GE Morton wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 12:48 pmBiological phenomena are not "information systems." An "information system" is a system WE invent to store or communicate information, i.e., knowledge we have gained about some state of affairs which we consider worth retaining and communicating. Libraries and radio transmitters and telephones and computers are information systems. Rose bushes and amoeba are not.
QUOTE:
"[T]here are three main ways of talking about information:
(a) Information
as reality, e.g. patterns, fingerprints, tree rings;
(b) Information
for reality, e.g. commands, algorithms, recipes;
(c) Information
about reality, i.e. with an epistemic value, e.g. train tables, maps, entries in an encyclopaedia.
Something may count as information in more than one sense, depending on the context. For example, a person's iris may be an instance of information
as reality (the pattern of the membrane in the eye), which provides information
for reality (e.g. as a biometric means to open a door by verifying the identity of the person), or
about reality (e.g. the identity of the person). But it is crucial to be clear about what sense of information is being used in each case: (a)
physical, (b)
instructional, (c)
semantic."
(Floridi, Luciano.
Information: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. pp. 74-5)
:QUOTE
As for the concept of
biological (genetic) information:
QUOTE:
"In the precise sense in which one may speak of semantic information, genetic information can hardly count as an instance of it. It simply lacks all its typical features, including meaningfulness, intentionality, aboutness, and veridicality. DNA contains the genetic code, precisely in the sense that it physically contains the genes which code for the development of the phenotypes. So DNA does contain genetic information, like a CD may contain some software. But the genetic code or, better, the genes, are the information itself. Genes do not
send information, in the sense in which a radio sends a signal. They work more or less successfully and, like a recipe for a cake, may only partly guarantee the end result, since the environment plays a crucial role. Genes do not
contain information, like envelopes or emails do, nor do they
describe it, like a blueprint; they are more like performatives: 'I promise to come at 8 pm' does not describe or contain a promise, it does something, namely it effects the promise itself through the uttered words. Genes do not
carry information, as a pigeon may carry a message, no more than a key carries the information to open a door. They do not
encode instructions, as a string of lines and dots may encode a message in Morse alphabet. True, genes are often said to be the
bearers of information, or to
carry instructions for the development and functioning organisms, and so forth, but this way of speaking says more about us than about genetics. We regularly talk about our current computers as if they were intelligent—when we know they are not—and we tend to attribute semantic features to genetic structures and processes, which of course are biochemical and not intentional at all. The 'code' vocabulary should not be taken too literally, as if genes were information in a
semantic-descriptive sense, lest we run the risk of obfuscating our understanding of genetics. Rather, genes are instructions, and instructions are a type of predicative and effective/procedural information, like recipes, algorithms, and commands. So genes are dynamic procedural structures that, together with other indispensable environmental factors, contribute to control and guide the development of organisms. This is a perfectly respectable sense in which biological information is indeed a kind of information. Dynamic procedural structures are a special type of informational entities, those that are in themselves instructions, programs, or imperatives."
(Floridi, Luciano.
Information: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. pp. 79-80)
:QUOTE
