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
History Apologies to Turing 5 Sep 20094 Oct 2017 The Twentieth Century was a century of geniuses, but the greatest of all, in my opinion, was Alan Turing. Turing invented, both the logic and the first hardware, the computer you are now using to read this post. More than any other invention, Turing’s changed our world; more than Gutenberg,… Read More
Evolution Building a Milvian Bridge 10 May 2010 Paul Griffiths is presenting our paper on evolutionary skepticism and religion at the University of Wollongong tomorrow, if you happen to be in the neighbourhood: Paul Griffiths (USyd) will be presenting at the University of Wollongong Philosophy Research Seminar series on Tuesday, May 11th. All are welcome to attend. Title: “When… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design The tautology problem 20 Aug 2009 A long time ago I wrote a not particularly good piece on the tautology problem: that natural selection is merely circular definition. I was just out of being an undergraduate when it was published, so it was at best an undergraduate piece. I have been unsatisfied with it ever since…. 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.