Dear Colleagues:
Pedro asks that we post some closing remarks.
My comments will be very sparse.
It appears to me that the concepts of molecular bionetworks remain as
an esoteric language that are outside the traditional language and
philosophy of science. The vocabulary is so specialized that high
entry criteria must be met before one can enter the discussion.
Although the concepts of molecular bionetworks were grounded in the
early 20 th century, they remained within the specialized discourse
of the biomedical community. During the last 3 decades of the 20 th
Century, the gradual transfer of the technical terms into common
language accelerated. With the sequencing of genomes, new
terminology was introduced and the implications of biochemistry for
ethical and economic systems became widely discussed in the public
and in government.
The language of mathematics and physics ground the abstraction of
electrical networks. Certainly, life itself is an electrical
network. But, the language of mathematics and physics seem very
remote from life itself and the network relations that sustain it.
Shannon information theory works very effectively for mechanically
encoding messages into transferable forms and transferring them from
place to place. But, Shannon's theory, after more than fifty years,
has not been shown to be representative of biological information and
certainly not representative of the geno-dynamics of molecular
bionetworks (Examples: reproduction, consciousness.)
The language of bionetworks, the language of individuals and species,
is remote from the typical language of philosophy and logic.
Consequently one finds little guidance from such sources. Stan is
one of the rare individuals whose attempts are to be acknowledged and
applauded. But, it seems to me, his attempts just miss the whole point.
So, we have a informational conundrum.
1. Aristotelian categories provide a rational basis for
classification of chemical and biological networks.
2. The empirical sciences of biochemistry, neurology, physiology,
pharmacology, toxicology and therapeutics, provide a rich source of
dynamic data that is certainly informative and carries practical
meaning to the skilled practitioners of these arts.
3. But, we lack a consistent means of quantitatively expressing the
information content of molecular bionetworks.
The depth of this conundrum appears to ensure the longevity of our
FIS discussion.
Thanks to all who contributed to the discussions.
Cheers
Jerry
Jerry LR Chandler
Research Professor
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
George Mason University
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Feb 21 19:05:56 2006
