I am trying again to submit my message to the list.

From: MARCIN Schroeder 
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:22 AM
To: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: SV: "The Travellers"]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,
I do not contribute much to FIS discussions, but always read them with 
interest. I found recent contributions from Soeren very disturbing. Actually, I 
feel insulted by them. I understand that the rules adopted by FIS require 
academic code of conduct. Personal atacks, or even argumenta ad personam 
directed at any member of the list are degrading discussion to the level 
beneath dignity of the academic discourse.  
I would like to propose that we stick to the old academic rule to ignore all 
contributions which are directed not against some views, opinions, statements 
or works, but against the person associated with them.  

Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D. 
Akita International University 
Akita, Japan 


From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:54:53 +0900
To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: SV: "The Travellers"]

(Herewith Soeren's response, again the server has stopped it (?) From my 
part, only saying that we are in polar opposites, so the difficulty 
--and interest-- of the exchanges. Anyone can interpret sentences in his 
own, but my intention was far from offending: knowledge exchanges are 
fun in themselves and should always be fun. OK, I suggest a future fis 
discussion session inviting some interesting semiotician --outside our 
circle-- so that a lively discussion might be maintained.     best --Pedro)

-------- Original Message&nbs p;--------
Subject:     SV: SV: [Fis] "The Travellers"
Date:     Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:38:24 +0100
From:     Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk>
To:     Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>, fis@listas.unizar.es 

Dear Pedro

Thank you  for your answer. Reading it, I& nbsp;am surprised that you are 
unable to see that you are the one starting this discussion with an arrogant 
tone. I certainly felt offended by your mail.

Though I am originally a biologist I have come to teach philosophy of science 
interdisciplinary and do research in many different  paradigms and learned to 
consciously reflect on paradigms and methodology and has had to live with the 
neglect of these aspect from people within classical educations and research 
traditions. But in Denmark it is now obligatory for all students to have  ;a 
course in philosophy  or theory of science.

What I read out of you answer is,  that you are so entranced in the received 
view of science (which I was originally  educated in) that you do not consider 
yourself to be in any kind of paradigm or metaphysics and therefore do not have 
to make a conscious reflection and a comparison with the work in other 
paradigms, which is of cause an insult to us who have worked with these things 
for 30 years and who's work you seem to neglect. Neglecting is a muc h more 
powerful weapon than critique in& nbsp;the world of science - actually the 
ultimate one -and then you can top it off by suggesting to leave those 
paradigms that has not had your interest anyway and you therefore do not have 
the proper knowledge of.

I wonder what the non-insulting meaning of your  sentence: "Semiotics could be 
OK for the previous generation--something attuned to our scientific times is 
needed now." is for a biologist like me who has worked with semiotics for 25 
years and being part of creating the association of biosemiotic studies, which 
now h as it yearly conference, a journal and a book series with Springer??  A 
status that FIS has not achieved yet.

I have known you for a long time and in that period you have shown no interest 
in semiotics or commented on any papers and books  in biosemiotics or on the 
relation between information and what so ever. My own book "Cybersemiotics: Why 
information is not enough" is now out in paperback and  Kindle and as a Google 
book .

It has taken me more than 20 years to get a reasonable understanding of& 
nbsp;Peirce's semiotic philosophy and why and  how I think it offers a more 
comprehensive framework for transdisciplinary view of the natural, life, social 
and human sciences that is much more fruitful than info-computationalism. So I 
am a little impatient with people who discharge Peirce without having studying 
him properly. The same goes for Luhmann's systems theory. It is not unusual to 
see people discharge theoretical work they have not come to terms with and are  
therefore unable to deliver a fruitful critique of on the basis of their own 
conception of being in the received  view and therefore not having to bother 
with other views; which is pretty much my interpretation of your standing.

It is of cause your right to choose your own outlook and peace be with that, 
but when you deem research you have not worked with deeply for many years - be 
it the theories of Peircean semiotics and information concept or Luhmann or 
Ethological theory of cognition - as obsolete, it is certainly insulting for 
those who has chosen to work with these theories and have published within them 
for more than 20  years against the dominating views, to& nbsp;proceed as if 
they have no standing what so ever worth mentioning and it is certainly not 
supportive for the fruitful research exchange that FIS is supposed to support.

So I responded to your arrogance with a comparable arrogance. 

But now I have given you a little phenomenological insight in my first person 
experience and my intersubjective hermeneutical horizon from a long life in 
inter- and transdisciplinary work going from physics, chemistry, biology to  
comparative psychology, information and library science,  first and second 
order c ybernetics, systems theory and science, information theory and science, 
Saussurian semiology as well as Peircean semiotics and biosemiotics from a  
philosophy of science view point.

Best wishes

                                                              home page with 
articles:  Cybersemiotics.com

-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- 
Fra: Pedro C. Marijuan [mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs @aragon.es] 
Sendt: 30. oktober 2014 14:29
Til: fis@listas.unizar.es
Cc: Søren Brier
Emne: Re: SV: [Fis] "The Travellers"

Dear FIS colleagues,

I am responding to a mail from Soeren (below) that, curiously, was retained by 
the list filter. Sorry, but some parts of his message are written in a rather 
arrogant tone that does not match the unconditionally polite style of our 
exchanges. This is a pluralistic list and quite different positions may be 
defended, always within appropriate scholarly bounds.

