<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A Snow Job
Review: Full of prolix verbiage, intellectual snobbery, interesting similes and metaphors, and too many cliches, The Touchstone of Life is a "snow job". After struggling to read it even after the benefit of attending many seminars on molecular recognition which had the real biochemistry set out, I did not learn anything new.
Maxwell's Demon is presented (p4) as a contradiction of the second law of thermodydamics. A better description was easily found: http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm
This also explains that the demon could not really succeed. Also, this website goves the better explanation of entropy as randomness, not disorder, which is the 19th century German explanation. I do not agree that Figure 1.4.4 contains less information than any of the others.
The author can certainly see the forest for the trees, in attempting a grand synthesis of string theory, quantum electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and molecular recognition. However, there was a serious set of failures to see the trees for the forest. For example, on p30, in the caption for Figure 3.1b, the carboxyl group is identified as COO-. Actually this is the carboxylate anion. A carboxyl group is COOH. An amino group is given as NH3+. In fact this is an ammonium group missing a bond. An amino group is -NH2. In Figure 4.1 on p59 the glutamine is shown with a C-NH3 group with the + charge missing. In this reaction there is ADP on the left with no ADP and Pi on the right. The plus signs are missing. In the caption the ammonium ion is given as NH3. This is quite wrong; it should have been NH4+.
On p60 in Figure 4.2 blue light is shown at 500 nm; in fact, 500 nm looks green. Ultraviolet light is shown as going from 0-290 nm; in fact, the usual definition is that it extends from 150-390 nm. The shorter wavelengths actually encompass Xrays, gamma rays and cosmic rays. The Figure 9.5 on p180 does a much better job with a logarithmic scale, but the ranges of UV and visible light are still odd.
The explanation for the DNA codes for amino acids, the 3-base groups, was very involved. The combinations of 4 DNA bases taken 3 at a time may be simply seen as the minimum information needed to distinguish between about 20 amino acids. Thus 4x3x2x1 = 24.
There must be a better source of understanding on molecular recognition than this.
Rating: 
Summary: read it for the science
Review: I agree with reviewer Ho. Fruity prose, but read it.
Loewenstein's idea that "information" is the organizing principle of life is very shallow. Early on he equates energy, negative entropy, biological structure, and sequences of reactions and tries to call them all information. This immediately breaks down as his explanations require him to distinguish which information he is talking about, or he lets the reader puzzle out what he means. It amounts only to a failed rhetorical device. Especially annoying is the repeated construction "huge amounts of information" which is edited with a thesarus to read "large/ vast/ immense/ enormous/ astronomic/ titanic /Gargantuan/ massive(!) amounts of information". He says in the introduction that he had an "apparition" of "molecular information flow[ing] in gracefully interlaced circles." Hallucination is more like it.
Prof. Loewenstein and his editors have a groan-provoking penchant for stock phrases and clichés. In a *six* page passage: "day and age ... no stone left unturned ... law and order ... thick of things ... pass muster ... bargain-basement ... get what you pay for ... quicksands lurk ... that tack takes us ... head smack into ... make a stab at ... something in the wind ... broke the ice ... plain-vanilla". It may be significant that this six pages is a hand-waving discussion of reverse transcription in evolution. But there are literally dozens more, especially in the first half of the book, appearing once each as if a catalog of folk phrases: "johnnies-come-lately ... safe bet ... trick is turned ... real McKoy ... simple as ABC ... run-of-the-mill ... cut its wisdom teeth ... whole hog ... first blush ... "
Those complaints aside the book is nicely balanced between thought-provoking concepts and clear explanations of cellular mechanisms. Detailed diagrams support the text about every other page. Useful lists of readings and references are included. So if you can handle the grotesque metaphorical collisions, or even have fun with them, this book is no flash-in-the-pan.
Rating: 
Summary: A cancer cure?
Review: I enjoyed the book, which covers a lot of ground. But I did find it a difficult read at times. I nearly put it down in the middle, but was rewarded greatly when I read the section on a possible cancer cure. As a computer programmer, I wiew Werner as a great reverse engineer. He has examined cell to cell communcation channels down to the microcode level and has possibly discovered some bugs in nature. In particular his section on the algorithm of cell growth regulation along with his experiments to confirm his findings seem to bring us to within an eyelash of a cure. I expect a nobel prize could come of this. But as a programmer, I often think I have "finally found" the problem, only to be shocked by my most recent test. So only time will tell, but I am very hopeful because Werner's logic makes such good sense.
