Functional information means an encoded network of functions in living organisms from molecular signaling pathways to an organism’s behavior. It is represented by two components: code and an interpretation system, which together form a self-sustaining semantic closure. Semantic closure allows some freedom between components because small variations of the code are still interpretable. The interpretation system consists of inference rules that control the correspondence between the code and the function (phenotype) and determines the shape of the fitness landscape. The utility factor operates at multiple time scales: short-term selection drives evolution towards higher survival and reproduction rate within a given fitness landscape, and long-term selection favors those fitness landscapes that support adaptability and lead to evolutionary expansion of certain lineages. Inference rules make short-term selection possible by shaping the fitness landscape and defining possible directions of evolution, but they are under control of the long-term selection of lineages. Communication normally occurs within a set of agents with compatible interpretation systems, which I call communication system. Functional information cannot be directly transferred between communication systems with incompatible inference rules. Each biological species is a genetic communication system that carries unique functional information together with inference rules that determine evolutionary directions and constraints. This view of the relation between utility and inference can resolve the conflict between realism/positivism and pragmatism. Realism overemphasizes the role of inference in evolution of human knowledge because it assumes that logic is embedded in reality. Pragmatism substitutes usefulness for truth and therefore ignores the advantage of inference. The proposed concept of evolutionary pragmatism rejects the idea that logic is embedded in reality; instead, inference rules are constructed within each communication system to represent reality, and they evolve towards higher adaptability on a long time scale.
[1]
L. A. Zedeh.
Knowledge representation in fuzzy logic
,
1989
.
[2]
John Dewey.
O desenvolvimento do pragmatismo americano
,
2007
.
[3]
Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.
The origins of order
,
1993
.
[4]
C. Peirce,et al.
Philosophical Writings of Peirce
,
1955
.
[5]
Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.
Knowledge Representation in Fuzzy Logic
,
1996,
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..
[6]
Jesper Hoffmeyer,et al.
Signs Of Meaning In The Universe
,
1996
.
[7]
H. Jane Brockmann,et al.
The selfish gene (2nd edn)
,
1990
.
[8]
Russell L. Ackoff,et al.
On purposeful systems
,
1972
.
[9]
Michael Y. Galperin,et al.
Sequence ― Evolution ― Function: Computational Approaches in Comparative Genomics
,
2010
.
[10]
N. Eldredge.
Unfinished Synthesis: Biological Hierarchies and Modern Evolutionary Thought
,
1985
.
[11]
Jakob von Uexküll,et al.
The Theory of Meaning
,
1982
.
[12]
JAKOB VON UEXKÜLL,et al.
The Theory of Meaning
,
1982
.
[13]
D. Bouchez,et al.
Arabidopsis gene knockout: phenotypes wanted.
,
2001,
Current opinion in plant biology.
[14]
Thomas A. Sebeok,et al.
Biosemiotics: The Semiotic Web 1991
,
1992
.
[15]
Jack T. Trevors,et al.
Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models
,
2006
.
[16]
A. Sharov,et al.
Self-reproducing systems: structure, niche relations and evolution.
,
1991,
Bio Systems.
[17]
J. Baldwin.
A New Factor in Evolution (Continued)
,
1896,
The American Naturalist.
[18]
R. A. Fisher,et al.
The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection
,
1931
.
[19]
William James,et al.
Essays in Pragmatism
,
1970
.
[20]
John Dewey,et al.
The essential Dewey
,
1998
.
[21]
Axel Visel,et al.
Deletion of Ultraconserved Elements Yields Viable Mice
,
2007,
PLoS biology.
[22]
R. A. Fisher,et al.
The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection
,
1931
.
[23]
Bruce H. Weber,et al.
Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection
,
1994
.