Dear Jerry and colleagues,
Thanks, Jerry, for the vast, scholarly effort in your recent message. I
will be able to respond into specifics next week, at the time being I just
want to point (apart from agreement in a number of points) some excess of
emphasis in several paragraphs about the centrality of "atomic numbers"
relating bionetworks, and a dismissal of the importance of quantum
mechanics, contemplated as "merely describing the motions of electrical
particles in space and time."
And very, very briefly returning to my distinction between artificial
"information processing systems" and bionetworks "processual life cycles",
the former would do their processing by a program under the input / output
scheme, while the latter "behave" and produce "meaning" (I attempted a
cellular-molecular approach to meaning in the informal discussions a couple
of months ago), with far more generality in the latter as Rosen argued so
often. Then let me suggest that we add to the current bionetwork
discussion a parallel focus on the "logic" of the life cycle... it would,
be quite interesting hearing the opinions of the biosemiotic parties about
that.
greetings,
Pedro
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Dec 2 12:21:18 2005
