Pedro -- Regarding: could we say that the life cycle itself establishes the eigenvectors of communication? It is intriguing that maintenance, persistence, self-propagation are the essential motives of communication for whatever life entities (from bacteria to ourselves). With the complexity increase there appear new, more sophisticated directions, but the basic ones probably remain intact. What could be these essential directions of communication?
S: It is interesting on this point to note the studied avoidance of serious discourses to include the "life cycle itself" (i.e.: immaturity ->maturity-> senescence) in any scientific study other than some areas of biology (gerontology). One can conclude that we have such a fear of aging that it has blinded our discourses to this basic fact. STAN On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: > Dear All, > > Herewith some notes on the exchanges of past weeks (sorry, I was away in > bureaucratic tasks). > > 1. Agents & Information. There were very good insights exchanged; probably > both terms make a fertile marriage. Actually I have been writing about > "informational entities" or "subjects" as receivers/builders of information > but taking into account the other disciplines around, "agents" look as the > most natural companion of information. The only thing I don't quite like is > that they usually appear as abstract, disembodied communicative entities > that do not need self-producing. Their communication is free from whatever > life maintenance... > > 2. Eigenvectors of communication. Taking the motif from Loet, and > continuing with the above, could we say that the life cycle itself > establishes the eigenvectors of communication? It is intriguing that > maintenance, persistence, self-propagation are the essential motives of > communication for whatever life entities (from bacteria to ourselves). With > the complexity increase there appear new, more sophisticated directions, > but the basic ones probably remain intact. What could be these essential > directions of communication? > > 3. About logics in the pre-science, Joseph is quite right demanding that > discussion to accompany principles or basic problems. Actually principles, > rules, theories, etc. are interconnected or should be by a logic (or > several logics?) in order to give validity and coherence to the different > combinations of elements. For instance, in the biomolecular realm there is > a fascinating interplay of activation and inhibition among the > participating molecular partners (enzymes and proteins) as active > elements. I am not aware that classical ideas from Jacob (La Logique du > vivant) have been sufficiently continued; it is not about Crick's Central > Dogma but about the logic of pathways, circuits, modules, etc. Probably > both Torday and Ji have their own ideas about that-- I would be curious to > hear from them. > > 4. I loved Michel's response to Arturo's challenge. I think that the two > "zeros" I mentioned days ago (the unsolved themes around the cycle and > around the observer) imply both multidisciplinary thinking and > philosophical speculation... > > Best wishes--Pedro > > ------------------------------------------------- > Pedro C. Marijuán > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) > Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0 > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > ------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > 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