First, my comment on semiotics was as it was&nb sp;--not with the exaggeration 
introduced by Soeren. Looking in positive, it is interesting that in the 80's I 
also started a PhD thesis on the parallel evolution of neuroanatomy and 
behavior, with a pretty strong ethological content, but stopped it as I could 
not converge to any relevant outcome. Instead I moved downwards, and started 
the informational study of the cell and the evolution of biological information 
processing... Later on the approach pleased Michel Conrad, and the rest is part 
of fis history.

About my "physicalist" conception of& nbsp;signaling and biological 
information, I  think the two recent papers in BioSystems ("On prokaryotic 
Intelligence..." and "On eukaryotic Intelligence...") represent an original 
view that can enrich the current system biology debates on signaling bases of 
intelligence--or not!, people will tell. 
To keep the explanation short, the way cellular life has channeled the energy 
flow (eg, Morowitz, 1968) versus the channeling of the "information flow" 
contains lessons for the further deployment of biological and social 
complexity. In particular, the cellular processual distinction between 
"metabolite" and "signal" looks fa scinating, in human terms it is like reading 
the newspaper vs, eating a sandwich (it can be found in my recent paper of 
fis-Moscow, journal Information)...  
Not far from these views, engineer Adrian Bejan (2012) has recently proposed a 
"constructal law" based on the circulation needs of the energy flow in nature 
and society--could we devise a parallel or complementary scheme for the 
information flow? Actually Bejan's attempt covers it but rather poorly, at 
least compared with the depth of the energetic part.

In part, I am frustrated&nbs p;that we have been living the most  ;momentous 
changes in the social history of information and at fis have been able to say 
very little about. Rather than struggling to achieve the true, monolithic, 
universal theory of information, shouldn't we aspire to frame a convivial 
multi-disciplinary space where plenty of both APPLIED and theoretical research 
on informational entities can be developed and cross-fertilize?

And this is my Second of the week.
Best regards


Søren Brier wrote:
> Dear Pedro
> This is a wonderful mail revealing all sorts of theoretical views and ph 
> ilosophy of science prejudices. This one takes the price:  " Semiotics could 
> be OK for the previous generation--something attuned to our scientific times 
> is needed now." The conclusion is that semiotics is not something new and 
> advanced but old-fashioned and outdated !!! The Peircean biosemioticians are 
> fooling themselves ! They are not scientific.
> This is a crucial discussion that many of us have with Marcello Barbieri on a 
> somewhat different theoretical platform. But he is wonderfully clear and 
> explicit in his argumentation and always atte mpting to produce new 
> alternative models  ;and theories, not just arguing from the status quo of 
> science. 
> I wonder how deep your own understanding of semiotics actually is - 
> especially Peircean semiotics. Peirce is very naturalistic.   Your other 
> price remark arouse this suspicion " of course, later on Tinbergen, Lorenz, 
> Eibl-Eibelsfeldt, etc. were to develop ad hoc theoretical schemes". As one 
> having written a master dissertation in Lorenz theoretical development of the 
> ethological paradigm over a period of 30 years and lecturing at the Konrad 
> Lorenz institute and researched i n comparative psychology for three years 
> after that, I must say that your knowledge of this area of research is very 
> weak. I have used some of the results of this  analysis in my book 
> "Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough". Which you probably have not 
> bothered to read as you deemed it outdated in its birth and unscientific.
> I also wonder what the theoretical framework is for the concept of "signal". 
> Is it objective information transfer in a Shannon or a Wiener framework? Does 
> it include any  first perso n experiential  aspects and any social&n 
> bsp;meaning aspects? Or is it  - as I  suspect - a pure physicalistic 
> approach used for explaining processes on the biological, the psychological 
> and the social level as well, but ignoring the special qualities of those 
> compared to the physical level?
>                Best  
>                              Søren
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På vegne af Pedro C. 
> Marijuan
> Sendt: 29. oktober 2014 14:46
> Til: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Emne: Re: [Fis] "The Travellers"
> Dear FIS colleagues,
> Quite interesting exchanges, really. The discussion reminds me the 
> times when behaviorism and ethology were at odds on how to focus the 
> study of human/animal behavior. (Maybe I already talked about that 
> some months
> ago.) On the one side, a rigorous theory and a strongly reductionist point of 
> view were advanced --about learning, conditioned & unconditioned stimuli, 
> responses, observation stand ards, laboratory exclusive scenario, etc. On& 
> nbsp;the other side, it was observing behavior in nature, approaching without 
> preconceptions and tentatively characterizing the situations and results; it 
> was the naturalistic strategy, apprehending from nature before forming any 
> theoretical scheme (of course, later on Tinbergen, Lorenz, Eibl-Eibestfeldt, 
> etc. were to develop ad hoc theoretical schemes).
> How can we develop a theory on signals without the previous naturalistic 
> approach to the involved phenomena? Particularly when the panorama has 
> dramatically changed after the information-biomolecular revolution. We have a 
> rich  background of cellular signaling systems, both prokaryotic and 
> eukaryotic, to explore and cohere. We have important neuroscientific ideas 
> (although not so well developed). We have social physics and social networks 
> approaches to the social dynamics of information. We should travel to all of 
> those camps, not to stay there, but to advance a soft all-encompassing 
> perspective, later on to be confronted with the new ideas from physics too. 
> The intertwining between self-production and communication is a promising 
> general aspect to explore, in my opinion... 
& gt; socially and biologically it makes a  lot of sense.
> Semiotics could be OK for the previous generation--something attuned to our 
> scientific times is needed now.
> best ---Pedro
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias 
de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan 
Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)

---------------- ---------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)

Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to