=en *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Pedro C. Marijuan *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2015 2:34 PM *To:* Terrence W. DEACON; 'fis' *Subject:* Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath Dear Terry and colleagues, I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions
Dear Terry and colleagues, I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate closure to a very intense discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an essential point (at least in my opinion):
Hi Terry, I have used the term ‘perception’ in referring to in-formation that affects internal structure or dynamics. This would contrast with forms of potential information that might pass through the system without being ‘perceived’. For example, we have a finite number of mechanisms we
complexity and commitment. Cheers, Joseph Message d'origine De : dea...@berkeley.edu Date : 24/04/2015 - 10:22 (PST) À : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Cc : firstname.lastname@example.org Objet : Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath Hi Pedro, Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely
Hi Pedro, Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely agree with your comment about living processes and their internal informative organization. The three exceedingly simple molecular model systems (forms of autogenesis) that I discuss toward the end of the paper were intended
Hi Guy, Yes. At the very basic level that I explore with these ultra simple model systems it would not be easy to distinguish perception and reaction. Both involve interpretive steps, in that only some material features—specifically those with potentially disruptive or constructive potential for
Dear FIS colleagues, Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds.