Hi Pedro, John and other FISers,
(1) Thank you John for the succinct summary of your cell-based evolutionary theory. As I indicated offline, I too proposed a cell-based evolutionary theory in 2012 [1] and compared it with the gene-centered evolutionary theory of Zeldovich and Shankhnovich (see Table 14.10 in [1]). (2) I agree with Pedro that ". . . .. essential informational ideas are missing too, and this absence of the informational perspective in the ongoing evo discussions is not a good thing. . . . " I often wonder if this situation has arisen in biology because biologists blindly apply to their problems the information theory as introduced by Shannon almost 7 decades ago in the context of communication engineering without due attention paid to the fact that the Shannon-type information theory is not designed to handle the "meaning" or semantics of messages but only the AMOUNT of the information they carry. If we agree that there are three essential aspects to information, i.e., amount (e.g., my USB stores 3 Megabytes of information), meaning (e.g., the nucleotide triplet, ACG, encodes threonine), and value (e.g., the same message, 'Yes', can have different monetary values, depending on the context), we can readily see that the kind of information theory most useful for biologists is not (only) the Shannon-type but (also) whatever type that can handle the semantics and pragmatics of information. (3) One way to avoid the potential confusions in applying information theory to biology may be to recognize two distinct types of information which, for the lack of better terms, may be referred to as the "meaningless information" or I(-) and "meaningful information" or I(+), and what Pedro regarded as the missing "essential informational ideas" above may be identified with I(+) (?) (4) There may be many forms of the I(+) theories to emerge in the field of "new informatics" in the coming decades. Based on my research results obtained over the past two decades, I am emboldened to suggest that "linguistics" can be viewed as an example of the I(+) theory. The term "linguistics" was once fashionable in Western philosophy and humanities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn) in the form of "linguistic turn" but apparently became outmoded (for some unknown reason to me, a non-philosopher), but I am one of the many (including Chargaff who discovered his two parity rules of DNA sequences; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargaff%27s_rules) who believes that linguistics provide a valuable tool for elucidating the workings of living structures and processes [2, 3]. In fact we may refer to the emerging trend in the early 21st century that explore the basic relations between linguistics and biology as the "Linguistic Return", in analogy to the "Linguistic Turn" referring to the "major development in Western philosophy during the early 20th century, the most important characteristic of which is the focusing of philosophy and the other humanities primarily on the relationship between philosophy and language." ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn) (5) So, linguistics played an important role in philosophy in the early 20th century and may play a similarly important role in biology in the coming decades of the 21st century. What about physics? Does physics need linguistics to solve their basic problems ? If not linguistics, perhaps semiotics, the study of signs? The latter possibility was suggested by Brian Josephson in his lecture "Biological Organization as the True Foundation of Reality" given at the 66th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting held in Lindau, Germany, stating that “Semiotics will eventually overtake quantum mechanics in the same way as quantum mechanics overtook classical physics.” I referred to this statement as the "Josephson conjecture" in [3]. When I visited him in Cambridge last summer to discuss this statement, he did not object to his name being used in this manner. (6) If the concepts of the "Linguistic Return" in biology and the Josephson conjecture in physics prove to be correct in the coming decades and centuries, it may be possible to conclude that philosophy, biology, and physics are finally united/integrated in the framework of semiotics viewed as a generalized linguistics. All the best. Sung [1] Ji, S. (2012). The Zeldovich-Shakhnovich and MTLC Models of Evolution<http://www.conformon.net/?attachment_id=1112>: From Sequences to Species. In: Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Sprinter, New York. Pp. 509-519. PDF at http://www.conformon.net/model-of-evolution/ [2] Ji, S. (2012). The Isomorphism between Cell and Human Languages: The Cell Language Theory<http://www.conformon.net/?attachment_id=1098>. In: Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York. Section 6.1.2, pp. 164-168. PDF at http://www.conformon.net/cell_language_theory_pp_164_168/| [3] Ji, S. (2017). The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter. World Scientific Publishers, New Jersey. ________________________________ From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 8:39 AM To: JOHN TORDAY; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture head> Dear John and FIS Colleagues, Many thanks for this opening text of the NY Lecture. Indeed you have presented us an intricate panorama on one of the most obscure scientific problems of our time: the central theory of biology. As you say, we find with astonishment that there is literally no cell biology in evolution theory. And I would ad that there is no "information biology" either. A central theory becomes sort of a big Hall, where plenty of disciplinary corridors converge and later criss-cross among themselves. Darwinian theory is not that common hall for the really big, big science domain of biology. What are or where are the elements to rebuild the common Hall of the biological domain? I quote from your opening text: "It is as if the unicellular state delegates its progeny to interact with the environment as agents, collecting data to inform the recapitulating unicell of ecological changes that are occurring. Through the acquisition and filtering of epigenetic marks via meiosis, fertilization, and embryogenesis, even on into adulthood, where the endocrine system dictates the length and depth of the stages of the life cycle, now known to be under epigenetic control, the unicell remains in effective synchrony with environmental changes." It is really brilliant: a heads up reversal perspective. I think out of these ideas there are plenty of disciplinary excursions to make. One is "informational", another "topological". Putting together two different algorithmic descriptions and making them to build a torus (i.e., gastrula") as a universal departure for multicellularity also reminds the ideas of Stuart Pivart ("Omnia Ex Torus") about the primordials of multicellularity and the role of mechanical forces in the patterning of developmental processes. Echoing the ideas discussed in the Royal Society meeting (November 2016), there is a pretty long list of elements to take into account together with epigenetic inheritance (symbiogenesis, viruses and mobile elements, multilevel selection, niche construction, genomic evolution...). As I have suggested above, essential informational ideas are missing too, and this absence of the informational perspective in the ongoing evo discussions is not a good thing. i any case, it is such a great theme to ponder... Best wishes to all --Pedro On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 07:15:43 -0800 JOHN TORDAY wrote: blockquote> Dear FIS Colleagues, I have attached my New Year Lecture at the invitation of Professor Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez. The content relates a novel perspective on the mechanism of evolution from a cellular-molecular vantage-point. I welcome any and all comments and criticisms in the spirit of sharing ideas openly and constructively. Best Wishes, John S. Torday PhD Professor Evolutionary Medicine UCLA /div>
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