Rating: 
Summary: The book about information economy of self-developing system
Review: It has 16 pages of reference section, 7 pages of subject index.
Many figures, but almost all of them are from regular textbook (structure of DNA, protein etc). The book is about the information economy of self-developing system, and intercellular communication network.
Like many other authors in this field, Loewenstein is fascinated by the "information" in biological world. He says there is fundamentally deeper, connoting a cosmic principle of oraganization and order.
The book is way too long, but contains few novel idea. 333 pages with very small fonts. I didn't have time to finish it. Good editor could condense it to 1/10 of this volume.
Rating:
Summary: "Lady evolution" at her best
Review: The book is really a must read for anyone interested in the subject of biological information and cell communication. Dr Loewenstein treats the subject from an evolutionary perspective and so I think a good book to read in conjunction with this one is "In The Beginning Was Information" by Werner Gitt. Loewenstein takes us from a simple problem that was not answered until the concept of information was discovered by science. This field of information will no doubt be the proof that either spoils or makes the pudding in the evolution vs. creation debate. The communication within a living organism and the information exchange mechanism is quite fascinating as Loewenstein points out quite thoroughly by the use of analogy. The book is difficult to read in places and he gets quite technical so the reader should not expect to sail through it but it is definitely worth the effort. After reading Gitt's book I was left with the impression that Loewenstein did not understand the full nature of meaningful information. Claude Shannon deals with information from a mostly statistical and mechanical perspective and Loewenstein does not go beyond that level in the book. The mechanics are fascinating but I am afraid that Dr Loewenstein has failed to explain where the 'foundations of life' comes from. His constant answer when he reaches a gap in knowledge is to say that 'Lady evolution' did it. Werner Gitt on the other hand goes way beyond the statistical level and shows the true nature of the coded information contained in DNA. Loewenstein's book however is invaluable especially as it explores cell communication. I am quite happy that I purchased the book and I will probably use it as a reference tool for years to come. I only rated it with four stars because I think he over did it a little in his constant references to 'Lady evolution' and what 'she' supposedly did. This is a rather typical 'evolution in the gaps' argument and it is to be expected now days but I had to chuckle a few times when he inserted 'her' into the discussion as if we all know that 'she' can do just about anything if she is given enough time and if the reader has enough faith. Read Gitt's book and his and decide for yourself who or what is the foundation of life. I am the author of "The Blind Atheist".
Rating:
Summary: Loewenstein's philosophy
Review: The concepts put forward in "The Touchstone of Life" seem reasonable on an intuitive level. However, a significant amount of the underlying science is mis-interpreted and the logical arguments are not internally consistent. In particular, the concept of information presented here is nothing like that defined by Shannon, despite what the book claims. For similar ideas, but in an historically important book with correct science, I recommend Schrodinger's "What is Life?". For information theory, Shannon and Weaver's "The Mathematical Theory of Communication" is surprisingly readable.
Rating:
Summary: "The Unit of Life" Explained
Review: The Touchstone of Life I was fuzzy on the meaning of the word "touchstone" and therefore consulted two dictionaries. It has two separate but related meanings: a stone used to measure (or test) the quality of metals, such as gold and silver; also, a means by which to determine authenticity. The title of Loewenstein's book suggests that he will discuss "the" (not "a") touchstone of "life." Hmmm. My curiosity was aroused. For me, reading this book proved to be a difficult but rewarding intellectual experience. In it, Loewenstein examines molecular information, cell communication, and the "foundations of life." His original purpose was to write a book about intercellular communication but, as he got to "the heart" of this subject, "a picture materialized seemingly out of the blue: a continuous intra- and intercellular network where, with DNA at the core, molecular information flowed in gracefully interlaced circles. That apparition had an allure I could not resist, and so this became a book about information." The timing of the book's publication (1999) coincides with (a) numerous and significant revelations concerning the interaction of the brain with the mind and (b) rapid development of the Internet, especially of the WWW. As a non-scientist, I was fascinated by Loewenstein's analysis of "interlaced circles" and their relevance to the technological transmission of information. (In Holding On to Reality, Albert Borgmann addresses several of the same issues Loewenstein does but from somewhat different perspectives.) As Loewenstein explains in the Introduction, he set out to prove that "this information flow, not energy per se, is the prime mover of life -- that molecular information flowing in circles brings forth the organization we call `organism' and maintains it against the ever-present disorganizing pressures in the physics universe. So viewed, the information circle becomes the unit of life." Part One introduces the entity Information; Part Two "takes up the full-grown weft of circles, the intracellular communication network; Part Three deals with the intercellular communication network, "the web that ties all cells of an organism together; and Part Four provides "a short philosophical foray where we see the principle [ie the principle of information economy which is, for Loewenstein, the guiding principle of biological evolution] through to its heuristic conclusion." Who will most enjoy reading this book? Loewenstein claims to have written it both for the scientist and other reader with an interest in science..."no specialized knowledge of biology or physics is assumed in advance." In my opinion, however, such knowledge would be very helpful. Back to the question. As a non-scientist, I highly recommend it to all the other non-scientists out there who occupy decision-making positions in their organizations and who ask the following questions: 1. What is the nature of "the information circle"? 2. What are its primary functions, possible applications, and potential benefits? 3. What is its relevance to the Internet and, especially, to the WWW? 4. Finally, how can the answers to these first three questions be of specific value to my own organization? Loewenstein provides (or at least suggests) answers to #1-3. In process, he helps his reader to determine an appropriate answer to #4. Although I have neither gold nor silver of questionable quality, I do have some business issues of questionable authenticity which Loewenstein has prepared me to address with much greater precision.
