Dear Jerry,
Thank you for responding to my post.
Thank you very much for an attempt to read and to understand my Vienna
Symposium related publications.
I apologize for a delay in my response - I was trying to read and to
understand your papers ("Algebraic Biology" and "
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_
Organic_Mathematics_%28Abstract_August_26_2014%29> Physical Foundations of
Organic Mathematics"). Unfortunately, I did not understand much of what you
are talking there (about biological computations).
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_
Organic_Mathematics_%28Abstract_August_26_2014%29> Never mind, it is my
fault, not yours. To my shame, I often also do not understand what other
people on the forum are writing too.
As to me, I think (and write) that the era of a computational approach to
science and nature studies is over and we are gradually replacing it with a
cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology,
Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry,
Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational
linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology,
Cognitive ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive
endocrinology, Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even
Cognitive computing).
By definition, computational approaches imply intensive data processing,
while Cognitive approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is
the difference? Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue.
I was pleased to hear from Prof. Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna)
that "By means of the reformation, all scientific and philosophical domains
are facing an integrative trend of paradigm reform, which I name as
"informationalization of science", (The quotation is from one of his
presentation slides).
As you can see, my assertions are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims,
but far from what you (and other mainstream FIS contributors) obey and
adhere to.
I am a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others' temple.
But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy of
Information. Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement with
his postulates.
Best regards,
Emanuel Diamant.
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
Dear Emanuel:
Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.
Interesting perspective, but... the essence of biology / biological
computation are empirical observations that are highly irregular in nature.
One must separate the concepts of structures from functions in the languages
of chemistry and biology.
You may wish to look at the concepts of languages from your perspectives.
Several of my online available papers will provide more substance for these
comments.
Cheers
jerry
On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Emanuel Diamant wrote:
Dear FISlists,
I am a newcomer to the FIS discussion table. The debate that is going on in
your list-exchange is very interesting to me, but frankly, for the most of
the time, I only guess about what you are talking - my vocabulary and my
notions of Information are quite different from yours. Nevertheless, I would
like to add my voice to the ongoing discourse - I would like to direct you
to my page on the Research Gate (
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant>
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant) to see my uploads from
the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you will find them interesting.
Best regards,
Emanuel Diamant.
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> Fis@listas.unizar.es
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
