Skip to main content
Log in

The Paradigms of Biology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today there are two major theoretical frameworks in biology. One is the ‘chemical paradigm’, the idea that life is an extremely complex form of chemistry. The other is the ‘information paradigm’, the view that life is not just ‘chemistry’ but ‘chemistry-plus-information’. This implies the existence of a fundamental difference between information and chemistry, a conclusion that is strongly supported by the fact that information and information-based-processes like heredity and natural selection simply do not exist in the world of chemistry. Against this conclusion, the supporters of the chemical paradigm have pointed out that information processes are no different from chemical processes because they are both described by the same physical quantities. They may appear different, but this is only because they take place in extremely complex systems. According to the chemical paradigm, in other words, biological information is but a shortcut term that we use to avoid long descriptions of countless chemical reactions. It is intuitively appealing, but it does not represent a new ontological entity. It is merely a derived construct, a linguistic metaphor. The supporters of the information paradigm insist that information is a real and fundamental entity of Nature, but have not been able to prove this point. The result is that the chemical view has not been abandoned and the two paradigms are both coexisting today. Here it is shown that an alternative does exist and is a third theoretical framework that is referred to as the ‘code paradigm’. The key point is that we need to introduce in biology not only the concept of information but also that of meaning because any code is based on meaning and a genetic code does exist in every cell. The third paradigm is the view that organic information and organic meaning exist in every living system because they are the inevitable results of the processes of copying and coding that produce genes and proteins. Their true nature has eluded us for a long time because they are nominable entities, i.e., objective and reproducible observables that can be described only by naming their components in their natural order. They have also eluded us because nominable entities exist only in artifacts and biologists have not yet come to terms with the idea that life is artifact making. This is the idea that life arose from matter and yet it is fundamentally different from it because inanimate matter is made of spontaneous structures whereas life is made of manufactured objects. It will be shown, furthermore, that the existence of information and meaning in living systems is documented by the standard procedures of science. We do not have to abandon the scientific method in order to introduce meaning in biology. All we need is a science that becomes fully aware of the existence of organic codes in Nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The definition of meaning and semiosis in terms of coding has been discussed in depth by Stefan Artmann (2007, 2009).

References

  • Artmann, S. (2007). Computing codes versus interpreting life. Two alternative ways of synthesizing biological knowledge through semiotics. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to Biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis (pp. 209–233). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Artmann, S. (2009). Basic Semiosis as code-based control. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2003). The organic codes. An introduction to semantic biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2004). The definitions of information and meaning. Two possible boundaries between physics and biology. Rivista di Biologia-Biology Forum, 97, 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2006). Life and Semiosis: the real nature of information and meaning. Semiotica, 158(1/4), 233–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2008). Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life. Naturwissenschaften, 95, 577–599.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2007). Information theory and error-correcting codes in genetics and biological evolution. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to Biosemiotics (pp. 299–345). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2008). An outline of informational genetics. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

  • Boniolo, G. (2003). Biology without Information. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 25, 255–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgman, P. W. (1927). The logic of modern physics. Beaufort Books.

  • Chargaff, E. (1963). Essays on nucleic acids. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, J. (2008). Information in Biological Systems. In P. Adriaans & J. van Benthem (Eds.), Handbook of philosophy of science, volume 8, philosophy of information. Elsevier.

  • Danchin, A. (2009). Bacteria as computers making computers. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 33, 3–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1637). Discours de la Méthode. Leiden, The Netherlands.

  • Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar (p. 134). New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, P. E. (2001). Genetic information: a metaphor in search of a theory. Philosophy of Science, 68, 394–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, P. E., & Knight, R. D. (1998). What is the developmental challenge? Philosophy of Science, 65, 276–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen, W. (1909). Elemente der exacten Erblichkeitslehre. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lartigue, C., Glass, J. I., Alperovich, N., Pieper, R., Parmar, P. P., Hutchison, C. A., III, Smith, H. O., & Venter, J. C. (2007). Genome transplantation in bacteria: changing one species to another. Science, 317, 632–638.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1997). Foundations of biophilosophy. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Smith, J. (2000). The concept of information in biology. Philosophy of Science, 67, 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harward University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattee, H. H. (1968). The physical basis of coding and reliability in biological evolution. In C. H. Waddington (Ed.), Toward a theoretical biology (Vol. 1, pp. 67–93). Edinburgh University Press.

  • Pattee, H. H. (1972). Laws and constraints, symbols and languages. In C. H. Waddington (Ed.), Towards a theoretical biology (Vol. 4, pp. 248–258). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattee, H. H. (1980). Clues from molecular symbol systems. In U. Bellugi & M. Studdart-Kennedy (Eds.), Signed and spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form (pp. 261–274). Dahlem Konferenzen: Verlag-Chemie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattee, H. H. (1995). Evolving self-reference: matter, symbols, and semantic closure. Communication and Cognition - Artificial Intelligence, 12(1–2), 9–27. Special Issue Self-Reference in Biological and Cognitive Systems, Luis Rocha (ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattee, H. H. (2001). The physics of symbols: bridging the epistemic cut. BioSystems, 60, 5–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pattee, H. H. (2008). Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes and languages. Biosemiotics, 1(2), 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S. (1996). Biological Information. A skeptical look at some central dogmas of molecular biology. In S. Sarkar (Ed.), The philosophy and history of biology (pp. 187–231). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S. (2000). Information in genetics and developmental biology. Philosophy of Science, 67, 208–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrödinger, E. (1944). What is life? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27, 379–424. 623–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stent, G. S., & Calendar, R. (1978). Molecular genetics. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Helmont, J.B. (1648). Ortus Medicinae. Amsterdam

  • von Neumann, J. (1951). General and logical theory of automata. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms of behavior, the hixon symposium, vol. 5, No. 9 (pp. 316–318). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J. (1958). The computer and the brain. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J. (1966). The theory of self-reproducing automata. Edited and completed by A. Burks, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, Fifth Lecture, pp.74–87.

  • Wächtershäuser, G. (1997). The origin of life and its methodological challenge. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 187, 483–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wigner, E. (1964). Events, laws, and invariance principles. Wigner’s Nobel Lecture, Stockholm, l0 Dec. 1963. Reprinted in Science 145, 995–999.

  • Yockey, H. P. (1974). An application of information theory to the Central Dogma and the sequence hypothesis. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 46, 369–406.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yockey, H. P. (1992). Information theory and molecular biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yockey, H. P. (2000). Origin of life on earth and Shannon’s theory of communication. Computers and Chemistry, 24, 105–123.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yockey, H. P. (2005). Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yockey, H. P., Platzman, R. L., & Quastler, H. (Eds.). (1958). Symposium on information theory in biology. New York and London: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Gérard Battail, Cliff Joaslyn and Joachim De Beule for calling my attention to some critical points in the original draft of this paper and for suggesting very useful amendments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcello Barbieri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barbieri, M. The Paradigms of Biology. Biosemiotics 6, 33–59 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9149-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9149-1

Keywords

Navigation