Rating: 
Summary: Cutting edge science...but fruity prose
Review: There are two books wriggling between the covers of this volume. On the one hand, there is a superb exposition of cell biology and molecular biology, mainly towards the end of the book. This is as it should be, given that the author was a leading figure in cell biology and biophysics. On the other hand, there is a spectacularly lame attempt to write a Book of Ages, yes, with Capitalisation of Words involved and some of the most fruity prose you will see this side of a Creationist text. Let me give you an example "These modest assymetric molecular geneses were nursed with information from photons coming in from the cosmos. The nascent molecules suckled photons, as it were." Nursed? Suckled? Do you have a picture of a nascent molecules with breasts? Probably a diatomic molecule. Here's another, "In our journey down the information stream, we shunted our boat, by a little sleight of hand, to the 'mainstream' in the DNA-to-protein segment. Had we sailed down by the book, we might have been sucked in sideways and gone in dizzying circles" Follow? Follow the stream, I mean? I would have thought that metaphors be treated gently with good writing, but they're rife in this book. Nevertheless, when Lowenstein isn't trying to be Keats, this is quite a majesterial survey of molecular biology. This is particular evident in the discussion of inter-cellular communication, of which Lowenstein is one of the undisputed masters. Indeed, when discussing his own work, the prose is suddenly emptied of metaphors and sharpens into tight well-written scientific prose. However, I find a serious problem with one of the central tenets of the book - that all of molecular biology can be united into the central idea of information. The problem is, no one knows how to calculate information in molecular or cellular systems. True the equation of Shannon's information and Boltzmann's entropy is the same. But to calculate the information of, say a DNA molecule, which Lowenstein argues you can in principle do, one must specify all of the other states from which the DNA molecule is constructed out of. That is, you must find the boundary condition. But this is hopelessly ambiguous. Is it the atoms stripped apart in a soup? Or is it the sum of all possible DNA sequences of all possible lengths? And I haven't even considered the difficulties of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. The problems multiply once you consider interactions between DNA and any, or all other molecules. Given there is no way to calculate or algorithmically unambiguously pin down information, it is simply a rhetoric ploy to talk about the transfer of information. Anyway, I ignored all the musings on the Power of Information and what remains is a substantial meditation on the state of the art molecular biology. If you're willing to work through the dense material, some of the most cutting edge ideas on DNA, RNA, replication, structural biology of cells are here.
