<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      sound like the outdated reductionism of past decades.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>