<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear All,</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I am responding to Malcolm's
interesting posting (offline, below) and to Jerry.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">My contention is that "disciplines" and
"pluridisciplines", at least in natural science, are not logical
bodies or "sequences of formalisms", but say "paradigmatic"
realizations. They contain a lot of experimental and theoretical
findings, usually in many disconnected areas, but responding to
some commonality of thinking inspired by some seminal piece of
work. It is in this sense that I was referring to those "founding
phenomena" below. They are very good pieces of experimental work
both of them that have attracted many other related works.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">With the above I also respond to Jerry,
as I was insisting on the lack of that kind of seminal work in the
biological-informational arena, a work capable of attracting
attention, followers, funding, etc., so that later on people could
say "yes, that's the bio-info kind of approach that was really
started with this work". It is the realistic sense of "paradigms"
as new foci for thought and action. The new information science
paradigm recently proposed by our colleague Yixin Zhong could well
be taken as an exemplar, tentative case. <br>
</div>
<p>Further, pointing that "None of these are <i>fundamental</i> phenomena.
They rest on other phenomena..." (by Malcolm, below) touches in my
mind two keys. But first, let me state that the whole paragraph is
quite rich and meaningful. My suggestion about biological info and
the observer is that without a multitude of concrete evolutionary
inventions, (that presumably revolve around signaling systems as
privileged handlers of the information flow) there would be
nothing, but
a scum of bacterian life in an isolated, barren planet. </p>
<p>Well, the first key about that short sentence is that it may
sound like the outdated reductionism of past decades. Why should
physics or mathematical physics be more fundamental? They also
rest on other phenomena and assumptions (social, philosophical,
mathematical, metaphysical, methodological). And these sciences
are ostensibly provisional, always in the making (e.g., suddenly
"dark matter" and "dark energy" appear from nothing and fill
everything!). The past century was a show of new, changing
fundamentalities (superstrings, q. gravities, cosmic
expansion...). So I do not buy that supposed fundamentality
(except in a restricted, comparative sense). Metaphorically the
sciences are not monarchic but republican. </p>
<p>And the other key relates to the general interrelationships
between sciences. John Dupré's work (1993) "The Disorder of
Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science"
rightly points, in my opinion, to the directions in which a richer
conception might be developed. Like in all collective endeavors of
humans, there could be "importance", "dominance", "relevance",
etc. but probably the most important term should be "knowledge
recombination." One of the troubles for the sciences involved in
planetary sustainability is not having developed an adequate
philosophy of science yet. <br>
</p>
<p>And that was it. We are approaching the end of January... and of
the NY Lecture.<br>
</p>
<p>All the best</p>
<p>--Pedro</p>
<p>PS. To Jerry repeated tests, and to those who may need checking
about the diffusion of their messages, they always can go to our
fis list archives at: <u><b><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/">http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/</a></b></u><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">El 23/01/2022 a las 3:38, Malcolm Dean
escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEu1PWA+DspXY-w1_n22frT1x7cXz6+aTqd+RLEsXvDyEjvJ6g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Thanks
Pedro,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">I applaud
the valiant struggle of <a
href="https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/21/11965"
moz-do-not-send="true">your recent paper</a>, having to
cope with the broad and messy legacy of the Bio-sciences. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="">What you have listed is a
sequence of formalisms, each depending on a lower level.
Chemistry, Molecular Physics, Natural Signals, define<i> biological</i> phenomena.
The whole "Information flow" is connected with life cycles,
multicellularity, and so on. These are all specialized
fields with their own terminologies. Secret sauces include
"life" and "consciousness." </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">None of
these are <i>fundamental</i> phenomena. They rest on other
phenomena. Significantly, you base an important part of your
argument on the ideas of S. K. Lin [Ref. 31], who explores <i>broken
symmetry</i> in Thermodynamics and Information. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Bohr
believed that to be a phenomenon, there must be an
irreversible act of amplification which carries an event to
another level, where it is recorded and interpreted.
Wheeler, his thesis student, generalized this insight in his
Observer-Participator. <i>Distinction</i> is the
fundamental phenomenon of Information processes (Bateson),
and the <i>Count-as-One</i> is the core event (Leibniz,
Badiou). Both comprise an <i>interaction</i>.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">You relate
"information flow" with the observation that "every
substance 'ingested' is first 'touched' or 'tasted.'" This
to me is the most important assertion of <a
href="https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ"
moz-do-not-send="true">Vladimir Lerner's Information
Macrodynamic (IMD) formalism</a>. IMD relates to <i>all</i>
Information processes. From the quantum to the cosmic, IMD
shows that natural regularities (Kolmogorov) produce
interactions which lead to the emergence of
hierarchical structures, intelligence, and Observership.
