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
Epistemology The undergraduate effect and the gravity wells of knowledge 7 May 201122 Jun 2018 As usual, Randall Munroe nails it (although if I were playing with that metaphor, I’d say that density distorts the sheet). But I like metaphors, because unfortunately I have the mathematical ability and skills of a drunken frog. So I am going to use a metaphor as a metaphor, if… Read More
Evolution Quetelet and the origin of statistical and population thinking 4 Jun 2009 Adolphe Quetelet is a much overlooked figure in the history of scientific methodology: he marked that populations had distributed properties that were largely constant, even though individuals varied in ways that seemed indeterminate. He noted that hat sizes and belt sizes were constantly distributed in different samples. Will Thomas at… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design The origin of “intelligent design” in the 18th and 19th centuries 9 Nov 20139 Nov 2013 A question asked on the talk.origins group by reader Garamond Lethe led me to do some reading and writing, which I do below the fold. He asked: I’m looking for an article that detailed the history of the term “intelligent design” prior to its use by the DI. I have… 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.