mturner

**
Hi owleye,

Sorry, I over-looked this post.

The problem with mitosis is that neither information, nor code, nor information, is in fact transmitted; at least not in the external sense, as between two distinct entities. Any comunication takes place between the parts of a single entity, and only after that communication is completed does the one entity become two. Endogenous and exogenous communication are different, I believe, in that endogenous communication does not require transmission, but assimilation.

pax,

mturner

Principia

Whoa...

When a DNA polymerase comes along during the S phase of the cell cycle, and duplicates the DNA, no 'transmission' of information has occured? So, DNA->RNA is transmission of information, yet DNA->2 DNA is not?

SC

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

owleye

mturner....

"The problem with mitosis is that neither information, nor code, nor information, is in fact transmitted; at least not in the external sense, as between two distinct entities."

If I'm to understand this provision of yours, in what way should I understand the growth and development of an organism. Am I to understand that this requires no intelligence, code, or information transmitted, at least in the external sense? And for this reason, should I think that such a process has reduced significance in your thesis?

But let me press on. How about asexual reproduction? Is there any intelligence, etc. transmitted here?

owleye

mturner

**
I was not considering 'communication' as synonymous with 'transmission', as I could not visualize transmission as an internal process. That was probably a mistake. My knowledge of cell biology is too limited go further with this line of enquiry. Obviously the intelligence and information in the parent cell is imparted to its two sub-divisions; call it transmission if you like. I should think the same applies to asexual reproduction, but again, I don't know enough about
it to discuss it, or even speculate about it.

In all life there is intelligence and information, and wherever and whenever necessary, communication/transmission of information to and from intelligent entities. Within a single entity information is, perhaps, realized or actualized, rather than communicated/transmitted. I don't know. Perhaps its six of one half dozen of the other, or perhps they are, at bottom, the same thing. You tell me.

pax,

mturner

owleye

mturner...

"I was not considering 'communication' as synonymous with 'transmission', as I could not visualize transmission as an internal process."

It was because you chose 'intelligence' as a requirement for 'communication' but that in your references, it never seemed to get past 'transmission' that I went down the path I did. Note that transmission is not really an internal process, if you think of cells as individual entities. On the other hand, it can be considered an internal process in every case, if the "entity" is sufficiently large to encompass the sub-entities that receive this information. I have to say, I find your uses of 'transmission', and, even more so, 'communication', rather poor metaphors for what happens in biology. It is going to be tough sell, then, to convince me that what you have to say makes any sense at all. It is probably best then, to change the metaphor, as you have done in the following:

"Obviously the intelligence and information in the parent cell is imparted to its two sub-divisions; call it transmission if you like."

I find it interesting that in mitosis, the daughter cells have replaced the parent cell. One becomes two. Since in mitosis, it is expected that each of the daughter cells is exactly like what was the parent cell, using your new metaphor, no new intelligence and information is imparted. The two daughters are in every way alike, except for one thing, namely they are in different relative locations, both with respect to every other copy and with respect to the world of the environment. It is this feature which is responsible for the determination of variation in cell function within the larger organism. Some cells provide a boundary layer for the entire organism, other cells serve other duties, and so forth. Each cell does this, from its origin in the orginating parent cell, because each cell contains all the information needed to do its job wherever it finds itself. It is like the termite mound that is constructed by a colony of termites. Each termite has within its assemblage of cells, the design of the termite mound, and there is little need to inform the other ants doing this construction what tasks are needed. All the colony needs are the resources from the surrounding area.

"I should think the same applies to asexual reproduction, but again, I don't know enough about it to discuss it, or even speculate about it."

The reason for bringing it up was to continue the line I thought you were taking with respect to "internal" vs. "external". In asexual reproduction, as occurs in earthworms, for example, I can split an earthworm in two, and each will regrow its lost part, to form two independent worms. Many, if not most plants have this capability as well. Indeed, grafting, and other techniques permits multiple individuals to be created from the same root stock. Moreover, cloning is a form of asexual reproduction. The question of 'internal' and 'external' gets very fuzzy after a while.

