There are too many deep unanswered questions here for our current state of
discourse and awareness to dismiss if we wish to remain scientific. The history
of science is marked by scientific incredulity at things which turn out to be
true.
We need a logic and we need experiments. Joseph Brenner and others have been
working on the logic (I need time to follow this up... By logical spirals may
be correct - it ties with Peter Rowland's work on Quaternions that I mentioned)
Experiments? - well, Sheldrake is a much better scientist than many of his
critics: He is fueled by curiosity for the unknown, not the "we're pretty sure
we know, but we'd better check anyway" (and then we can publish in Nature!)
There's a great TV comedy in the UK at the moment called "Quacks" about 19th
century medicine. It features a dentist who is taking lots of drugs partly
because he's interested in what they do, and also because it's fun. He keeps a
log of his experiences. All the medical professionals, who consider themselves
rational scientists, see him as mad and irresponsible. Guess what...
So, there are questions about our current dogma. What do we mean by matter? Do
cells communicate? Could cells communicate at a distance? What might
"communication" mean? Is it symmetry?
Best wishes,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: "Sungchul Ji" <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>
Sent: 01/11/2017 23:27
To: "Michel Petitjean" <petitjean.chi...@gmail.com>; "fis"
<fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] mind-mind
Hi Michell and FISers,
"Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what
we do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain;
because it is the background to that what we see by using the eyes."
This paragraph contains the following pairs or relations:
Data ~ eyes
Information ~ brain
Since eyes cannot function without the brain but the brain can without eyes, I
wonder if the above tetrad can be reduced to a triad:
Data ~ eyes/brain ~ information
which in turn may be explained in more detail using the ITR (Irreducible
Triadic Relation) diagram thus:
f g
(eyes/brain)
Reality --------------> Sign
----------------------> Interpretant
| (Data)
^
|
|
|_______________________________________________________|
h (information)
Figure 1. The data-information relation explained on the basis of ITR
(Irreudicible Triadic Relation). The arrows read "determines" and
"interpretant is the effect the sign has on the mind of the interpreter (biotic
or abiotic). f = measurement; g = mental process ; h = correspondence or
information flow.
If you have any question or comments, let me know.
Sung
f g (eyes/brain)
Reality ------------> Sign ------------------->
Interpretant
| (Data)
^
|
|
|__________________________________________________|
h (information)
Figure 1. f = measurement or eyes; g = mental process or brain; h =
correspondence or information flow
From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Michel Petitjean
<petitjean.chi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 5:29 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] mind-mind
Dear Krassimir, dear ALex, dear All,
I agree with Krassimir that ideas cannot be transmitted directly from
Mind to Mind.
Being a materialist, I consider that only matter exists.
Does it mean that information is matter or energy?
No.
Let me discuss about this contradiction.
Parenthesis: energy is linked to mass through math modeling of
physical laws, and mass is a property of matter (could also be linked
to a modeling concept, but it is unimportant here).
People (not only scientists) build math and non math models to attempt
to explain what they observe.
Would you consider that math is matter?
Probably no.
Thus math and non math models that we build in our heads are not matter.
However they are produced through some biochemical process, and as
such they originate from matter.
Eventually, it could be considered that math and other concepts are a
somewhat special part of matter, but I think that claim would not be
accepted in our current language(s).
I consider that "soul", "god", and some other concepts are built in our heads.
In my opinion, these concepts at best incoherent, if not worse.
Remark: I have nothing against religions, as far as believers do not
impose to me the consequences of their beliefs.
Religious beliefs must be private affairs.
Here, please accept my apologies if some of you are shocked by the
previous sentences.
Information is like math: it is a modeling concept applied to some situations.
However, I do not claim that information can be reduced to the math
concepts of information.
To conclude:
1. I agree with Principle 1 of Pedro.
2. I assume potential contradictions in my views. No problem: I am a
poor philosopher.
Then,I never claimed that I am "built" to be able to elaborate a
coherent theory about life, consciousness , etc. May be it is
impossible. May be that cannot be decided, etc.
All that is opinions. It is just nice and funny to discuss information
and so on.
3. If I would vote for a definition of information, I would retain the
one of Karl.
Citing Karl in his post of the 3 Oct 2017:
"Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what
we do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain;
because it is the background to that what we see by using the eyes."
All my best,
Michel.
Michel Petitjean
MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7,
35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France.
Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372
E-mail: petitjean.chi...@gmail.com (preferred),
michel.petitj...@univ-paris-diderot.fr
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpetitjeanmichel.free.fr%2Fitoweb.petitjean.html&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cbf7631e0dff442f73d7508d5216fa58b%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636451685771465824&sdata=N%2F5Hj%2FvBN5SFKXEltkcE2H4N6RYM%2BWo8%2FLTWin1XSX4%3D&reserved=0
> Dear Alex and FIS Colleagues,
>
> Thank you for the nice remark.
>
> I had listen about such hypothesis but till now I had no participate in any
> experiment of transferring ideas mind-mind. Maybe you had taken place in such
> experiments. Please, give link to publications in scientific issues about
> this very interesting phenomenon.
>
> Simple question: If it is possible to transfer ideas mind-mind, why you use
> FIS List to send your ideas to us?
>
> Friendly greetings
> Krassimir
>
> PS: Unfortunately, this is my second post for this week and I please to
> excuse me for answering the next posts after week.
>
>
>
> From: Alex Hankey
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:21 PM
> To: Krassimir Markov
> Cc: FIS Webinar
> Subject: Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles
>
> RE: P1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.
>
> M1. Information is a class of reflections in material entities. Not every
> reflection is information. Only subjectively comprehended reflections are
> information.
>
> ME: Ideas can be transmitted directly from Mind to Mind - as in Rupert
> Sheldrake's 7th Sense Communication.
> Lots of Quantitative Evidence that Materialists Prefer to Ignore.
>
> The Experience Information model of the Cognitive States shows that such
> Information States Are Not Material Entities.<
[The entire original message is not included.]_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