Rating:
Summary: Assumptions of Simplicity
Review: Two years after being recognized as the 1988 Nobel Laureate in Medicine, Sir James Black was asked by a reporter for a national newspaper in England to share his opinions on the evolution of scientific inquiry. He reportedly said that we could expect to witness: "The progressive triumph of physiology over molecular biology." Regrettably, eleven years later, Werner Lowenstein published a book that attempts to do the exact opposite. Lowenstein makes it crystal clear that no signs of progress toward such a triumph of physiology over molecular biology will ever be found in his work. In his response to the reporter, Sir James reflected the view that physiology is the same basic science as the "physis" studied by Hippocrates and his colleagues--a non-linear science of great complexity, not reducible to linear concepts or terms such as those now prevalent in molecular biology--concepts and terms that have been derived from Newtonian physics and Cartesian dualism, and now from contemporary information theory. Consider the observations published in 1993 by F. Eugene Yates, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles:
"Physics is about simple beings and becomings, characterized by uniformity and generality: all electrons in the universe are alike; there are few kinds of quarks and only four basic forces--perhaps only one. Biology, in contrast, presents diversity and specialness of form and function, and sometimes a striking localness of distribution of its objects. Biological systems are complex by any definition of the term. Physics is a strongly reductionistic science, and has prospered in that style; but conceptually biological sciences now suffer from permeation by a mechanistic reductionism in the guise of two limiting and inappropriate metaphors: (1) the dynamic metaphor of organisms as machines and (2) the 'information' metaphor, of life as a text written on DNA. ...[B]oth metaphors are false and destructive of conceptual advances in the fundamental understanding of complex living systems that self-organize, grow, develop, adapt, reproduce, repair and maintain form and function, age, and die. ...Physicists make the Assumption of Simplicity--that in spite of the mathematical and other complications that may veil our vision, Nature is simple, both in composition of material objects and in rules for change. Biologists, on the other hand, take complexity as a given for the systems of interest to them. Although there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes a complex system, at the heart of the concept is some kind of non-reducibility--the behaviour we are interested in evaporates when we try to reduce the system to a simpler, better understood one (Stein 1989; Yates 1993). Furthermore, biological systems are inherently, fundamentally, and profoundly non-linear. ...The physical basis of life involves at least six attributes of non-linearity, broken symmetry, dissipation of free energy, complexity, orderly disorder, and marginal dynamic stability. Perhaps these attributes collectively constitute a sufficiently unique set to justify considering living systems as a fourth state of matter." (Logic of Life, pp.189-206). (Emphasis is in the original). Yates has provided us with a good list of examples of the vast and pivotal differences between diametrically opposite ways of looking at nature and of thinking about the most complex natural organism yet to evolve, the human body with its "unique set" of attributes,--that is, the organismic way, or the mechanistic, deterministic, and reductionistic way: "Living systems are predominantly not state-determined
Living systems are predominantly not DNA-determined
Living systems are predominantly not structurally stable
Living systems are predominantly not far-from- equilibrium
Living systems are predominantly not highly ordered or 'negentropic'
Living systems are predominantly not far from noise communicationally
Living systems are predominantly not program driven
Living systems are predominantly not digital-computational" In direct contradiction to Yates's trenchant examples of the processive attributes of human organisms, Lowenstein's thinking rests upon an "assumption of simplicity," and thus on an unbelievable notion that human bodies are structurally stable; are DNA-determined; are program driven; and are digital-computational. At cellular and molecular levels, the language of intercellular and intracellular recognition and communication processes is written in carbohydrates, sugars. One will look in vain to find either term in Lowenstein's Index. Carbohydrates are complex, far more complex than proteins, therefore let us speak of proteins and ignore the crucial, sine qua non role and function of eight or more sugars in cell-to-cell communication. The following words of Robert Rosen are relevant to the point at issue: "If somatically an organism is a machine to be understood in purely syntactic, reductionistic terms, then life is only a matter of putting its fractions back together. But as we all know, it is literally not that simple. ...No (finite) concatenation of syntactic models of an organism yields something which must be an organism. ...Organisms are not in this class of systems. ...Just as we cannot concatenate syntactic models to obtain an organism, we cannot, for that same reason, concatenate reductionistic fractions to get an organism. ...Something else is needed to characterize what is alive from what is complex. Rachevsky provided this in his idea that biology was relational, and that relational meant (as we stated it) throwing away the physics and keeping the organization. Organization in its turn inherently involves functions and their interrelations; the abandonment of fractionability, however, means that there is no kind of 1 to 1 relationship between such relational, functional organizations and the structures that realize them. These are the basic differences between organisms and mechanisms or machines." (Logic of Life, p.213). Lowenstein evidently wants to keep the reductionistic physics and ignore the complexity of organismic organization, as the only means possible to buttress an assumption that human bodies really are simple. In my judgment, Werner Lowenstein is as far from defining the "touchstone of life" as it is possible for a thinker to be.
