Advertisement

Metabiology pp 27-68 | Cite as

Drawing a Software Space for Natural Evolution

  • Arturo CarsettiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 50)

Abstract

The genome expresses itself into a given phenotype in a complex way. Actually, at the basic level, the genome sequence codes for its own translating machinery. It determines the birth of a cellular machinery responsible, in turn, for gene regulation and expression. A particular gene, for instance, codes for RNA polymerase whose function is to transcribe the genes into messenger RNA. Without RNA polymerase there is no messenger RNA, we are faced with the absence of cellular life. However, RNA polymerase is necessary for its very synthesis because it transcribes its gene. Hence the essential circularity that characterizes living organisms. The cellular machinery “represents”, step by step, the genome into an organism realizing the final stage of what we call the embodiment process. In this sense, the genome and the cellular machinery really interact by establishing an evolving and coupled network: as we shall see one of the key results of this interaction is represented by the continuous engraving (through selection) at the level of the organisms of specific formats: among them we can distinguish, first of all, the formats relative to the architectures of sensorial perception. In this way the circularity proper to life necessarily unfolds in the conditions of Reflexivity.

References

  1. 1.
    Carsetti, A. (Ed.) (1984). Autopoiesi e teoria dei sistemi viventi. La Nuova Critica, 64.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spencer Brown, G. (1969). Laws of form. London: Allen and Unwin.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kauffman, L. H. (2018). Mathematical themes of Francisco Varela. La Nuova Critica, 65–66, [p. 72].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fuchs, C. H. (2016). On participatory realism. arXiv:1601.04360v3 [quant-ph].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andrade, J., & Varela, F. (1984). Self-reference and fixed points. Acta Applic.Matem, 2, 1–19.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soto-Andrade, J., & Varela, F. (1990). On mental rotations and cortical activity patterns: A linear representation is still wanted. Biological Cybernetics, 64, 221–223; Varela, F. (1990). Between turing and quantum mechanics there is a body to be found. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Commentary), 13, 687–688Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. New York: MIT, [p. 8]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. New York: MIT, [p. 9]Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Merleau-Ponty, M. (1958). Phenomenology of perception. New York: Routledge, [pp. x–xi].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dennett, D. C. (1993). Review of F. Varela, E. Thompson and E. Rosch. The Embodied Mind, American Journal of Psychology, 106, [p. 121–2].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Varela, F. (1995). The emergent self. In J. Brockman (Ed.), The third culture. New York: Simon and Schuster, [p. 154].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Varela, F. (1995). The emergent self. In J. Brockman (Ed.), The third culture. New York: Simon and Schuster, [p. 155].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kauffman, L. (2009). Reflexivity and eigenforms. Constructivist Foundations, 4(3), [p. 123].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kauffman, L. (2017). Eigenform and reflexivity. Constructivist Foundations, 12(3), [p. 250].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kauffman, L. (2009). Reflexivity and eigenforms. Constructivist Foundations, 4(3), [p. 127].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kauffman, L. (2009). Reflexivity and eigenforms. Constructivist Foundations, 4(3), [p. 121].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carsetti, A. (Ed.) (2004). Seeing, thinking and knowing. Meaning and self-organization in visual cognition and thought. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Benacerraf, P. (1965). What numbers could not be. Philosophical Review, 74, 47–73.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    von Foerster, H. (1981). On constructing a reality. In Observing systems (pp. 288–309). Intersystems Publications; Kohonen, T. (1995). Self-organizing maps. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quinon, P., & Zdanowski, K. (2006). The intended model of arithmetic. An argument from tennenbaum’s theorem. http://www.impan.pl/_kz/_les/PQKZTenn.pdf.
  21. 21.
    Carsetti, A. (1987). Teoria algoritmica dell’informazione e sistemi biologici. La Nuova Critica, 3–4, 37–66; Carsetti, A. (2000). Randomness, information and meaningful complexity: Some remarks about the emergence of biological structures. La Nuova Critica, 36, 47–109.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carsetti, A. (2013). Epistemic complexity and knowledge construction. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petitot, J. (2008). Neurogéometrie de la vision. Paris: Ecole Polytechnique, [p. 397].Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kant, I. (2007). Critique of pure reason (2nd ed.). London: Mac Millan, [p. 153].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chaitin, G. (1987). Algorithmic information theory. Cambridge, London.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Putnam, H. (1965). Trial and error predicate and the solution to a problem of Mostowski. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 30.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chaitin, G., & Calude, C. (1999). Mathematics/randomness everywhere. Nature, 400, 3219–3220.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Martin-Delgado, M. A. (2011). On quantum effects in a theory of biological evolution. arXiv:1109.0383v1 [p. 3].
  29. 29.
    Martin-Delgado, M.A. (2011). On quantum effects in a theory of biological evolution. arXiv:1109.0383v1 [p. 4].
  30. 30.
    Chaitin, G. (2010). Metaphysics, metamathematics and metabiology. APA, 10(1), [p. 11].zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hernandez-Orozco, S., Kiani, N. A., & Zenil, H. (2018). Algorithmically probable mutations reproduce aspects of evolution, such as convergence rate, genetic memory and modularity. Royal Society Open Science, 5, 180399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chaitin, M. F. G. V., & Chaitin, G. (2017). A philosophical perspective on a metatheory of biological evolution. Draft, September 5, 2017, [p. 3].Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chaitin, M. F. G. V., & Chaitin, G. (2017). A philosophical perspective on a metatheory of biological evolution. Draft, September 5, 2017, [p. 8].Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chaitin, M. F. G. V., & Chaitin, G. (2017). A philosophical perspective on a metatheory of biological evolution. Draft, September 5, 2017, [p. 9].Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goedel, K. (1972). In Kurt Goedel: Collected works, I, II, III (S.L. Feferman et al. eds. 1986, 1990, 1995), Oxford: Oxford University Press, [pp. 271–272].Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Carsetti, A. (2012). The emergence of meaning at the co-evolutionary level: An epistemological approach. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219, 14–23.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.La Nuova CriticaV. Lariana 7, RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations