Hello Terry, Sung, FIS colleagues There is a notion of “body language”.
Perhaps it might be possible to develop a general theory of language that can take into account bacteria and dogs (according to Nature http://www.nature.com/news/dogs-can-tell-when-praise-is-sincere-1.20514) as well as plants https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634130/ & https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688289/ cognitive agents with different levels of cognition which communicate and process information in order to survive. One may build a theory of communication of information by just paying attention to what has been sent with respect to the cognitive structures of a sender and what has been received with respect to the cognitive structure of a receiver. Here cognitive means embodied and should include all sensors, actuators, memory and information processing mechanisms. As in biology thre are different kinds of organisms there are also different kinds of “languages”. There are small languages communicated in relatively simple ways between simple agents (like cells) and big languages used by complex agents like humans. Why not? Best wishes, Gordana On 2018-02-13, 06:33, "Fis on behalf of Terrence W. DEACON" <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of dea...@berkeley.edu<mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>> wrote: To claim that: "without a language, no communication would be possible" one must be using the term "language" in a highly metaphoric sense. Is scent marking a language? Music? Sexual displays, like a peacock's tail? How about a smile or frown? Is the pattern of colors of a flower that attracts bees a language? Was the evolution of language in humans just more of the same, not something distinct from a dog's bark? When a person is depressed, their way of walking often communicates this fact to others; so is this slight modification of posture part of a language? If I get the hiccups after eating is this part of a language that communicates my indigestion? Is this usage of the term 'language' simply referring to the necessity of a shared medium of communication? Is it possible to develop a general theory of information by simply failing to make distinctions? ― Terry On 2/12/18, Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu<mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>> wrote: Hi FISers, (1) I think language and communication cannot be separated, since without a language, no communication would be possible (see Figure 1). f g Sender -------> Message --------> Receiver | ^ | | | | |_____________________________| h “Language and communication are both irreducibly triadic; i.e., the three nodes and three edges are essential for communication, given a language or code understood by both the sender and receiver.” f = encoding; g = decoding; h = information flow. Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the irreducibly triadic nature of communication and language. (2) I think it may be justified and useful to distinguish between anthropomorphic language metaphor (ALM) and non-athropomorphic language metaphor (NLM). I agree with many of the members of this list that we should not apply ALM to biology uncritically, since such an approch to biology may lead to unjustifiable anthropomorphisms. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus) and the anthropocentric theory of creatiion. (3) Table 1 below may represent one possible example of NLM. Although the linguistic terms such as letters, words, sentences, etc. are used in this table, they are matrially/ontologically different from their molecular coutner parts; e.g., letters are different from nucleotides, protein domians , etc.,and words are different from genes, proteins, etc., but there are unmistakable common formal features among them. Table 1. The formal and material aspects of the cell language (Cellese). \ Material Aspect \ (Function) \ \ \ \ \ Formal Aspect \ (Function) \ \ DNA Language (DNese; Information transmission in time) RNA Language (RNese; Information transmission in space, from DNA to proteins) Protein Language (Proteinese; Energy transduction from chemical to mechanical; i.e., conformon production) Chemical Language (Moleculese; Source of free energy) Letters* (To build) 4n nucleotides n = 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . Exons (?) Protein domains Partial chemical reactions Words (To denote) Genes Proteins Full chemical reactions Sentences (To decide) cis-Genes (?)** Metabolic pathways Chemical gradients Texts (To reason/compute) trans-Genes (?)** ‘Hypermetabolic pathways’ Chemical waves (?) *I recently proposed that there are n (with n = 1 ~103?) genetic alphabets, each containing 4^n letters and each letter in turn consisting of n nucleotides. In this view, the 64 codons are the so-called 3rd-order letters , not words as widely assumed. **cis-Genes are here defined as those genes covalently linked to each other and hence being in the same chromosome, whereas trans-genes are defined as those genes that are located in different chromos (4) The terms, DNese, RNese, and proteinese were coined by a young American biochemist from Mexico City whom I met at the International Workshop on the Linguistics of Biology and the Biology of Language held in Cuernavaca, Mexico, in 1998, where I had presented the cell language ('cellese') theory, prior to the young biochemist’s lecture which followed mine the next day. In his lecture, he surprised me by announcing these neologisms, which I did not quite know how to justify. But it took almost 20 years for me to finally realize the utility of these terms for entirely different reasons, I am sure, from those of the young biochemist from Mexico