Re: [Fis] Information, autopoiesis, life and semiosis (Part I)

Dear Soeren,
Dear colleagues,

Many thanks for the discussion document. Indeed you have produced a very
vast outlook of subjects related with Autopoiesis and Meaning.

In this preliminary comment, let me leave aside most of the 'tree' of
interrelated subjects and concentrate on just a particular 'branch' (if I
am capable!). My very simple question-problem would be about the extent to
which the Autopiesis concept would 'pass' today an in-depth examination on
its biomolecular validity.

I mean, more than 30 years have elapsed since Maturana and Varela proposed
it, after a very interesting criticism by the former on the
representationalist approach to neuroscience. Thereafter they turned to the
nascent molecular biology of the cell in order to produce a unified view of
biological cognition, amplifying and generalizing their neural dissidence,
so to speak. With virtues and defects already pointed out in that time,
their heterodox views got better spread and recognition than germane
concepts proposed close by: self-transcendence, auto-genesis,
auto-catakinesis...

In the intervening decades, molecular biology has been caught by a
fantastic 'information revolution' and almost everything has changed. Now
we have a spray of brand new bioinformatic disciplines, including genomics,
proteomics, metabolomics, and 'signaling science'. In the simplest cells,
we have new knowledge for instance about the massive extension of
'horizontal gene transfer' (it has been called the 'Internet' of
prokaryots: plasmids, viruses, phages, transposons...), or about the
fascinating variety of colonies and 'multicellularity' mechanisms (eg,
anti-apoptotic compounds supporting coloniality and sociality in microbes),
or about the SOS systems in charge of producing massive mutational
phenomena, or the vastness and complexity of protein degradation.... all
these singular elements, and quite many others particularly from signaling
science and protein degradation fields, suggest (at least) an initial
revision of the 'organizational closure' implied by the autopoietic approach.

Perhaps with more difficult grounds, I also think that 'signaling science'
offer new cues for (rather than following strictly with the 'structural
coupling' notion) advancing a direct discussion on 'meaning' at the
cellular level. In any case, I agree that right now most of that discussion
cannot be advanced too far. Even if we could produce interesting
theoretical approaches to the outside or 'message' part of communication
(eg, Shannonian, or partitional) we have no idea on how to interrelate it
with the advancement of a life cycle. It is in this context where I
speculate that Michael Leyton's approach to a 'generative processes'
grammar could be fundamental. But connecting group theory with molecular
biology looks daunting (could some other new mathematical stuff bring some
help---Jerry?)

No doubt that the current session was addressed for freely speculating with
the most philosophical and general ideas, as Soeren as done. However, if
some branch of it (or 'tangent' as Ted's so aptly put last year) produces a
convergence upon the natural science stuff already discussed at fis
(molecular recognition, entropy, symmetry, partitions, process grammar,
information genera, etc.) we can have an even more interesting result for
most of us.

best regards

Pedro
Received on Fri Jan 23 15:08:09 2004