“We
swim in the sea of information thirsting for knowledge!” in Sydney’s words- present day study of
biology cannot be described any better. So what do we do? How do we proceed
further? Study under a theoretical
framework! What should the frame work be? How will it look like? Think of
biological systems as a Turing machine he said! A universal machine, to be
precise it is a universal constructing machine. A universal machine is a
machine which when given a description can carry out all the basic functions
the model machine it is designed after does. Computers are the implementation
of this concept. A universal constructor (proposed by von Neumann) is also a
machine which has a description about building machines in its self image. And if one wants a reproducing universal
constructor one has to put in a description which makes it pass on the entire
description it has to the machine it has constructed! It’s a concept, and
according to Sydney, it fits biological systems very well. So, biological
systems behave as universal reproducing constructors. The description that they
carry exists in the form of the genetic material. Since storage is not a
limiting factor in these systems, life has over years of evolution by trial and
error found solutions in the form of combinations of proteins, variations in
proteins and stored all these in its genetic material. It looks up the
appropriate solution when faced with a problem. Just like looking up a
logarithmic table. And just like in the
logarithmic table the data is huge and needs to be stored and is stored! Adding
much to the chagrine of biologists! For this means that all proteins must be
looked up, all its variations known, their interaction with substrates
understood with respect to the subtle differences that each one has with the
substrate, their interactions partners studied in all kinds of situations
possible and all variations included. These have to be meticulously done and
the data must be precise, no mistakes allowed. For all these will go into
making a table, a matrix let’s say, so that one just has to look up the
solution, just like a biological system does!
When such a table is drawn, one expects to see modules of interaction
emerging which will simplify the picture a bit. For, he says that the
complexity of biological systems is built using simple modules. So, how is the
study that is conducted these days different from what is expected by Sydney.
It is, he says, that the goal of constructing a matrix is lost upon people. A
framework is missing! The information churned out is also not dependable for it
contains a lot of errors. It is his belief that having a framework will help
weed out the useless data and useful data will emerge out adding to knowledge.
He also thinks that biological systems do not work in defined pathways, rather
every molecule acts as a messenger and a receiver. Its next step defined on the
go rather than being predetermined. So, rather than building defined pathways,
which forms the thrust of most biological studies these days, it is best to
look for the important interaction partners and the condition in which they
interacted.
So
life forms are, according to Sydney, Turing machines, but unlike any other
machine built by humans, for they are the only machines around which carry in
them a description of how to build themselves! And unlike machines which are
built for durability, they are built to carry on! They work with satisfactory solutions and are
not optimised for best functioning! For if one got destroyed another could be
built!
It
was a truly befitting talk to commemorate the birth centenary of Alan Turing
who laid the mathematical foundations of the computation field. Subjectively
speaking, it joined a lot of dots in my head. Some biological and some not so
biological! For I remembered the concept of soul remaining undestroyed, passing
on from body to body! What Sydney calls the ‘description’ could it be called
the soul? I am sure Sydney would disagree for he thinks that life is a process
of evolving modules giving rise to complex phenomenon, a culmination of random
trial and errors. Soul has a purpose, to find and understand itself! In this
direction it moves! Sydney would vehemently disagree but I cannot help compare
the two! For are we not a reflection of our souls, trying to understand the
where from to where forth of our existence?
(I have reproduced the
examples that Sydney Brenner used during the lecture in the way that I
understood them. I thought that his ideas were best conveyed by his examples!)