City. I am responsible for the coinage of cellese and chemicalese in Table 1. (5) If Table 1 is right, the cellese and its sub-languages, DNese, RNese, proteinese and chemiclaese, are complemetary unions of form and matter. If you have any questions or comments, pleae let me know. All the best. Sung (My time is out. I am signing out in a hurry.) ________________________________ From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> on behalf of Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn<mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 6:31 AM To: FIS Group Cc: 'Jose Javier Blanco Rivero' Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory Dear Javier and Dear Stan, Javier: 1. I very much agree with you as follows: “I think that only signals can be transmitted, not information. Information can only be gained by an observer (a self-referential system) that draws a distinction.” A Chinese scholar Dongsheng Miao’s argument is: There is no information can exists without carrier, i.e. No naked can exists. I think both of you two are expressing a principle of information science. 2. According to Linguistics, the relationship between language and communication is: Language is a tool of communication about information. Of course, this is only limited to the human atmosphere. So I think that all (Human) Semiotics ((Human) Linguistics), (Human) Communication Study should be the subdisciplines of Human Informatics. ========================================================== Dear Xueshan, Thanks for sharing your interesting remarks and references. I think no one really wants to deny the crucial role the language metaphor has played in the thinking of communication and information models. But I believe the crucial point is to distinguish between language and communication. Language is for us humans the main communication medium, though not the only one. We tend to describe other communication media in society and nature by mapping the language-like characteristics they have. This has been useful and sucessful so far. But pushing the language metaphor too far is showing its analytical limits. I think we need to think of a transdisciplinary theory of communication media. On the other hand, I agree with you that we need to check the uses of the concepts of signal and information. I think that only signals can be transmitted, not information. Information can only be gained by an observer (a self-referential system) that draws a distinction. Best, Javier ============================================== Stan: According to Peirce, language is only one of the systematic signs. Here we consider sign, signal, symbol as the same thing. So, more precisely in my opinion: {signal {information}}, or {substrate {signal {information}}} But not {language {signal {information}}} If you remember, in our previous discussions, I much appreciate the The hierarchy idea is very important to our study which is initially introduced by Pedro, Nikhil and you. =============================================================== Xueshan -- I think one can condense some of your insights hierarchically, as: In a system having language, information seemingly may be obtained in other ways as well. It would be a conceptually broader category. Thus (using the compositional hierarchy): [information [language [signal]]] Meaning that, when a system has language, all information will be understood or construed by way of linguistic constructs. (Here I am using ‘signal’ as being more specific than Peirce’s ‘sign’, where: [sign [information [...]]] ) Then, more dynamically (using the subsumptive hierarchy): {language {signal {information}}} Information in a languaged system is derived by way linguistic formations, so that, even though it is an extremely broad category, information (informing) only emerges by way of linguistically informed transformations. STAN Best wishes to all, Xueshan =============================================================== El feb 10, 2018 5:23 AM, "Xueshan Yan" <y...@pku.edu.cn<mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn><mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>> escribió: Dear Colleagues, I have read the article "The languages of bacteria" which Gordana recommended, and has gained a lot of inspiration from it. In combination with Sung's comparative linguistics exploration on cell language and human language, I have the following learning feelings to share with everyone: In this article, the author recognized that bacteria have evolved multiple languages for communicating within and between species. Intra- and interspecies cell-cell communication allows bacteria to coordinate various biological activities in order to behave like multicellular organisms. Such as AI-2, it is a general language that bacteria use for intergenera signaling. I found an interesting phenomenon in this paper: the author use the concept information 3 times but the concept signal (signal or signaling) 55 times, so we have to review the history and application of “information” and “signal” in biology and biochemistry, it is helpful for us to understand the relationship between language, signal, and information. The origin of the concept of signal (main the signal transduction) can be traced back to the end of the 1970s. But until 1980, biochemist and endocrinologist Martin Rodbell published an article titled: “The Role of Hormone Receptors and GTP-Regulatory Proteins in Membrane Transduction" in Nature, in this paper he used the "signal transduction" first time. Since then, the research on signal transduction is popular in biology and biochemistry. As for any information transmission system, if we pay more attention to its transmission carrier instead of its transmission