Dear FISers,
The recent message by Sung (& Karl), and a previous one by John T. make
me the impression that what they are considering becomes closer to a
meta-science of information rather than to the nucleus of a possible
information science discipline. Sung's and John's views are widely
different but both share a translation of fundamental principles of
life's organization slanted towards the physical. A detailed critique of
their contents is beyond the scope of the present message (previously,
it is a must applauding the very brilliant contents both have developed
in their respective research).
To the point: imagine we have a computer, a lap top, then--what should
be the fundamental explanation of its functioning? It depends on the
audience, of course. In principle, it does not make much sense to relate
it to solid state physics and electronics unless we are talking to
engineers working in VLSI design; rather, depending on the subjects'
user level we will need some basics of programming and computer science
(von Neumann scheme, Turing machine, commercial informatics, etc.).
Imagining now the parallel with the living cell, a sort of
"reverse-engineering" approach to the informational scheme of the cell
is needed, but a new one, as present views are still terribly biased by
classical molecular biology (Crick's "Central Dogma"), shallow systems
biology, and uninteresting Darwinian tenets. Without systematically
entering the external "information flow", the inner informational
architectures, the different codes related to the variety of functions,
the structure of a life cycle, the molecular "meaning"of exchanged
signals, etc., and tying good portions of all that stuff in formal
terms, our explanation will not be relevant in information terms.
Bioenergetics parties have already done their fundamental work. See for
instance the arch in between the "energy flow" by Morowitz in the 60's
and the "scaling" work by Geoffrey West in our times. Bio-information
parties are far away from constituting a similar explanatory arch. And
this is in my view the very nucleus of info sci as a consistent
discipline. Beyond that we can enter many other theoretical tools
already developed, and ascend in scales of complexity to the emerging
communicational realms stemming out from Life. That some of the new
communicational/semiotic/economic/cultural realms become more or less
independent, at least in the way they are currently conceptualized,
seems OK. We should not forget, however, that the human life cycle, with
all its materiality and aspirations, stands at the very heart of
everything we may exchange, from conversation to goods, to money, to
artworks.
Otherwise, prematurely going towards a grand narrative connected with
physics, or with maths, becomes close to a strategic error as we
overextend a confuse info idea into a meta-science (taking this with a
pinch of salt, as one never knows how our Gordian knot will be cut).
Maybe it is better leaving the possible extensions/overextensions into
the critical hands of information philosophy practitioners.
Best wishes
--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 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
