Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror
Dear Gordana and colleagues, Your quotation But I would rather risk such reproaches than accept the present situation, in which philosophers argue only with dead biologists and biologists only with dead philosophers... is quite funny and descriptive. In my terms, the recombination of knowledge is a slow, generationally driven process, except maybe in revolutionary periods like today. Thus, in spite of Peirce scholarly greatness, and his crucial involvement in the creation of pragmatism, it does not follow that this general philosophy or his semiotician stance, elaborated almost three generations ago, make a good match with the current developments in connectomics and in the motor-centered approach attempted by contemporary neuroscientists. My hunch is that a new information philosophy is needed in order to coherently link not only with the neurosciences but also with biology and Q Info science and advanced Artificial Intelligence. The unfortunately missing neurosceintific aspect is really crucial for our common enterprise, and it is a discussion we must promote in the list... There is a very interesting attempt in the theoretical-biological arena that may be taken as a model for the neuroscience missing link. It is the INBIOSA project (www.inbiosa.eu http://www.inbiosa.eu), that promotes a new integration paradigm about theoretical biology, biomathematics, and biocomputing. It is a preliminary European project funded by the EU, and some FISers know it very well as they (we) are already cooperating in this initiative. Somehow, what inbiosa attempts is the what is life of our times... It has been promoted by Plamen Simeonov, Andrée Ehresmann, Leslie Smith, Bruno Marchal, and others. They have recently joined our own discussion list (let me welcome them publicly!). In the extent to which a general multidisciplinary discussion may be convenient for them at some developmental stage, they are invited to chair some FIS future discussion session. By the way, given that we have almost discontinued with James' presentation on medieval science, maybe it is time that he writes down a discussion colophon... We have had a nice time with his historical panorama (particularly in the scholarly disputatione so enlivened by Jerry's musings). Thanks, James! best wishes ---Pedro Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic escribió: Dear Joseph, Thank you for this precise clarification. I agree completely and I also follow tensions and changes in our discussions in the list. Especially interesting to me is how theories or frameworks communicate, use each other and internalize each other. (I believe that is essentially the same process as the one you mention for the change of Logic in Reality itself). Currently there are ongoing paradigm shifts in computing, logic, biology, cognitive science, information science and several others. Not all research fields get updated instantly, it takes time. Interdisciplinary discussions sometimes contain criticisms built on presupposition about other research fields as they looked like some time before. (I meet often the idea that computing is the same as the Turing Machine model. But there is strong development of new computational paradigms and even if they are not completely established, they already exist in some fragmentary form.) But I would rather risk such reproaches than accept the present situation, in which philosophers argue only with dead biologists and biologists only with dead philosophers... Michael Morange, Life Explained So I think this list is a good example of living philosophers talking with living biologists and other living FISers which makes it much more exciting and difficult. Best regards, Gordana -- - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror
Can you specify exactly what this Logic in Reality is? Its framework? Its connectives? Its categorical-identity? Reagrds Gavin -Original Message- From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic Sent: Wednesday, 23 March 2011 10:09 a.m. To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; Loet Leydesdorff; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror Dear Joseph, Thank you for this precise clarification. I agree completely and I also follow tensions and changes in our discussions in the list. Especially interesting to me is how theories or frameworks communicate, use each other and internalize each other. (I believe that is essentially the same process as the one you mention for the change of Logic in Reality itself). Currently there are ongoing paradigm shifts in computing, logic, biology, cognitive science, information science and several others. Not all research fields get “updated” instantly, it takes time. Interdisciplinary discussions sometimes contain criticisms built on presupposition about other research fields as they looked like some time before. (I meet often the idea that computing is the same as the Turing Machine model. But there is strong development of new computational paradigms and even if they are not completely established, they already exist in some fragmentary form.) “But I would rather risk such reproaches than accept the present situation, in which philosophers argue only with dead biologists and biologists only with dead philosophers… “ Michael Morange, Life Explained So I think this list is a good example of living philosophers talking with living biologists and other living FISers which makes it much more exciting and difficult. Best regards, Gordana From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch [mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch] Sent: den 22 mars 2011 21:08 To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic; Loet Leydesdorff; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: AW: RE: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror Dear Gordana, Thank you for your very pertinent illustration of what Logic in Reality is. There are (at least) two dynamics possible, 1) the tension between two existing frameworks, from which a new one (jump) may emerge and 2) that between an existing framework, for example Logic in Reality itself and what it could potentially become. I would just emend your phrase the the world is more than a theory we have at hand to more than we have at hand in actual form to make clearer that what is potential is also at hand. That these tensions are real is illustrated almost every day in these discussions . . . Best regards, Joseph Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se Datum: 21.03.2011 08:40 An: Loet Leydesdorffl...@leydesdorff.net, joe.bren...@bluewin.chjoe.bren...@bluewin.ch, fis@listas.unizar.esfis@listas.unizar.es Betreff: RE: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror Dear Loet, Joe, Fis colleagues Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free observations – e.g., Carnap – is much more doubtful. Most of us will have given up on this “realistic” position. This is a very interesting issue. It seems to me very reasonable to claim that for any observation one has at least a rudimentary “theory” – as this process goes in a loop. Observation is done in time and during observation we act, which demands at least basic theoretical understanding. Of course sophisticated observations like those made in CERN are loaded with tons of theory. But there is a difference between acting within some system, or acting on a premise that what is studied maybe goes outside that systems box. One example is generalization of physics from Aristotelian to Newtonian. Within a system, one introduces more and more complicated assumptions in order to accommodate for observations, but at some point framework must change. There are jumps to more generalized frameworks in this process of learning. I see Joe’s logic in reality even here – a tension between an existing framework (which a is not enough) and the potential new one capable of accommodating for new knowledge. So realism would consist in not denying that the world is more than a theory we have at hands. One would also wonder whether animals without language, would have the possibility to compose and perform music (without human orchestration). Some birds are singing and birdsong sounds like music. Much of modern music is produced almost like a birdsong in a sense that it is not following any rules of composition, sometimes it is simply a collection of sounds found in nature. ☺ Best, Gordana http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: den 21 mars 2011 08:04 To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror
