Dear Robert and FIS colleagues,
On 12 Nov 2012, at 16:35, Robert Ulanowicz wrote: > 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. The problem is that few people defending mechanism are aware that mechanism is incompatible with weak materialism (the primary existence of a physical universe, that is more or less the current dogma/ paradigm). Most proponents of Mechanism have still the 19th century conception of Mechanism, which is refuted by theoretical computer science/mathematical logic. Mechanical entities are intrinsically related to non mechanical scenario. You cannot genuinely be open to mechanism without being open to the non-mechanical. Most predicate applying to machine are undecidable, non mechanical, etc. Machines, notably when they are self- observing, are confronted to the non mechanical, and *can* overcome it by relying on non mechanically generable informations. I am not defending Mechanism, but as a logician I do invalidate widespread misconception on machines, and notably I try to explain that Digital Mechanism (computationalism) is quite the opposite of reductionism. I would even say that it might be used as a vaccine against reductionism in the exact and human science. Mechanism, in the weak sense I am using, is quite plausible, as there are no evidences against it, but this does not mean that Mechanism is a good *explanation* of anything. On the contrary, I prefer to look at it as a tool, perhaps a simplifying tool, to *formulate* the problems (notably the mind-body problem), to explain it is not yet solved, even in that simplifying frame, etc. We are very ignorant of what are machines, and probably so, in case we assume we are ourself Turing emulable (with or without oracles). > All three of my books are being > translated into Chinese. The first one, "Growth and Development: > Ecosystems Phenomenology" has already been published. Congratulation ! Best, Bruno > 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 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
