[Fis] Info Meta-Science?

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

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.iacs at aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20171130/4a9589a6/attachment.html>