Dear Plamen, List > On Feb 29, 2016, at 12:40 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov > <plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Jerry, Maxine, Marcus and All, > > I will come back later on discussing this interesting issue because, I have a > major project deadline by tomorrow.
I await your response. Has your project deadline past? > But let me just give you this link to educate you on what Phenomenological > Philosophy is really about: > http://ibiomath.org/on-phenomenological-philosophy/ > <http://ibiomath.org/on-phenomenological-philosophy/> Well, I certainly love to learn. FIS has a long tradition of learning from one - another (in a collegial manner). Let’s continue that tradition. The link you sent is merely an advertisement. Extraordinarily broad generalities. More Peircian than Husserlian. Please send a meaningful link that you personally think will “educate” me on your views, particularly your views on logic and mathematical philosophy (as related to consciousness.) > > One more thing about Husserl: Have you ever tried to read and understand his > over 100 years notes? > Believe me, no matter how old they are, there is still something to discover > there. > The same holds for C.S. Pierce, William James and others of that size. > What is novelty of archaeology and palaeontology then? > Just digging in the dust??? All these people are discovering new facts about > the past. These sentences are incoherent. What is it that you are trying to say? What is it about archaeology that is relevant to my post? BTW, I have been a student of Peirce for nearly two decades. I find Peircian views far more relevant to the modern bio-science than Husserl. The reason for this preference is simple. Peirce deals directly with the logic of relations and the role of identity as related to phenomenology. Peirce’s synthesis of a scientifically based phenomenology can be, in my opinion, aligned with the natural sciences because he expresses relationships between symbols representing the objects of the natural sciences and logic. Peirce’s logic is not drawn from the anonymity of set theory but rather rather propositions relating properties and attributes of hypernyms (identities), as well as iconic graphs that exhibit his meanings. > Even if microbiology was not known at the time of Husserl, it can be seen > with other eyes from the perspective of phenomenological philosophy now. Microbiology is the science of microbes - living organism that than be seen only through a microscope. I used the term “molecular biology” which refers to molecules. Microbes are several orders of magnitude larger than molecules. Microbes contain thousand of different molecules, most of which are one specific form of a pair of optical isomers. Microbes reproduce. Molecules do not reproduce. Are you confusing the two terms? Perhaps this confusion is part of your interpretation of what I wrote. > Have a nice day. Thank you. But I would like to add a word or two about the notion of “Biomathics”. Numerous conflicts exist in the white paper in the book. Can you give a simple statement of your hypothesis in terms of meaningful logic propositions? Andree generously gifted me with a copy of “Biomathics". After studying “Biomathics” in some detail and your essays, I remain un-informed about deeper philosophical roots of your thinking. My intuition and ‘gut-level’ instinct is that certain basic notions of the natural sciences are missing from your propositions, suggesting that the representation of the logics of nature is incomplete/problematic. It seems to me that the concept of “Biomathics” either emerges or fades on finding logical correspondence relations (or illations) between mathematical symbols and the biological symbols used by naturalists and physicians. Do you agree or disagree with this conjecture? Finally, do you think that Tarski’s logical construction of meta-languages is necessary for the relations of “Biomathics”? I look forward to developing a meaningful dialogue. Have a nice day! Cheers Jerry > > Best, > > Plamen > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics > and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com > <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>> wrote: > Maxine, List: > > Just my two cents worth. > After puzzling about the potential connections between your interpretations > of Husserl and evolutionary biology, I remain uncertain about where this line > of reasoning starts and where it leads. > > I should say at the beginning that I am a hardcore realist and a pragmatist. > The value of vague philosophies for doing science is problematic, in my > opinion. The value of the philosophy of mathematics can be quite useful for > scientific practice, if the appropriate correspondence relations can be > symbolized and exploited. The necessity for rigorous symbolic relations > between the meta-languages of science and logic of the sciences is well > known. (See Malatesta, The Primary Logic, 1999?). > > Husserl’s (1859-1938) writings are about a Century old. What does he bring > to the table today? > > Molecular biology barely existed in his day. > > In this context, the concept of oscillators is proposed as the linkage > between movement and mathematical modeling. Yet, the physical basis of the > mathematical oscillators is Hook’s Law for springs. The mental image for a > two dimensional network of oscillators is a the old-fashioned “bed-spring”. > Admittedly, a hypothetical oscillator model was used for a few decades to > model the source of epileptic seizures, but it is so crude that it is hardly > more than a metaphor. (For a review, NeuroQuantology | June 2006 | Vol. 4 | > Issue 2 | 155-165 155 Velazquez JLP. Coupled oscillators field > > > Molecular biology requires the use of the atomic numbers in arithmetic > operations. > It further requires the use of three - dimensional asymmetric structures to > describe handedness (even for dance!). > > These two facts suggest to me that Husserlian vagueness can be improved upon > in the modern inquiry into the conceptualization of motion and its > relationships to evolutionary biology. > > A different line of reasoning concerns the questions raised by Pedro. That > is, the cultural roots of the tremendous array of dance movements and the > encoding of ballad movements into a symbol system. > This issue raises the far wider issue of the roles of diagrammatic logic in > relation to dance “logic”. Has anyone explored how the diagrammatic logic of > CS Peirce may relate to dance? Or even Venn diagrams? Or how are the > diagrams of chemical logic related to dance symbols, if at all? Or, should > we follow Hilbert and simply ignore the role of diagrams in the mathematics > of evolutionary biology. (see: Greaves, The Philosophical Status of Diagrams > (2001)) > > Another topic worth exploring is the communication among ballad dancers > during a performance. The range of emotions exhibited during a ballad > performance can be truly spectacular. How is this accomplished from an > informational theory perspective? > > Thus, I would close with a question: > Does the modern state of human communication and information exchange go far > beyond early 20th Century German Philosophy? An essay on either Kantian or > Shelling’s philosophy, as contrasted with Husserl, could be of substantial > interest to me. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > Research Professor > Krasnow Institute for Advanced Studies > GMU > > Headwater House > On the Banks of the Mississippi > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto: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
