredicativity" looks to 
me an important concept to clarify things. However, rather than 
establishing it based on dynamic, open systems (boundary conditions) as 
he does, I would join Michael Conrad's viewss, in that protein folding 
and unpicturability of enzyme function are the deep causes of factual 
impredicativity in living cells... but perhaps my Conradian 
interpretation is forced.

Anyhow, the overall idea may be that the "signal" becomes "symmetry 
breaking" for the cell, and the elaboration of meaning becomes "symmetry 

best ---Pedro


"...Along this view, living cells are enacting a new way of existence, 
an active “informational” one that is based on the capability to keep 
the own structures in a permanent state of flow. Cells would respond to 
signals from the environment, and produce the “meaning” they imply, by 
letting the signals themselves interfere with the ongoing molecular 
dynamics of the cellular self-production flow. Completion of the cell 
cycle would always appear as the fundamental reference... And on the 
other side, the/ impredicative /nature of biological information has to 
be taken into account (Rosen, 1993). It conduces to realizing that the 
information processing of living cells is not of the same class than the 
processes of formal, predicative nature (computation). Rather, 
biomolecular processing is a “tactilizing” phenomenon based on a myriad 
of specific “molecular recognition” events (Conrad, 1998; Marijuán, 
2003); and there is no syntactic procedure or amount of computation that 
can fill in the modelling gap, in formal terms, between the sequences 
found in genomes and the emergent dynamics of protein & enzyme & RNA 
networks. The degree to which biological complexity can be efficiently 
fathomed in computational terms is a highly debatable question; it has 
also practical implications regarding the mentioned integration of 
signaling processes within the life cycle, and the cut-offs and 
trade-offs to establish in the models. Whatever the modelling option, 
the "real" biomolecular elaboration of meaning in the living cell and in 
the living brain would always keep the upper hand of complexity with 
respect any syntactic, computational procedures..."

Christophe Menant escribió:
> Thanks Stan, 
> Biosemiotics can indeed be part of the story 
> ( ), but part only.
> My point is about the importance of the notion of ”meaning” when 
> talking about information. Interpretation of information (meaning 
> generation) is key when information is processed by finalized systems. 
> Our lives are embedded in meaning generation, from auto-immune disease 
> to the smile of the Joconde. Meaning generation has probably an 
> evolutionary story, and can deserves (I feel) a systemic approach 
> ( ). So I’m just kind of surprised not to 
> see the notion of meaning explicited in the proposal.
> Perhaps Pedro could tell us more on this point.
> All the best
> Christophe
fis mailing list

Reply via email to