<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Dear FISers,</p>
<p>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). <br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>Best wishes</p>
<p>--Pedro <font size="+2"> </font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-------------------------------------------------
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)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/">http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</a>
------------------------------------------------- </pre>
</body>
</html>