re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.
may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list: linguistic  
biology.  per the work of Guenther Witzany.  also reflected in my book  The 
God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.
each approach uses a helpful metaphor.  no one approach sees  the elephant 
in its entirety. so please let us use all three.
with oomph--howard
Howard Bloom
Author  of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History  ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), 
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass  Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st 
Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New  Yorker), 
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A  
tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The  
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates("Bloom's argument  will rock 
your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I Accidentally Started the  Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” 
Timothy Leary), and 
The Mohammed Code  (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” 
David Swindle, PJ  Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting  
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University
Founder:  International Paleopsychology Project. Founder: The Group 
Selection Squad;  Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Board Member 
Member Of Board  Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding Board Member: 
Epic of Evolution  Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project. 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango  Media Lab. Member: New York Academy of Sciences, 
American Association for the  Advancement of Science, American Psychological 
Society, Academy of Political  Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 
International Society for Human  Ethology. Scientific Advisory Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation. Advisory Board  Member, The Buffalo Film Festival. 
Editorial board member, The Journal of Space  Philosophy. 

In a message dated 6/19/2015 9:22:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

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 “_Physical Foundations of  
Organic Mathematics”). Unfortunately, I did not  understand much of what you 
talking there (about biological  computations)._ 
_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 
Best  regards, 
Emanuel  Diamant. 
From: Jerry LR  Chandler [] 
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. 
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.




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 
(  to see my uploads from 
the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe 
you will find  them interesting.

Best regards,
Emanuel Diamant.

Fis  mailing list
_Fis@listas.unizar.es_ (

Fis  mailing  list

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to