Dear Pedro, Roman & Littlefield is coming out with a volume along those lines entitled "Beyond Mechanism" <http://www.academia.edu/1141907/Beyond_Mechanism_Putting_Life_Back_Into_Biology>
As for our Chinese colleagues, I find them more open to non-mechanical scenarios than are anglophones. All three of my books are being translated into Chinese. The first one, "Growth and Development: Ecosystems Phenomenology" has already been published. The best to all, Bob Quoting PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>: > Dear colleagues, > > Yes, the foundations are trembling... as usual during quite long a > time. Maybe too many aspects have to be put into line in order to > have new, more consistent foundations for human knowledge. Until now > the different crisis of Mechanics, the dominant scientific culture, > have been "solved" at the small price of leaving conceptual > inconsistencies until the rug of brand new fields or subdisciplines > while at the same time fictive claims of unity of sceince, > reductionism, etc. were upheld. Good for mechanics, as probably > there were few competing options around --if any. Bad for the whole > human knowledge, as multidisciplinary "schizophrenia" has been > assumed as the natural state of mental health. > > My opinion is that information science should carefully examine the > problematic claims at the core of mechanical ways of explanation, as > some (many?) of them refer to the information stuff: unlimited > communication (even between physical elements), arbitrary partitions > and boundary conditions, ideal status of the acting laws of nature, > ominiscient observer, idealized nature of human knowledge (no > "neurodynamics of knowledge"), disciplinary hierarchies versus > heterarchical interrelationships, logical versus social construction > and knowledge recombination, idealized social information, etc.etc. > Probably I have misconceived and wrongly expressed some of those > problems, but in any case it is unfortunate that there is a dense > feedback among them and a strong entrenchment with many others, so > the revision task becomes Herculean even if partially addressed. > > The big problem some of us see, and I tried to argument about that > in the last Beijing FIS meeting, is that without an entrance of some > partial aspect in the "professional science" system, none of the > those challenges has the slightest possibility of being developed in > the amateur mode/marginal science our studies are caught into. > Therefore a common challenge for FIS, the new ISIS society, ITHEA, > Symmetrion, INBIOSA, etc. is to take some piece or problem, with > practical implications, and enter it into the institutional system, > it does not matter where and by whom, and little by little expand > the initial stronghold with the collective support of all of us. > There is a terrific collection of individualities and scholars in > the FIS enterprise and the germane entities, so that any small > "oficializing" attempt should prosper quite soon. > > Let us think about that... there is hope for non-trembling > foundations! Provided we are institutionally clever. > > best wishes > > ---Pedro > > PS. by the way, I would like to hear in this list from our > flamboyant Beijing FIS Group, as without discussion they and the > colleagues at Wuhan are the best situated to try to respond > institutionally to the above challenge. My special greetings to all > the Chinese FIS friends! > > > > > ----- Mensaje original ----- > De: Koichiro Matsuno <cxq02...@nifty.com> > Fecha: Sábado, 3 de Noviembre de 2012, 6:11 am > Asunto: Re: [Fis] The Information Flow > A: fis@listas.unizar.es > >> Folks, >> >> Bob U said "The foundations, they are trembling!" I >> have taken it to imply that propositional >> calculus itself is also in a bad shape. This observation reminds >> me of the hanging paradox first >> invented by an American logician Arthur Prior more than 60 years >> ago. It goes like this: >> >> "On a certain Saturday a judge sentenced a man to >> be hanged on Sunday or Monday at noon, >> stipulating at the same time that the man would not know the day >> of his hanging until the morning of >> the day itself. The condemned man argued that if he were hanged >> on Monday, he would be aware of the >> fact by noon on Sunday, and this would contravene the judge's >> stipulation. So the date of his >> hanging would have to be Sunday. Since, however, he had worked >> this out on Saturday, and so knew the >> date of his hanging the day before, the judge's stipulation was >> again contravened. The date, >> therefore, could not be Sunday either. The prisoner concluded >> that he would not be hanged at all. >> However, the official gazette issued on Tuesday reported that >> the man was hanged on last Sunday." >> >> The logician-prisoner (the externalist) was right >> in his deduction upon the trusted propositional >> calculus, while the judge (the internalist) was also right in >> faithfully executing the sentence. But >> both cannot be right at the same time. Despite that, the >> internalist could finally come to preside >> over this empirical world. I had a hard time to convince myself >> of it. Strange? >> >> Cheers, >> Koichiro Matsuno >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
