Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
In other words, Eq.
6.13
is based on the
principle of triple articulations
(PTA),
denoted as 1, 2, and 3 as shown in Scheme (
6.14
):
1
Words
2
3
Letters
!
!
Sentences
!
Texts
(6.14)
The
cellese hypothesis
(Ji 1997a, 1999b) assumes that PTA, Eq.
6.14
, applies to
the molecular processes occurring in the living cell and identifies the three levels of
articulations of the cellese as shown in Scheme (
6.15
):
1
2
Compexes
3
Monomers
!
Biopolymers
!
!
Networks
(6.15)
We will refer to Scheme (
6.15
) as the principle of the
triple articulations of the
cellese
(TAC).
It is interesting to note that the complexities of linguistic and molecular texts
(see the last column of Table
6.4
) are the same within one order of magnitude. The
cellese
can be viewed as the
formal
aspect of the living cell whereas the set of
physicochemical principles and laws embodied in “biocybernetics
”
(Ji 1991)
represents the
physical
(i.e., energetic/material) aspect of the living cell. In other
words, it may be stated that
The
cell language theory
(Ji 1991, 1999b) and
biocybernetics
(Ji 1991) are the comple-
mentary aspects of the Bhopalator, the molecular model of the living cell.
(6.16)
6.1.4 Double Articulation, Arbitrariness of Signs,
and Rule-Governed Creativity
Of the 13 design features of human language described by Hockett (1960), three of
them stand out in terms of their possible application to biology. These are (1)
double articulation
(extended to the triple articulation described in Table
6.3
, (2)
arbitrariness of signs,
and (3)
rule-governed creativity
(see Table
6.6
). It will be
shown below that these features have molecular counterparts in cell language and
may be necessary to maximize the channel capacity of biological communication
systems (Ji 1997a), thereby facilitating biological evolution itself.
In Table
6.3
, cell and human languages are compared from a formal (i.e.,
linguistic) point of view. In contrast, Table
6.5
compares cell and human languages
from a physical point of view.
One of the design features of the human language,
arbitrariness of signs
, states
that there is
no inevitable link
between the signifier (also called signs or
representamen) (see Fig.
6.2
) and the signified (object or referent) (Lyons 1993,
p. 71). The arbitrary nature of signs in human language contributes to the flexibility
and versatility of language, according to linguists. In addition, the author suggested
that the arbitrariness of signs maximizes the amount of the information that can be
