definition vs explanation of GP


[ Follow Ups ]


Posted by ramellini on November 03, 1999 at 01:54:49:

In Reply to: Re: The genetic program: creator, demiurge, or neither? (Re: Program God) posted by Pierre on November 01, 1999 at 18:05:12:

Dear Pierre,
you say: "none of the more rigorous definitions you proposed can apply in biology to explain what the program is supposed to do".
We must distinguish between definitions, which tell us what an entity is, and explanations, which tell us how possibly an entity is. More rigorously, we call definition of the term X a sentence which lists the necessary and sufficient conditions to call X an entity, inside a certain theoretical framework; we call explanation of the entity X a sentence which lists the recognizable and ripeteable conditions of possibility of X, inside a certain theoretical framework.
So, the definition of GP is not forced to explain GP. Defining 'GP' is listing the necessary and sufficient conditions to call 'GP' an entity, inside the theoretical biology framework; explaining GP is listing its conditions of possibility, inside the theoretical biology framework. Just as an example, without no claims of being exhaustive, we could call GP the system of information necessary to maintain a cell, while we could explain GP saying that it must take root on a set of certain chemical substances, it must derive from a preceding GP similar to it, and so on.


Follow Ups: