RE: fooling molecules

Hi Gottfried,

You commented:

<Just asking: do you mean that there is some kind of socialness at the
<biolevel?

Or a kind of bio-logic within socialness and natural language?

<May I presume, that you talk about "intelligence" at the microbio level? Do
<cells or bacteria "behave", "think", communicate? If so, are these movements
<measurable? And how?

Can we really borrow terms from the psycho-social domain and apply them at
the cell level and vice-versa? Is the 'vertical view' of information
(Michael Conrad and Pedro's cell's/firms/states) at all viable?
That's the big question.

Yes I think scientists can legitimately use metaphor without being deemed
childish poets...as long as they realise that 'fooling', 'behaviour'
'recognition' 'intentionality' 'strangeness' 'surprise' etc. are only working analogies
which (like poetic metaphor) cannot be easily measured in a linear way.
Like Humberto Maturana, we can simply throw them overboard and
take the solipsistic multiversal world view or we can and try at
communicating across the domains using the imperfect tool of language.

Even Karl Javorszky's definition 'such comes next to such' depends on the
(possibly unmeasurable) notion of 'coming' (why not 'going'?).
Can we even talk about numbers 'coming'? Is that not poeticising
mathematics?

Cheers,

John H
    

-----Original Message-----
From: by way of "Pedro C. Mariju�n" <marijuan@posta.unizar.es>
[mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 July 2002 18:14
To: Multiple recipients of list FIS
Subject: Re: fooling molecules

(from gott@ufba.br)

GOTT@UFPA.BR

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi John and James,
interested in your dialogue, from the socio-informational standpoint on.

> I introduced the point about enzymes being "fooled" by
pharmaceutical molecules (and, of course, by many natural ones, as
well), .. to emphasize a point that is stressed in the
philosophical literature on biological functions:
normativity is of the essence.<
Just asking: do you mean that there is some kind of socialness at the
biolevel?

> That is, for something to count as a
function in the proper (biological) sense of the word, there is
something that it is supposed to do, something that it can get either
right or wrong. In short, the concept of function entails that of
malfunction (as well as success, or correct function, of course).<
I see, you introduce an observer that "selects". Is this observer, in your
conception, a given environment? Or is it kind of a self-selection?

> roots of "purpose" in biology :..... insofar as information, properly
speaking, must
be recognized as having a semantic component, and insofar as meaning is
likewise a normative and teleological concept
. the ontological status of purpose and value.<

Interesting bioapproach. Eigen states it ints "steps to life", that there is
some kind of quasispecies, which acts "intentionally" as a mass phenomena.
May I presume, that you talk about "intelligence" at the microbio level? Do
cells or bacteria "behave", "think", communicate? If so, are these movements
measurable? And how?

Best,

Gottfried