Challenge for FIS- What are your 10 most important questions?
1) How can we best explore the latest version of new means of scanning/observing the body? What are they? how are they mathematically intra-explored? 2) how can we best move from emergent systems to known systems? Transcending Rosen... 3) is there a new relational mathematics that moves across current spaces? Who is working now on this? How can we do it? 4) How can people best collaborate with different mind sets --- people that think differently?? Is this valuable? 5) How can we make new publishing arenas that explore and support transdisciplinary research? 6) How can we best bridge research fields in terms of mathematics? 7) How can we go beyond what we know in a quantum jump without having our past research being put into question? or should we just allow ourselves to change as we learn/absorb? 8) How can we make sure institutions are supporting such research in terms of tenure? 9) What is the best publishing venue for such research? 10) Who is best funding this… b Bill Seaman Professor, Department of Art, Art History & Visual Studies DUKE UNIVERSITY 114 b East Duke Building Box 90764 Durham, NC 27708, USA +1-919-684-2499 http://billseaman.com/ http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/AAH/faculty/william.seaman http://www.dibs.duke.edu/research/profiles/98-william-seaman RadioSeaman Paste into itunes (Advanced/open audio streams) for internet radio: http://smw-aux.trinity.duke.edu:8000/radioseaman On Oct 27, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 26 Oct 2012, at 22:32, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ wrote: > >> Dear FISers, >> >> Is it interesting the discussion on wether those informational >> entities contain realizations of the Aristotelian scheme of >> causality or not? >> >> The cell, in my view, conspicuously fails --it would be too >> artifactual an scheme. Some parts of the sensory paths of advanced >> nervous systems seem to separate some of those causes --but only in >> a few parts or patches of the concerned pathway. For instance, in >> visual processing the "what" and the "how/where" seem to be >> travelling together undifferentiated along the optic nerve and are >> separated --more or less-- after the visual superior colliculus in >> the midbrain before discharging onto the visual cortex. The really >> big flow of spikes arriving each instant (many millions every few >> milisec) are mixed and correlated with themselves and with other top- >> down and bottom-up preexisting flows in multiple neural mappings... >> and further, when those flows mix with the association areas under >> the influence of languaje, then, and only then, all those logic and >> conceptual categorizations of human thought are enacted in the >> ephemeral synaptic networks. >> >> I am optimistic that a new "Heraclitean" way of thinking boils down >> in network science, neuroinformatics, systems biology, >> bioinformation etc. Neither the "Parmenidean" eliminative fixism of >> classical reductionists, nor the Aristotelian organicism of >> systemicists. Say that this is a caricature. However "you cannot >> bathe twice in the same river" not just because we all are caught >> into the universal physical flow of photons and forces, but for the >> "Heraclitean flux" of our own neurons and brains, for the inner >> torrents of the aggregated information flows. The same for whatever >> cells, societies, etc. and their physical structures for info >> transportation. >> >> Either we produce an interesting new vision of the world, finally >> making sense of those perennial metaphors among the different >> (informational) realms, or information science will continue to be >> that small portion of incoherent patches more or less close to >> information theory or to artificial intelligence. In spite of >> decades of bla-bla- about information revolution and information >> society and tons of ad hoc literature, the educated thought of our >> contemporary society continues to be deeply mechanistic! >> >> Why? > > > Even if the Parmenidean reality is restricted to the natural numbers, > with only the laws of addition and multiplication, we can prove, > assuming our brain are Turing emulable, that the view from inside as > to be Heraclitean. > > The problem is not mechanism. The problem is the reductionist > conception of mechanism. I think. > > The incompleteness phenomenon does not refute mechanism, like some > have proposed, but it does refute the reductionist conception of > mechanism. > > Arithmetic is full of life and dreams. > > Best, > > Bruno > > > > > > >> >> ---Pedro >> >> >>> >>> -snip- >>> >>> I think it of some interest that I have >>> previously ( 2006 On >>> Aristotle’s conception of causality. >>> General Systems Bulletin 35: >>> 11.) proposed that the Aristotelian 'formal >>> cause' determines both >>> 'what happens' and 'how it happens', and that >>> the combination of >>> this with material cause ('what it happens >>> to') delivers 'where' it >>> happens. >>> >>> (For completeness sake I add that efficient >>> cause determines only >>> 'when it happens', while final cause points >>> to 'why it happens'. It >>> would be quite exciting to find that these >>> informations were also >>> carried on separate tracts.) >>> >>> >>> It would be exciting, as that would seem to refute the >>> Aristotelean idea >>> of the four causes as four aspects of all causation. However an >>> information channel can carry some part of the information from >>> its >>> source, which would be a sort of filter or abstraction of the >>> source. >>> So, for example, a channel might be sensitive only to the "how", >>> but not >>> the "what", and vice versa. A channel is fundamentally a mapping >>> of >>> classes from a source to a sink that through instances that >>> retain the >>> mapping (see Barwsie and Seligman, Information Flow: The Logic >>> of >>> Distributed Systems). So in this case, a channel sensitive to, >>> say, >>> "what", would retain the what classifications of the source in a >>> way >>> that the sink could use, but perhaps not any other information. >>> The >>> channels themselves could still maintain all four aspects of >>> Aristotelean causation, so Aristotle need not be refuted. This >>> would >>> still be very interesting, though. I am unclear what functional >>> advantage there would be, though we certainly manage to separate >>> these >>> causes in much of our thinking (perhaps even, we can't help it). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> John >>> >>> ======= Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: >>> http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer ======= >>> _______________________________________________ >>> fis mailing list >>> fis@listas.unizar.es >>> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> _______________________________________________ >> fis mailing list >> fis@listas.unizar.es >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