Rating:
Summary: Assumptions of Simplicity
Review: Two years after being recognized as the 1988 Nobel Laureate in Medicine, Sir James Black was asked by a reporter for a national newspaper in England to share his opinions on the evolution of scientific inquiry. He reportedly said that we could expect to witness: "The progressive triumph of physiology over molecular biology." Regrettably, eleven years later, Werner Lowenstein published a book that attempts to do the exact opposite. Lowenstein makes it crystal clear that no signs of progress toward such a triumph of physiology over molecular biology will ever be found in his work. In his response to the reporter, Sir James reflected the view that physiology is the same basic science as the "physis" studied by Hippocrates and his colleagues--a non-linear science of great complexity, not reducible to linear concepts or terms such as those now prevalent in molecular biology--concepts and terms that have been derived from Newtonian physics and Cartesian dualism, and now from contemporary information theory. Consider the observations published in 1993 by F. Eugene Yates, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles:
"Physics is about simple beings and becomings, characterized by uniformity and generality: all electrons in the universe are alike; there are few kinds of quarks and only four basic forces--perhaps only one. Biology, in contrast, presents diversity and specialness of form and function, and sometimes a striking localness of distribution of its objects. Biological systems are complex by any definition of the term. Physics is a strongly reductionistic science, and has prospered in that style; but conceptually biological sciences now suffer from permeation by a mechanistic reductionism in the guise of two limiting and inappropriate metaphors: (1) the dynamic metaphor of organisms as machines and (2) the 'information' metaphor, of life as a text written on DNA. ...[B]oth metaphors are false and destructive of conceptual advances in the fundamental understanding of complex living systems that self-organize, grow, develop, adapt, reproduce, repair and maintain form and function, age, and die. ...Physicists make the Assumption of Simplicity--that in spite of the mathematical and other complications that may veil our vision, Nature is simple, both in composition of material objects and in rules for change. Biologists, on the other hand, take complexity as a given for the systems of interest to them. Although there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes a complex system, at the heart of the concept is some kind of non-reducibility--the behaviour we are interested in evaporates when we try to reduce the system to a simpler, better understood one (Stein 1989; Yates 1993). Furthermore, biological systems are inherently, fundamentally, and profoundly non-linear. ...The physical basis of life involves at least six attributes of non-linearity, broken symmetry, dissipation of free energy, complexity, orderly disorder, and marginal dynamic stability. Perhaps these attributes collectively constitute a sufficiently unique set to justify considering living systems as a fourth state of matter." (Logic of Life, pp.189-206). (Emphasis is in the original). Yates has provided us with a good list of examples of the vast and pivotal differences between diametrically opposite ways of looking at nature and of thinking about the most complex natural organism yet to evolve, the human body with its "unique set" of attributes,--that is, the organismic way, or the mechanistic, deterministic, and reductionistic way: "Living systems are predominantly not state-determined
Living systems are predominantly not DNA-determined
Living systems are predominantly not structurally stable
Living systems are predominantly not far-from- equilibrium
Living systems are predominantly not highly ordered or 'negentropic'
Living systems are predominantly not far from noise communicationally
Living systems are predominantly not program driven
Living systems are predominantly not digital-computational" In direct contradiction to Yates's trenchant examples of the processive attributes of human organisms, Lowenstein's thinking rests upon an "assumption of simplicity," and thus on an unbelievable notion that human bodies are structurally stable; are DNA-determined; are program driven; and are digital-computational. At cellular and molecular levels, the language of intercellular and intracellular recognition and communication processes is written in carbohydrates, sugars. One will look in vain to find either term in Lowenstein's Index. Carbohydrates are complex, far more complex than proteins, therefore let us speak of proteins and ignore the crucial, sine qua non role and function of eight or more sugars in cell-to-cell communication. The following words of Robert Rosen are relevant to the point at issue: "If somatically an organism is a machine to be understood in purely syntactic, reductionistic terms, then life is only a matter of putting its fractions back together. But as we all know, it is literally not that simple. ...No (finite) concatenation of syntactic models of an organism yields something which must be an organism. ...Organisms are not in this class of systems. ...Just as we cannot concatenate syntactic models to obtain an organism, we cannot, for that same reason, concatenate reductionistic fractions to get an organism. ...Something else is needed to characterize what is alive from what is complex. Rachevsky provided this in his idea that biology was relational, and that relational meant (as we stated it) throwing away the physics and keeping the organization. Organization in its turn inherently involves functions and their interrelations; the abandonment of fractionability, however, means that there is no kind of 1 to 1 relationship between such relational, functional organizations and the structures that realize them. These are the basic differences between organisms and mechanisms or machines." (Logic of Life, p.213). Lowenstein evidently wants to keep the reductionistic physics and ignore the complexity of organismic organization, as the only means possible to buttress an assumption that human bodies really are simple. In my judgment, Werner Lowenstein is as far from defining the "touchstone of life" as it is possible for a thinker to be.
<< 1 >>
|
