I have updated my paper on deflating genetic information. The new version is here. Details:
A deflation of genetic information
ABSTRACT: It is often claimed there is information in some biological entity or process, most especially in genes. Genetic “information” refers to distinct notions, either of concrete properties of molecular bonds and catalysis, in which case it is little more than a periphrasis for correlation and causal relations between physical biological objects (molecules), or of abstract properties, in which case it is mind-dependent. When information plays a causal role, nothing is added to the account by calling it “information”. In short, if genetic information is concrete, it is causality. If it is abstract, it is in the head.
If accepted, it will be published in Acta Biotheoretica, but I expect some more review revisions.
I am concerned about your odd stance on information. There is “information” in genes in exactly the same sense as there is information in books, CDs or flash memory. As far as I know, there isn’t much confusion about the issue.
In what sense, exactly? Shannon? Kolmogorov-Chaitin? Teleosemantic?
The information in books and on CDs doesn’t cause them to spawn copies of themselves.
What about tree-rings? A dendrochronologist can look at tree-rings and infer quite a lot about the trees history and the local climate. I look at tree-rings and see – tree-rings. Is the information in the rings or in the observer?
I would say information either records the past or predicts the future. Genes do both. (Sorry, I know that there’s not any math to support that definition).
(should have included “describes the present”, but I figure that’s a minor function for genes)
Having read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the subject, I can see some people are indeed rather confused about this topic
I also read John’s paper. I am an enthusiast of the idea of information in biology – but I don’t think that it plays an ontological role apart from matter – that would be silly. “It” is “bit” – and visa versa.
The rest of the paper (apart from that issue, I mean) seems like an attack on information-based terminology.
I’m quite happy with that – IMO, it isn’t the slightest bit misleading or inappropriate.