Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,
I regret that I have difficulty in relating to the current FIS discussion, but that is my problem. I see little progress since the appearance of Lupasco's physical - biological - contradictorial information; Kauffman, Logan's biotic and Ulanowicz' apophatic information; Deacon's Shannon - Boltzmann - Darwin information; and Wu's revolution. Sungchul's intuition of an "irreversible triadic relation" reflects the power of triads as cognitive attractors, but discussion is blocked by his use of the word 'irreversible', required by the underlying idealist Peircean structure of his argument. What I would like to see is the foundations of information being discussed in relation to the real problems of society, beyond questionnaires. Some of these led yesterday to a prohibition of the use of seven words including foetus, diversity and science-based from certain U. S. Government documents. I think we need to have in the forefront of our minds the statement made by Floridi in his 2010 book, Information. A Very Short Introduction (which all of you have read, of course): "The challenge is to reconcile our roles as informational organisms and agents within nature and as stewards of nature." I believe that such a perspective, placed as a criterion for selection of pertinent concepts, would make our discussions a lot deeper and more relevant. Thank you and best wishes, Joesph --- L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
