(Message from John Torday --Note: neither the list nor the server do
accept attachments)
-------- Mensaje reenviado --------
Asunto: Re: [Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science
Fecha: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 06:45:07 -0700
De: JOHN TORDAY <jtor...@ucla.edu>
Para: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
Dear All, I feel like the beggar at the banquet, having arrived at the
FIS of late in response to Pedro's invitation to participate, having
reviewed our paper on 'ambiguity' in Progress in Biolphyics and
Molecular Biology (see attached). In my deconvolution of evolution as
all of biology (Dobzhansky), I have reduced the problem to the
unicellular state as the arbiter of information and communication,
dictated by The First Principles of Physiology- negative entropy,
chemiosmosis and homeostasis. I arrived at that idea by following the
process of evolution as ontogeny and phylogeny backwards from its most
complex to its simplest state as a continuum, aided by the concept that
evolution is a series of pre-adaptations, or exaptations or co-options.
With that mind-set, the formation of the first cell from lipids immersed
in water generated 'ambiguity' by maintaining a negative entropic free
energy within itself in defiance of the external positive energy of the
physical environment, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The
iterative resolution of that ambiguous state of being is what we refer
to as evolution. For me, information and communication are the keys, but
they are not co-equals. I say that because in reducing the question of
evolution to the single cell, I have been able to 'connect the dots'
between biology and physics, such elements of Quantum Mechanics as
non-localization and the Pauli Exclusion Principle being the basis for
pleiotropy, the distribution of genetics throughout the organism, and
The First Principles of Physiology, respectively. So now, thinking about
the continuum from physics to biology, literally, the Big Bang generated
the magnitude and direction of both the Cosmos and subsequently biology,
i.e. life is a verb not a noun, a process, not a thing. For these
reasons I place communication hierarchically 'above' information.
Moreover, this perspective offers answers to the perennial questions as
to how and why life is 'emergent and contingent'. The emergence is due
to the pleiotropic property, the organism having the ability to retrieve
'historic' genetic traits for novel purposes. And the contingence is on
The First Principles of Physiology. So we exist between the boundaries
of both deterministic Principles of Physiology and the Free Will
conferred by homoestatic control, offering a range of set-points that
may/not evolve when necessary, depending on the prevailing environmental
conditions.
And by the way, this way of thinking plays into Pedro's comments about
the impact of such thinking on society because in conceiving of the cell
as the first Niche Construction (see attached), all that I have said
above plays out as the way in which organisms interact with one another
and with their environment based on self-referential self-organization,
which is the basis for consciousness, all emanating from the Big Bang as
their point source. So with all due respect, Information is the medium,
but communication is in my opinion the message, not the other way
around. I see this as a potential way of organize information in a
contextually relevant way that is not anthropocentric, but objective,
approximating David Bohm's 'implicate order'. Ciao for now, I
hope....John Torday
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:
Dear All,
After Xueshan clarion call, I partially change what I was writing.
Of course I have to thank him for his support of the 10 principles.
Actually, in connection with the recent exchanges, particularly with
Gordana's and John (Torday) posts, I was working in some ideas
further related to the principles. On the one side the general view
on the "new kind of natural science/philosophy" around information,
and on the other side the transcendentalism of life... I think they
also connect with Xueshan call of synthesis between info disciplines
in his last paragraph. Trying to be concise I present herewith three
points:
First. "There is Life--and Information."
Second. "We contemplate the World."
Third. "The society around us."
1. Life and Information: In biology, information is the new mantra.
All kinds of scientific-technological-entrepreneurial gurus have
proclaimed it, based on the revolutionary discoveries and gigantic
bio-data accumulations. But scientifically, few people are trying to
accommodate a new central theory of biology that could incorporate
that new empirical reality of amazing complexity. In my own
preliminary approach I describe how the simplest cells confront "the
information flows" of their environment and couple them with the
inner information flows related to their self-production, always
doing it adaptively. Regarding the excellent work that John Torday
has done on the evolutionary organizational achievements of
multicellulars, as he mentioned, there are ample possibilities of
mutual connection... Everything is rather preliminary but at least
we can open the door so that other people behind could do it better.