Each interaction "probes" the environment (action),
returning pieces of Information (re-action) which are then
processed as Hidden Information. In the biological realm,
each cycle of touching and tasting is a probe, forming an
Information (IMD) process in physical structure of the
experiencing entity, the Observer-Participator.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Best wishes
for 2022,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">— Malcolm ]<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at
11:34 AM Pedro C. Marijuán <<a
href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Thanks Malcolm.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b><span class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small"></span>Bio-chemistry</b> was
launched (say) after Whöler <b><span
class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"></span>inorganic
synthesis</b> of urea.</div>
<div><b><span class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small"></span>Bio-physics</b> was
launched after Meyerhof and Lohmann on ATP
phosphate-bond <b><span class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small"></span>energetics</b> (or
more recently, Morowitz "energy flow in the biosphere")</div>
<div><b><span class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small"></span>Bio-information</b>
was launched after... in my opinion after Ulrich and
Galperin recent works on prokaryotic (one-component) <b><span
class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"></span>signaling
systems</b>.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Why? We may finally ascertain the whole "information
flow", that <b><span class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small"></span>every substance
"ingested" is first "touched" or "tasted"</b> by the
OCSs; and we may connect this with the life cycle
advancement, with multicellularity, etc.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>So, that's the <b><span class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small"></span>defined biological
phenomenon</b>. No more secret sauces!<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best--Pedro<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>El 21/01/2022 a las 2:45, Malcolm Dean escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">Without a defined phenomenon, there will
be little progress.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Often "Information" is used like a
secret sauce.<br>
<br>
<div dir="auto">Malcolm</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded
message ---------<br>
</div>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:55:48 +0100<br>
From: Pedro C. Mariju?n <<a
href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: "'fis'" <<a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">fis@listas.unizar.es</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Fis] NEW YEAR LECTURE (Youri Timsit)<br>
Message-ID: <<a
href="mailto:8fe0691f-6d5f-7abe-d882-f2c2ed885378@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">8fe0691f-6d5f-7abe-d882-f2c2ed885378@gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8";
Format="flowed"<br>
<br>
Dear Youri and All,<br>
<br>
Gojng back to the Lecture theme, one of the things
that worries me is <br>
the biological disarray when having to deal with "the
informational." I <br>
mean, when you work with the relational properties of
these fascinating <br>
ribosomal proteins, apart of mathematical-statistical
techniques and <br>
algorithms to make sense of their interactions and
evolutionary <br>
co-adaptations, you have nothing else but to recur to
the metaphor, <br>
"molecular brains", neural like", etc.? It is fine, as
you do not have <br>
any consisting framework to refer to. It already
happened to the <br>
proponents of "bacterial intelligence", also forced to
the metaphor <br>
(Bray, Armitage...).<br>
<br>
In my view, tools from maths, statistics, computer
science, etc. are <br>
just that, tools. Ironically some of these tools
themselves had <br>
biological origins (genetic algorithms, neural
networks, perceptrons). <br>
So, my contention is that a new filed like
bio-chemistry or bio-physics <br>
would be needed concerning the
biological-informational themes, a <br>
bio-information discipline comparable to those just
mentioned. According <br>
to several authors? (me included), the prokaryotic
cell should be <br>
considered as the fundamental, basic unit of
biological cognition. <br>
Thereafter, there would be different ways to
characterize its <br>
informational processes, particularly along the
"information flow" <br>
conceptualization... interested parties may go to the
recent <br>
contribution of Jorge <span class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small"></span>Navarro and mine: <br>
<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/21/11965"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/21/11965</a>
, it is in the special issue <br>
coordinated by Youri.? I also discuss that the from
the informational <br>
thinking one could find the ways and means to renew
the outdated Modern <br>
Synthesis.<br>
<br>
Otherwise, without a clearer disciplinary framework,
am afraid the new <br>
biology will be reduced to bioinformatics and
experimental "omic" <br>
disciplines. Just another (advanced, "very advanced")
technology.<br>
<br>
Best wishes to All,<br>
--Pedro</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Libre de virus. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>