content, we are used to employing "signal transmission" instead of "signal transduction". From the tradition of the early use of information concept, the signal transduction study of cells is only equivalent to the level of telecommunications before 1948. Outwardly, before the advent of Shannon's information theory, the central issue of telecommunications is "signal" rather than "information". After that, the central issue of telecommunications is "information" rather than "signal". According to the application history of information concept, nearly all the essential problems behind the concepts of communication, messenger, signal and so on may be information problems. Just as the language problem what we are discussing here, our ultimate goal is to analyze the information. For the same reason, I recommend another two papers: 1. Do Plants Think? (June 5, 2012, Scientific American) (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/#rd?sukey=fc78a68049a14bb24ce82efd8ef931e64057ce6142b1f2f7b919612d2b3f42c07f559f5be33be0881613ccfbf5b43c4b<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fdo-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz%2F%23rd%3Fsukey%3Dfc78a68049a14bb24ce82efd8ef931e64057ce6142b1f2f7b919612d2b3f42c07f559f5be33be0881613ccfbf5b43c4b&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd21bd1ad9ddf46d01a3e08d5720c681d%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636540320007030420&sdata=2buOZeZpeC9UCNIIuY6bVfAr%2B4yOET6l35UU6ZwMhdU%3D&reserved=0>） 2. Plants Can Think, Feel and Learn (December 3, 2014, New Scientist) (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429980-400-root-intelligence-plants-can-think-feel-and-learn<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2Fmg22429980-400-root-intelligence-plants-can-think-feel-and-learn&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd21bd1ad9ddf46d01a3e08d5720c681d%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636540320007030420&sdata=zfHmH3VG30OLHtjwoFmaVX2OVlwZRaxqdOXRIo69GMc%3D&reserved=0>) From which we can judge whether or not a plants informatics can exists. Best wishes, Xueshan From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es><mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:10 PM To: Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com<mailto:13francesco.ri...@gmail.com><mailto:13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>>; Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu<mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu><mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>> Cc: Fis, <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es><mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory Hi Terry, and FISers, Can it be that "language metaphor" is akin to a (theoretical) knife that, in the hands of a surgeon, can save lives but, in a wrong hand, can kill? All the best. Sung ________________________________ From: Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com<mailto:13francesco.ri...@gmail.com><mailto:13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 2:56:11 AM To: Terrence W. DEACON Cc: Fis,; Sungchul Ji Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory Caro Terry estensibile a tutti, è sempre un piacere leggerTi e capirTi. La general theory of information è preceduta da un sistema (o semiotica) di significazione e seguita da un sistema (o semiotica ) di comunicazione. Tranne che quando si ha un processo comunicativo come il passaggio di un Segnale (che non significa necessariamente 'un segno') da una Fonte, attraverso un Trasmettitore, lungo un Canale, a un Destinatario. In un processo tra macchina e macchina il segnale non ha alcun potere 'significante'. In tal caso non si ha significazione anche se si può dire che si ha passaggio di informazione. Quando il destinatario è un essere umano (e non è necessario che la fonte sia anch'essa un essere umano) si è in presenza di un processo di significazione. Un sistema di significazione è una costruzione semiotica autonoma, indipendente da ogni possibile atto di comunicazione che l'attualizzi. Invece ogni processo di comunicazione tra esseri umani -- o tra ogni tipo di apparato o struttura 'intelligente, sia meccanico che biologico, -- presuppone un sistema di significazione come propria o specifica condizione. In conclusione, è possibile avere una semiotica della significazione indipendente da una semiotica della comunicazione; ma è impossibile stabilire una semiotica della comunicazione indipendente da una semiotica della significazione. Ho appreso molto da Umberto Eco a cui ho dedicato il capitolo 10. Umberto Eco e il processo di re-interpretazione e re-incantamento della scienza economica (pp. 175-217) di "Valore e valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia o l'economia della scienza" (FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1997). Nello mio stesso libro si trovano: - il capitolo 15. Semiotica economico-estimativa (pp. 327-361) che si colloca nel quadro di una teoria globale di tutti i sistemi di significazione e i processi di comunicazione; - il sottoparagrafo 5.3.3 La psicologia genetica di Jean Piaget e la neurobiologia di Humberto Maturana e Francesco Varela. una nuova epistemologia sperimentale della qualità e dell'unicità (pp. 120-130). Chiedo scusa a Tutti se Vi ho stancati o se ancora una volta il mio scrivere in lingua italiana Vi crea qualche problema. Penso che il dono che mi fate è, a proposito della QUALITA' e dell'UNICITA', molto più grande del (per)dono che Vi chiedo. Grazie. Un saluto affettuoso. Francecso 2018-02-07 23:02 GMT+01:00 Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu<mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu><mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>>: