Update: Genetic information paper 22 Jan 2010 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. Genetics Metaphysics Philosophy Science
Biology A current list of species concepts 18 Nov 201718 Nov 2017 As part of my book, I have updated the list of species concepts. Thought you lot might like this: Species conceptions Basic Convention Taxonomic species [TSC] Diagnostic Morphospecies [MSC] Genealogy Evolutionary species [ESC] [Monophyly] Phylospecies [PSC] Gene-based Genetic species [GSC] Reproductive reach Biospecies [BSC] Ecological niche Ecospecies [EcSC] Replacement concepts… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design Travel Diary 11: Notre Dame 3 Nov 2009 This conference is turning out to be interesting, in a kind of weird way. I am very much the agnostic in the Catholic lion’s den, but so far the lions haven’t so much as looked my way hungrily. I did have an interesting discussion tonight with Simon Conway Morris, and… Read More
Evolution The evolution of bacon 7 Jun 20117 Jun 2011 From Calamities of Nature… The alt text reads “Ironically enough, four billion years later the world witnessed the birth of the first bacon creature, which just happened to be a direct descendent of Harold.” Read More
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).
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.