Jerry,
You said:
"Living systems are natural. Conceptual words such as analog and
digital are artifacts of human cultural history. Written symbol
systems need grammars so that we can communicate with one another.
Closure over symbol systems and "colonies" of statements are
necessary and or essential for logical expressions in written symbol
systems. Your paragraph appears to me to conflate many concepts in
such a way as to exclude nature from herself!"
What does this mean? Seems like a lot of words to me. Really, I
hope you never have to "conflate" any of your words and concepts and
dismiss them as "artifacts of human cultural history." Indeed our
analytical minds are "artifacts of human cultural history." Are they
not?
You seem opposed to my asking questions about principles that would
explain the appearance and evolution of biological information, as I
see it�that is, expressly genetic information. You would prefer
instead to account for metabolic dynamics�"flows of changes in
chemical relations." Suppose I were to say to this: What?
"Chemical relations"? I didn't know chemicals had relations. You
see, this gets us nowhere. Just words.
And what do you mean by this statement?
"Your philosophy of mathematics appears to be based in I have no idea
what."
What if I said your 'philosophy of biological evolution appears to be
based in I have no idea what'? All you are saying is that I should
chant your mantras and use your words.
And you also said:
"I have no idea why nature "ought" to follow your principles. Nature
is what nature does. So what?
"First principles" is a theological concept, is it not?
Words...digital ones, too.
"The order of the list of the chemical elements apparently proceeded
the man's expression of order by several billion years. From my
perspective, you are putting the cart before the horse."
"Cart before the horse," is a metaphor, is it not? Words...
Your mantras are analogous; mine are both analogs and digits. I say
that more than analogs, chemical or otherwise, are involved with
biological evolution. There is a clear role for digital symbolism.
Because genes are not stereochemical with respect with the proteins
they build, or even with most of the amino acids they use to build
them, I need more than just chemical analogs to see what goes on in
biological evolution. If you say that analogs and digits are only
artifacts of our cultural human history, then I would have ask what
isn't? Even the language we use to communicate our conflated
opinions are "artifacts of human cultural history."
"If one wishes multiple universes, one first has to cope with the
intrinsic mis-use of the usual definition of the noun "universe".
Personally, I would only resort to such an argument if it was the
only possibility and even then I would not use it!"
Words... Maybe "universe" is verb.
My main question remains: How did a digitally "symbolic" genetic
system arise in cells to communicate and regulate the affairs of
their chemical analogs? I know of no principles in chemistry,
physics, or biology that account for such an interesting convention.
I don't have very much trouble imagining how the chemical analogs of,
say, the Kreb's cycle might have evolved. Chemicals can be
marvelously stereochemical, you know. Conversely, I don't have a
single clue as to how the genetic Dictionary evolved�a profoundly
digital construction. Those chemical analogs are only perfunctory
nucleotides; it is their linear order that makes ALL the difference.
Regards, Richard
On Nov 17, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
> Richard:
>
> As I read your post, you seem to be involved with an internal
> debate with yourself.
>
> It appears to me that a starting point for your post is a
> philosophical perspective about your personal relationship with
> nature and I have responded in that vain.
>
> Your post suggests that you do not give serious consideration to
> the natural logic of associative relations but that is merely an
> intuitive conjecture on my part.
>
> A few comments are interlaced; my comments may or may not be
> relevant to what you had in mind.
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 5:45 PM, fis-request@listas.unizar.es wrote:
>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>>> Biological information emerges as flows of changes of chemical
>>> relations - metabolic dynamics.
>>
>> By what principle does this emergent property you describe adopt a
>> specifically digital language to manage those analogously chemical
>> affairs of biological systems? To recognize such an emergent
>> property I would have to agree to a few brave assumptions. One
>> would be that biological systems, comprising hierarchical atoms
>> and molecules, are just naturally capable of writing their own
>> operational programs. That's a reach for me, because nothing is
>> explained. Even though I am aware that organisms do exactly that,
>> there are no principles I know of to support it. HOW they do it
>> (not WHY they do it) is the key issue for me. How do analogs
>> write their own digital scripts? One again, the only other time
>> in natural history that I know of this sort of thing happening was
>> when human analogs wrote their own digitally symbolic language
>> about 10,000 years ago.
>>
>
> Living systems are natural. Conceptual words such as analog and
> digital are artifacts of human cultural history. Written symbol
> systems need grammars so that we can communicate with one another.
> Closure over symbol systems and "colonies" of statements are
> necessary and or essential for logical expressions in written
> symbol systems. Your paragraph appears to me to conflate many
> concepts in such a way as to exclude nature from herself!
>
>
>> As Stan has said:
>>
>>> Of course, the origin of the genetic system is arguably the most
>>> outstanding problem facing natural science.
>>
>> And you go on to say:
>>
>>> Thus, if one wishes to develop a compelling argument about
>>> chemical numbers and structures and genetic information, one
>>> should start with relational algebras that keep track of changes
>>> of relations... A living system is a society of associative
>>> relations among atomic numbers.
>>
>> If an emergent property truly emerges in nature I think it ought
>> to do so on first principles.
>
> I have no idea why nature "ought" to follow your principles.
> Nature is what nature does. So what?
> "First principles" is a theological concept, is it not?
>
>> Still, to argue that "biological information emerges as flows of
>> changes..." interests me. Seems a little like a DC electrical
>> system�something new for me to worry about. But how did those
>> upstart crystalline micelles, containing numerical/chemical
>> relations, learn algebra well enough to enable the emergence of a
>> genetic code? How did such a uniquely non-analogous language for
>> communicating pure digital information in biological systems come
>> into existence?
>>
> Your philosophy of mathematics appears to be based in I have no
> idea what.
> If you expect chemical atoms and molecules to follow your vision of
> algebra, you may be severely disappointed.
> The order of the list of the chemical elements apparently proceeded
> the man's expression of order by several billion years. From my
> perspective, you are putting the cart before the horse.
>
>
>> Maybe this emergent property cannot be explained in hierarchical
>> terms applying to a single universe. Maybe the emergent property
>> Jerry speaks of is evidence of another universe, a coincidental
>> one, where digits rule and analogs are the exception. Yes, it's a
>> wild idea. But I don't think there is enough hierarchy in this
>> pedestrian universe of ours to get us the principles we need to
>> explain what biological life actually is and where it came from.
>>
>
> If one wishes multiple universes, one first has to cope with the
> intrinsic mis-use of the usual definition of the noun
"universe".
> Personally, I would only resort to such an argument if it was the
> only possibility and even then I would not use it! :-)
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Mon Nov 20 21:11:00 2006