Dear FISers, In previous posts I have disparaged using language as the base model for building a general theory of information. Though I realize that this may seem almost heretical, it is not a claim that all those who use linguistic analogies are wrong, only that it can be causally misleading. I came to this view decades back in my research into the neurology and evolution of the human language capacity. And it became an orgnizing theme in my 1997 book The Symbolic Species. Early in the book I describe what I (and now other evolutionary biologists) have come to refer to as a "porcupine fallacy" in evolutionary thinking. Though I use it to critique a misleading evolutionary taxonomizing tendency, I think it also applies to biosemiotic and information theoretic thinking as well. So to exemplify my reasoning (with apologies for quoting myself) I append the following excerpt from the book. "But there is a serious problem with using language as the model for analyzing other species’ communication in hindsight. It leads us to treat every other form of communication as exceptions to a rule based on the one most exceptional and divergent case. No analytic method could be more perverse. Social communication has been around for as long as animals have interacted and reproduced sexually. Vocal communication has been around at least as long as frogs have croaked out their mating calls in the night air. Linguistic communication was an afterthought, so to speak, a very recent and very idiosyncratic deviation from an ancient and well-established mode of communicating. It cannot possibly provide an appropriate model against which to assess other forms of communication. It is the rare exception, not the rule, and a quite anomalous exception at that. It is a bit like categorizing birds’ wings with respect to the extent they possess or lack the characteristics of penguins’ wings, or like analyzing the types of hair on different mammals with respect to their degree of resemblance to porcupine quills. It is an understandable anthropocentric bias―perhaps if we were penguins or porcupines we might see more typical wings and hair as primitive stages compared to our own more advanced adaptations―but it does more to obfuscate than clarify. Language is a derived characteristic and so should be analyzed as an exception to a more general rule, not vice versa." Of course there will be analogies to linguistic forms. This is inevitable, since language emerged from and is supported by a vast nonlinguistic semiotic infrastructure. So of course it will inherit much from less elaborated more fundamental precursors. And our familiarity with language will naturally lead us to draw insight from this more familiar realm. I just worry that it provides an elaborate procrustean model that assumes what it endeavors to explain. Regards to all, Terry On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero <javierwe...@gmail.com<mailto:javierwe...@gmail.com><mailto:javierwe...@gmail.com>> wrote: In principle I agree with Terry. I have been thinking of this, though I am still not able to make a sound formulation of the idea. Still I am afraid that if I miss the chance to make at least a brief formulation of it I will lose the opportunity to make a brainstorming with you. So, here it comes: I have been thinking that a proper way to distinguish the contexts in which the concept of information acquires a fixed meaning or the many contexts on which information can be somehow observed, is to make use of the distinction between medium and form as developed by N. Luhmann, D. Baecker and E. Esposito. I have already expressed my opinion in this group that what information is depends on the system we are talking about. But the concept of medium is more especific since a complex system ussualy has many sources and types of information. So the authors just mentioned, a medium can be broadly defined as a set of loosely coupled elements. No matter what they are. While a Form is a temporary fixed coupling of a limited configuration of those elements. Accordingly, we can be talking about DNA sequences which are selected by RNA to form proteins or to codify a especific instruction to a determinate cell. We can think of atoms forming a specific kind of matter and a specific kind of molecular structure. We can also think of a vocabulary or a set of linguistic conventions making possible a meaningful utterance or discourse. The idea is that the medium conditions what can be treated as information. Or even better, each type of medium produces information of its own kind. According to this point of view, information cannot be transmitted. It can only be produced and "interpreted" out of the specific difference that a medium begets between itself and the forms that take shape from it. A medium can only be a source of noise to other mediums. Still, media can couple among them. This means that media can selforganize in a synergetic manner, where they depend on each others outputs or complexity reductions. And this also mean that they do this by translating noise into information. For instance, language is coupled to writing, and language and writing to print. Still oral communication is noisy to written communication. Let us say that the gestures, emotions, entonations, that we make when talking cannot be copied as such into writing. In a similar way, all the social practices and habits made by handwriting were distorted by the introduction of print. From a technical point of view you can codify the same message orally, by writing and by print. Still information and meaning are not the same. You can tell your girlfriend you love her. That interaction face to face where the lovers look