How much are we anthropomorphizing when discussing what information is

One of the questions that has emerged in the discussion of the Information Artifact Ontology is the question of whether of distinguishing between information that appears to be generated naturally, versus information that is artifactual. Some comments by Barry Smith in [responding] to Darren Natale's comments on whether DNA contains information, raises the question of whether such descriptions of information are essentially metaphors.

Darren's email:

Some thoughts and questions on DNA as information entity, mostly with respect to a number of inconsistencies that I perceive about scope:


 * 1) What is a machine?  It seems that in the scope statement, "machine" was restricted to the mechanical, ignoring the biological (see Websters definition, stating in part that a machine is "a living organism or one of its functional systems").  There is a common term in molecular biology: "molecular machine."
 * 2) Does a machine read?  Not if we insist on "anthrocentricity." However, here again, the common usage of that word does allow for machines (computers in this case) to read. It also allows for a molecular machine to read DNA. By the way, note that braille is read by a human in an analogous way as DNA is read by protein complexes.
 * 3) language is used as a means to convey information. I would argue that DNA is a language just like any other--it is expressive (that is, the deoxyribonucleotide "letters" can be arranged to mean different things), and it is translatable into other languages (amino acid and ribonucleotide letters). If DNA is a language, then it must hold information.
 * 4) Would you consider a blueprint to contain information?  A set of specifications?  How is DNA not like these?

Barry's response:

I agree that there are all of these uses of 'read', 'information' etc. From the point of view defended by Alan and myself, they are, however, metaphorical. For you the type: [protein complex] reading DNA is a sibling of the type: [human] reading Russian prose; both are subtypes of the single type: reading. I think most people would find this odd, for instance in light of the fact that the domains of the respective reading relation would be so different.

Regarding point 2, I think this use of 'translatable' is metaphorical too (it is a bit like saying: tapas is sushi translated into Spanish). I also think that we need a clearer formulation than ' DNA is a language'. DNA is a certain kind of chemical substance. A language, surely, cannot be made of molecules. A language is some sort of abstract framework within which (e.g.) messages are formulated.