Asunto: Re: [Fis] [SPAM] Shannonian Mechanics?
Fecha: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 11:17:02 +0200
De: Michel Godron <migod...@wanadoo.fr>
Para: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
in red
Cordialement. M. Godron
Le 01/07/2016 à 13:59, Pedro C. Marijuan a écrit :
Dear Marcus and FIS Colleagues,
You are right in your complaint. We have been saying very similar
things concerning information generation--and also in your symbolic
introduction of Darwin in your scheme concerning that series of
complementary questions. Sorry for being so brief but I need some
extra time to re-read your initial doc in this light and the very
cogent responses you have been producing, particularly to Loet's
points. In my first penny of next week I will comment on those
matters. Now I respond to other comments (which partially dovetail
with your themes).
To Loet, fine, we think very differently. Rather than Althusser's
derogatory remark, I look at Schrodinger's disclaimer in his famous
"What is Life": /"...[necessaryly] some of us should venture to embark
on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second hand and
incomplete knowledge of some of them—and at the risk of making fools
of ourselves.” /Whether such kind of synthetic approaches (performed
by each new scientific generation) can be successful or not today, is
something that neither you nor me can foretell. At the very least, the
enormous expansion of bio-info-comp disciplines in our times makes
this demand more necessary than ever. No "hidden program" in my
previous post but the open constatation that we have an excellent
opportunity today in order to delineate those potential "universals"
and "essential core" in an almost completely describable living
system--bacteria.
The informatinal structure ( = "essential core" ?) of living beings _at
five scales_ has been decribed in /Ecologie et évolution du monde vivant
/Ed. L'Harmattan Paris/. /At the molecular scale, the link betsween
information and tehrmodynamic negentropy is established. I could send
some paragraphs of this book to the colleagues interested by any scale.//
At least the rudiments of such approach appear in my team's work on
Proyariotic Signaling Systems and in "How the Living...".
Could you send it to me ?
Anyhow, when I referred to "principles" I was not meaning your
interpretation as "origins" but to the usual way practicing scientists
work on them. For instance, after more than 30 years of painful
experimental, microscopy work on nervous systems, Ramon y Cajal wrote
his formidable "Textura del Sistema Nervioso del Hombre y los
Vertebrados", considered as the foundational opus of modern
neurosceince. There he exposed the new "Doctrine of the Neuron", based
on a few revolutionary principles... Mutatis mutandis, it might be an
interesting case-model regarding the info science renewal commented in
the previous post.
To Alex, I see the opposite. Making the "universals" species specific
means that you can communicate and share gestalts far more easily
within your own phylum or class, or order, than with the far distant
ones. So, other mammals can approximately "read" your facial
expressions and postural stance, and get your meaning, while starfish
or insects will not. Don't you think so?
To Bob (offline comment), many thanks for the comprehension. I am
happy that from different angles we see in common some stumbling
blocks to win. Actually, one needs both kinds of criticisms, positive
and negative, in order to advance a little more in this viscous
terrain... but making constructive criticisms becomes a more difficult
task.
Apologies if I have missed some other more brief comments. And sorry
Marcus if this was sort of a disruption, but I think that your
discussion topic invites quite a lot to transgress the boundaries.
Best--Pedro
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
