Dear All,
After Xueshan clarion call, I partially change what I was writing. Of
course I have to thank him for his support of the 10 principles.
Actually, in connection with the recent exchanges, particularly with
Gordana's and John (Torday) posts, I was working in some ideas further
related to the principles. On the one side the general view on the "new
kind of natural science/philosophy" around information, and on the other
side the transcendentalism of life... I think they also connect with
Xueshan call of synthesis between info disciplines in his last
paragraph. Trying to be concise I present herewith three points:
First. "There is Life--and Information."
Second. "We contemplate the World."
Third. "The society around us."
1. Life and Information: In biology, information is the new mantra. All
kinds of scientific-technological-entrepreneurial gurus have proclaimed
it, based on the revolutionary discoveries and gigantic bio-data
accumulations. But scientifically, few people are trying to accommodate
a new central theory of biology that could incorporate that new
empirical reality of amazing complexity. In my own preliminary approach
I describe how the simplest cells confront "the information flows" of
their environment and couple them with the inner information flows
related to their self-production, always doing it adaptively. Regarding
the excellent work that John Torday has done on the evolutionary
organizational achievements of multicellulars, as he mentioned, there
are ample possibilities of mutual connection... Everything is rather
preliminary but at least we can open the door so that other people
behind could do it better.
In any case, around life and information, we see an amazing world of
molecular complexity in action that contains some of the fundamentals of
the new info perspective. The living cell can really "perceive" selected
portions of the world around (information flow) and regularly intercepts
them by means of its sensory apparatus (signaling system). Then it
reacts adaptively, modifying its processes and structures according to
inner stocks of permanent information (knowledge), sculpting a life
cycle, also communicating with other living cells, and really building
"molecular meaning" upon the received signals. Besides, the pervasive
horizontal gene transfer in microbial ecosystems (phages, viruses,
plasmids, sex...) has generated a collective multi-species assemblage or
genuine "planetary library" of global molecular knowledge. It is not
bombastic, as all planetary cycles of fundamental elements that sustain
all present life are based on trillions of molecular machines of
prokaryotes that have been churning around for eons. This Molecular
Internet of sorts (Sorin Sonea dixit) was the beginning, and made
possible so many things that now we may call in so many ways:
evolvability, autopoiesis, agency, informational existence, ecological
webs, ecosphere, GAIA, etc.
We may discuss quite legitimately about information physics, but
clarifying first the scientific discourse about biological information
by means of a new consistent viewpoint looks a priority (at the same
level, at least).
2. Looking at the World: After the incredible complexification of life,
nervous systems, etc. we, the improbable, the unexpected, are here. And
like our humble bacterial ancestors, we have to confront the world for
our individual living, and so we regularly contemplate and are immersed
into the quasi-infinite information flows of the environment. But this
time, by means of language, acting both as our new social communication
tool and as an open-ended symbolic system, our collective capabilities
of relating with the world have boomed. And historically we have
developed those social repositories or stocks of knowledge we call
science and all kinds of accompanying technological tools that allow us
a new contemplation and action onto the world around. Now we can sense
the most remote perceptions, we can colligate them with the different
disciplines, and produce adaptive (or non adaptive) responses, with
supposedly the final goal of advancing our lives both individually and
collectively.
The new kind of science/philosophy to establish around this
informational "looking at the world" would demand a new "observer", in
this case starting from a differentiated set of disciplinary principles
of observation. But that creates a lot of logic and scientific
difficulties. Recognizing the limitation of the agent/observer is one of
them; leaving open-ended the observable is another. I am aware of the
invincible circularity that easily surrounds all of this. So the need of
a set of new principles sidestepping the worst problems and allowing
fresh new thought. Probably, the easiest part would be the parallel
realization of a new synthesis incorporating a new stock of scientific
concepts (admittedly, most of them in the making yet); at least it could
start by a compendium of the numerous theories around information
already existing. At the end, a more "natural" and efficient approach to
our limitations in the individual and social handling of "knowledge
ecologies" would also emerge...
3. The Society Around: When we look at our societies, what we see along
history is that the biggest global changes have always been induced or
accompanied by substantial changes in the information/communication
flows around individuals: writing, codices, printing press, books,
newspapers, new media, computers, internet, social networks... Our
societies have always been "information societies." The current
acceleration of artificial information flows represents a challenge to
the most natural info flows (face to face conversation) so ingrained in
our social and psychological adaptation and personal lives.
Paradoxically, in the "information society", mental health and wellbeing
problems are steadily mounting as public health problems (a terrible
escalation of depression and suicides), plus new de-socialization
pathologies that are emerging, including the resurgence of nastiest
political movements at a global scale. We do not recognize the perils
and pitfalls of that intangible "social information" stuff, explosive
like nitroglycerine in social milieus when improperly or maliciously
handled. In many ways, the advancement of social information science is
tremendously important, and I quite agree with the gist of the message
just received from Xueshan... we must have a specific session devoted to it.
Along coming weeks, we can progressively ascend along the topics related
with the principles, entering into biology, and then to other
territories, perhaps until finally confronting the hottest social
challenge... At least I will periodically make suggestions in that
sense. Maintaining our usual chaoticity is not a bad thing either--as
usual navigating in between Scilla and Charybdis.
All the best
--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.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