In any case, around life and information, we see an amazing world of
molecular complexity in action that contains some of the
fundamentals of the new info perspective. The living cell can really
"perceive" selected portions of the world around (information flow)
and regularly intercepts them by means of its sensory apparatus
(signaling system). Then it reacts adaptively, modifying its
processes and structures according to inner stocks of permanent
information (knowledge), sculpting a life cycle, also communicating
with other living cells, and really building "molecular meaning"
upon the received signals. Besides, the pervasive horizontal gene
transfer in microbial ecosystems (phages, viruses, plasmids, sex...)
has generated a collective multi-species assemblage or genuine
"planetary library" of global molecular knowledge. It is not
bombastic, as all planetary cycles of fundamental elements that
sustain all present life are based on trillions of molecular
machines of prokaryotes that have been churning around for eons.
This Molecular Internet of sorts (Sorin Sonea dixit) was the
beginning, and made possible so many things that now we may call in
so many ways: evolvability, autopoiesis, agency, informational
existence, ecological webs, ecosphere, GAIA, etc.
We may discuss quite legitimately about information physics, but
clarifying first the scientific discourse about biological
information by means of a new consistent viewpoint looks a priority
(at the same level, at least).
2. Looking at the World: After the incredible complexification of
life, nervous systems, etc. we, the improbable, the unexpected, are
here. And like our humble bacterial ancestors, we have to confront
the world for our individual living, and so we regularly contemplate
and are immersed into the quasi-infinite information flows of the
environment. But this time, by means of language, acting both as our
new social communication tool and as an open-ended symbolic system,
our collective capabilities of relating with the world have boomed.
And historically we have developed those social repositories or
stocks of knowledge we call science and all kinds of accompanying
technological tools that allow us a new contemplation and action
onto the world around. Now we can sense the most remote perceptions,
we can colligate them with the different disciplines, and produce
adaptive (or non adaptive) responses, with supposedly the final goal
of advancing our lives both individually and collectively.
The new kind of science/philosophy to establish around this
informational "looking at the world" would demand a new "observer",
in this case starting from a differentiated set of disciplinary
principles of observation. But that creates a lot of logic and
scientific difficulties. Recognizing the limitation of the
agent/observer is one of them; leaving open-ended the observable is
another. I am aware of the invincible circularity that easily
surrounds all of this. So the need of a set of new principles
sidestepping the worst problems and allowing fresh new thought.
Probably, the easiest part would be the parallel realization of a
new synthesis incorporating a new stock of scientific concepts
(admittedly, most of them in the making yet); at least it could
start by a compendium of the numerous theories around information
already existing. At the end, a more "natural" and efficient
approach to our limitations in the individual and social handling of
"knowledge ecologies" would also emerge...
3. The Society Around: When we look at our societies, what we see
along history is that the biggest global changes have always been
induced or accompanied by substantial changes in the
information/communication flows around individuals: writing,
codices, printing press, books, newspapers, new media, computers,
internet, social networks... Our societies have always been
"information societies." The current acceleration of artificial
information flows represents a challenge to the most natural info
flows (face to face conversation) so ingrained in our social and
psychological adaptation and personal lives. Paradoxically, in the
"information society", mental health and wellbeing problems are
steadily mounting as public health problems (a terrible escalation
of depression and suicides), plus new de-socialization pathologies
that are emerging, including the resurgence of nastiest political
movements at a global scale. We do not recognize the perils and
pitfalls of that intangible "social information" stuff, explosive
like nitroglycerine in social milieus when improperly or maliciously
handled. In many ways, the advancement of social information science
is tremendously important, and I quite agree with the gist of the
message just received from Xueshan... we must have a specific
session devoted to it.
Along coming weeks, we can progressively ascend along the topics
related with the principles, entering into biology, and then to
other territories, perhaps until finally confronting the hottest
social challenge... At least I will periodically make suggestions in
that sense. Maintaining our usual chaoticity is not a bad thing
either--as usual navigating in between Scilla and Charybdis.
All the best
--Pedro
--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno.+34 976 71 3526 <tel:+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
<http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/>
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
