[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your essay of the the issues that you see with regard to subject/object, Pattee and abiogenesis!

Who cares "what the sender" is? The important point for Abiogenesis is "how does the sender, or "subject" to use Pattee's terminology, come into existence?" and/or "how can we distinguish between a point in time in which there is no biological information, because there is no sender to communicate it, and a later point in which it exists?"

Indeed. Ye olde chicken and egg problem.

It is because biological information is "stateful," that it is dependent upon state, that we can discern the discrete basis for that information, which are the nucleotide sequences that are available in RNA, that it becomes theoretically possible to suggest a model that can explain the development of the "sender" or "subject."

Any plausible theory for the origin of information in biological systems must cross this hurdle.

[StJacques]

"It is because biological information is 'stateful,' that it is dependent upon state, that we can discern the discrete basis for that information, which are the nucleotide sequences that are available in RNA, that it becomes theoretically possible to suggest a model that can explain the development of the 'sender' or 'subject.'

Any plausible theory for the origin of information in biological systems must cross this hurdle."

And I would add that the Theory of Abiogenesis cannot be rejected because the hurdle has yet to be crossed. This "hurdle" is in fact the real focus of scientific inquiry into Abiogenesis. It is difficult, but I expect it to be crossed.