into each others eye, where they can see if the other is nervous, is trembling or whatever. Meaning (declaring love and what that implies: marriage, children, and so on) and information (he is being sincere, she can see it in his eye; he brought her to a special place, so he planned it, and so on) take a very singular and untranslatable configuration. If you write a letter you just can say "I love you". You shall write a poem or a love letter. Your beloved would read it alone in her room and she would have to imagine everything you say. And imagination makes information and meaning to articulate quite differently as in oral communication. It is not the same if you buy a love card in the kiosk and send it to her. Maybe you compensate the simplicity of your message by adding some chocolates and flowers. Again, information (jumm, lets see what he bought her) and meaning are not the same. I use examples of social sciences because that is my research field, although I have the intuition that it could also work for natural sciences. Best, JJ El feb 7, 2018 10:47 AM, "Sungchul Ji" <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu<mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu><mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>> escribió: Hi FISers, On 10/8/2017, Terry wrote: " So basically, I am advocating an effort to broaden our discussions and recognize that the term information applies in diverse ways to many different contexts. And because of this it is important to indicate the framing, whether physical, formal, biological, phenomenological, linguistic, etc. . . . . . . The classic syntax-semantics-pragmatics distinction introduced by Charles Morris has often been cited in this respect, though it too is in my opinion too limited to the linguistic paradigm, and may be misleading when applied more broadly. I have suggested a parallel, less linguistic (and nested in Stan's subsumption sense) way of making the division: i.e. into intrinsic, referential, and normative analyses/properties of information." I agree with Terry's concern about the often overused linguistic metaphor in defining "information". Although the linguistic metaphor has its limitations (as all metaphors do), it nevertheless offers a unique advantage as well, for example, its well-established categories of functions (see the last column in Table 1.) The main purpose of this post is to suggest that all the varied theories of information discussed on this list may be viewed as belonging to the same category of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) diagrammatically represented as the 3-node closed network in the first column of Table 1. Table 1. The postulated universality of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) as manifested in information theory, semiotics, cell language theory, and linguistics. Category Theory f g A -----> B ------> C | ^ | | |______________| h ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) Deacon’s theory of information Shannon’s Theory of information Peirce’s theory of signs Cell language theory Human language (Function) A Intrinsic information Source Object Nucleotides*/ Amion acids Letters (Building blocks) B Referential information Message Sign Proteins Words (Denotation) C Normative information Receiver Interpretant Metabolomes (Totality of cell metabolism) Systems of words (Decision making & Reasoning) f ? Encoding Sign production Physical laws Second articulation g ? Decoding Sign interpretation Evoutionary selection First and Third articulation h ? Information flow Information flow Inheritance Grounding/ Habit Scale Micro-Macro? Macro Macro Micro Macro *There may be more than one genetic alphabet of 4 nucleotides. According to the "multiple genetic alphabet hypothesis', there are n genetic alphabets, each consisting of 4^n letters, each of which in turn consisting of n nucleotides. In this view, the classical genetic alphabet is just one example of the n alphabets, i.e., the one with n = 1. When n = 3, for example, we have the so-called 3rd-order genetic alphabet with 4^3 = 64 letters each consisting of 3 nucleotides, resulting in the familiar codon table. Thus, the 64 genetic codons are not words as widely thought (including myself until recently) but letters! It then follows that proteins are words and metabolic pathways are sentences. Finally, the transient network of metbolic pathways (referred to as "hyperstructures" by V. Norris in 1999 and as "hypermetabolic pathways" by me more recently) correspond to texts essential to represent arguement/reasoning/computing. What is most exciting is the recent discovery in my lab at Rutgers that the so-called "Planck-Shannon plots" of mRNA levels in living cells can identify function-dependent "hypermetabolic pathways" underlying breast cancer before and after drug treatment (manuscript under review). Any comments, questions, or suggestions would be welcome. Sung _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es><mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c284584fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es><mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c284584fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0> -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es><mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c284584fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es><mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd21bd1ad9ddf46d01a3e08d5720c681d%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636540320007030420&sdata=JTnL%2BthMsdQUEzTx%2F9UKr5xzKQom6%2FINA8VkaDyPI80%3D&reserved=0> -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> 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
