[Fis] Fwd: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue 14

[Pedro C. Marijuán]

Thanks Malcolm.

Bio-chemistry was launched (say) after Whöler inorganic synthesis of urea.

Bio-physics was launched after Meyerhof and Lohmann on ATP 
phosphate-bond energetics (or more recently, Morowitz "energy flow in 
the biosphere")

Bio-information was launched after... in my opinion after Ulrich and 
Galperin recent works on prokaryotic (one-component) signaling systems.

Why? We may finally ascertain the whole "information flow", that every 
substance "ingested" is first "touched" or "tasted" by the OCSs; and we 
may connect this with the life cycle advancement, with multicellularity, 
etc.

So, that's the defined biological phenomenon. No more secret sauces!

Best--Pedro


El 21/01/2022 a las 2:45, Malcolm Dean escribió:
> Without a defined phenomenon, there will be little progress.
>
> Often "Information" is used like a secret sauce.
>
> Malcolm
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:55:48 +0100
> From: Pedro C. Mariju?n <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com 
> <mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>>
> To: "'fis'" <fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] NEW YEAR LECTURE (Youri Timsit)
> Message-ID: <8fe0691f-6d5f-7abe-d882-f2c2ed885378 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:8fe0691f-6d5f-7abe-d882-f2c2ed885378 at gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Dear Youri and All,
>
> Gojng back to the Lecture theme, one of the things that worries me is
> the biological disarray when having to deal with "the informational." I
> mean, when you work with the relational properties of these fascinating
> ribosomal proteins, apart of mathematical-statistical techniques and
> algorithms to make sense of their interactions and evolutionary
> co-adaptations, you have nothing else but to recur to the metaphor,
> "molecular brains", neural like", etc.? It is fine, as you do not have
> any consisting framework to refer to. It already happened to the
> proponents of "bacterial intelligence", also forced to the metaphor
> (Bray, Armitage...).
>
> In my view, tools from maths, statistics, computer science, etc. are
> just that, tools. Ironically some of these tools themselves had
> biological origins (genetic algorithms, neural networks, perceptrons).
> So, my contention is that a new filed like bio-chemistry or bio-physics
> would be needed concerning the biological-informational themes, a
> bio-information discipline comparable to those just mentioned. According
> to several authors? (me included), the prokaryotic cell should be
> considered as the fundamental, basic unit of biological cognition.
> Thereafter, there would be different ways to characterize its
> informational processes, particularly along the "information flow"
> conceptualization... interested parties may go to the recent
> contribution of Jorge Navarro and mine:
> https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/21/11965 
> <https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/21/11965> , it is in the special issue
> coordinated by Youri.? I also discuss that the from the informational
> thinking one could find the ways and means to renew the outdated Modern
> Synthesis.
>
> Otherwise, without a clearer disciplinary framework, am afraid the new
> biology will be reduced to bioinformatics and experimental "omic"
> disciplines. Just another (advanced, "very advanced") technology.
>
> Best wishes to All,
> --Pedro


-- 
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220122/8ba1e36e/attachment.html>