"In all life there is intelligence and information, and wherever and whenever necessary, communication/transmission of information to and from intelligent entities. Within a single entity information is, perhaps, realized or actualized, rather than communicated/transmitted. I don't know."

This is where we began, of course. But, I have yet to comprehend what this is supposed to mean. Perhaps the real question comes down to the significance you put in "communication." Since up to this time, I've only discovered in your thesis, the transmission of DNA, (possibly substituting the capability of imparting of DNA), I have to ask, how important is communication to your thinking, which I'd think requires at a minimum two interacting substances that use symbols to communicate with, that each of them already understands? So far I haven't seen any interaction of this sort. Could you provide a few examples of communication that is not strictly transmission that you think reveals the kind of intelligence you are promoting.

owleye

mturner

[QUOTE]Originally posted by owleye:
[QB]Perhaps the real question comes down to the significance you put in "communication." Since up to this time, I've only discovered in your thesis, the transmission of DNA, (possibly substituting the capability of imparting of DNA), I have to ask, how important is communication to your thinking, which I'd think requires at a minimum two interacting substances that use symbols to communicate with, that each of them already understands? So far I haven't seen any interaction of this sort. Could you provide a few examples of communication that is not strictly transmission that you think reveals the kind of intelligence you are promoting.

Hi owleye;

I don't really understand what you are getting at. I thought that we'd just decided that communication is transmission?!? My thesis, if you like, is simply the reality of biosemiotics. That is, biological communication, between two 'intelligences', of specific information, which is transmitted via a medium which contains a mutually understood sign, or group of symbols, or whatever.
Communication can be very simple. A ref blows a whistle, and play stops. Because both ref and players know what the sound of the whistle signifies. Simple body language, facial expressions, clothes, cars, jewelry, etc. communicate a 'message' to an observer. Biological communication can be every bit as simple. The DNA code is a very complex form of communication. Other communications may be much simpler. In the case of mitosis, perhaps there is no communication at all, but merely an automatic multiplicative function. As I said, I don't know.

pax,

mturner

owleye

mturner...

"I don't really understand what you are getting at. I thought that we'd just decided that communication is transmission?!?"

Well, what I got from you is "whatever you wish to call it." If it was up to me I wouldn't agree that communication is transmission. Moreover, the distinction is crucial I think. Whereas I might tend to agree with you that communication requires intelligence, I can't say the same thing about mere transmission. In transmission, all that happens is that a copy of the code is performed by a process of cell division (in mitosis) and this doesn't require any feedback to the prior generation (something that would be required to call it communication) particularly since the prior generation is gone. There is no "foresight." Whatever happens as a result of the cell division brings about the onset of new generation in which old generation is now history. It has gone -- it has no further influence on the course that the new generation takes. The code, containing the instructions for what to do, depend only on the micro-environment of each cell. The proteins they create on the basis of that environment are limited. Indeed, it is very possible for the genes to screw up and develop cancerous tissue that serves to terminate life itself. How intelligent can it be to do that?

"My thesis, if you like, is simply the reality of biosemiotics. That is, biological communication, between two 'intelligences', of specific information, which is transmitted via a medium which contains a mutually understood sign, or group of symbols, or whatever. "

This is my problem with your thesis. There isn't any two "intelligences." The parent generation is replaced by the child generation.

"Communication can be very simple. A ref blows a whistle, and play stops. Because both ref and players know what the sound of the whistle signifies. Simple body language, facial expressions, clothes, cars, jewelry, etc. communicate a 'message' to an observer."

I'll concede that this represents intelligence, but this hardly gets to your point about DNA.

"Biological communication can be every bit as simple. The DNA code is a very complex form of communication."

First, the above is not simple by any means. In particular, there is an implied language in which meaning is communicated through it. Secondly, I got the impression from what you've said before that DNA code are merely symbols, not even qualifying as a language. Third, as above, I'm not convinced that the DNA code is a form of communication, much less complex. Indeed, I understand it to be fairly straightforward.


"Other communications may be much simpler. In the case of mitosis, perhaps there is no communication at all, but merely an automatic multiplicative function. As I said, I don't know."

All I can see is a mass of confusion, I'm afraid.

owleye