Helmut, list
There IS a difference between 'groupthink' and 'culture' though a
cursory glance will equate them. Both refer to habits of belief and
behaviour, I.e., 3ns. The difference, I think, is that 'groupthink'
has removed itself from interaction with both 1ns and 2ns and thus,
is isolated from the effects of spontaneity/freedom and from
pragmatic interaction with its local environment. Culture ought to
be, as a robust semiosic 3ns, in touch with both the chance
interactions of 1ns and the hard effects of the 2ns of its current
environment.
Edwina.
On Sat 08/12/18 6:05 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Stephen, you earlier wrote, that knowing how to be is replication
of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see
the difference between that and NPCish groupthink: Replication of
behaviour to me seems exactly what you wrote about groupthink: A
degenerated firstness, just taking observed behaviour (former
thirdness) for firstness again, without regarding other firstness
influences. Association and habituation without something new that
would mediate. Though (for culture, knowing how to be) a habit
(replication of behaviour) may also be the habit of revising habits.
But for me the root of this critical behaviour does not originate
from culture, but from precultural references, like human nature,
possible to be observed at any child from any culture (curiosity,
inquiring "why"-questions...). Best, Helmut 08. Dezember 2018 um
07:54 Uhr
"Stephen Jarosek"
wrote:
HELMUT >”groupthink is quite identical with culture”
This is a category error. The characteristics that govern groupthink
need to be distinguished from the principles that govern culture.
Culture relates to pragmatism, knowing how to be, Heideggers Dasein.
Groupthink describes something different. Some cultures are more
predisposed to groupthink than others, and NO culture is exempt. My
own humble estimation is that the problem of groupthink revolves
around some kind of failure of firstness, in the mediation of
secondness and thirdness. Reflexive and automaton-like behavior can
take place with emphasis on secondness and thirdness (association and
habituation) and the muting or degeneration of firstness, perhaps as a
product of fear and the need to belong. Both the Left and the Right in
politics are capable of groupthink.
Paul Joseph Watson nails the groupthink of the left in his video on
NPC-bots:
https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg [1]
And we are all too familiar with the iconic groupthink of the right:
https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-nazi-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242
[2]
sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de [3]]
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:10 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au [4]
Cc: tabor...@primus.ca [5]; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [6]
Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems
theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen,
As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural
references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think,
like wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly),
organism-think-and reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of
handling organism-specific problems like having to eat), and
universal reactions like the constraints that the natural laws
provide. Noncultural references have their roots in
precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated
into contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing
cultures, it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning
pre-cultural reference. E.g., that parents dont eat their children,
Id say, is a mammal-trait, and also a bird-trait, not an
animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their children, as I
vaguely recall. Problem solving of mimetic desire may be a universal
value: The Pauli-principle. Values are means to solve
problem-patterns, or to avoid their expressions. I think it is
valuable to analyse values regarding from which time scale aka
taxonomical node they origin. My suspicion is, that many values are
being assigned to one or the other culture, but for real stem from
much earlier, much more general origins. This is the point of my
opposition against culturalism/ overestimation of culture. Intention
is to help deescalate culture clashes.
Best, Helmut
06. Dezember 2018 um 11:20 Uhr
"Stephen Jarosek"
HELMUT >”"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can
therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on
panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so.
Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references. ”
Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logic’s
illusion of objectivity? Today’s pure reason of “universal
logic” relies on materialistic comforts to be realized. A fix for
every disease, a relief for every inconvenience. Pressures for
survival are absent, and therefore courage is not required. The
question is, is this “comfortable” state of mind sustainable? Can
a cultural narrative that successfully averts the challenges of
survival really apprehend the limits that test the self? Previous
eras were dumbed down by their superstitions and prejudices, but they
never had the opportunity to indulge in today’s scale of lazy,
indulgent groupthink, because ultimately their superstitions and
prejudices had to be tested against the realities of survival.
So despite all this complexity in the “pure reason” of this
information age, why is our groupthink dumbing us down? How can a
people know so much, yet be so ignorant? It is because we are having
everything defined for us. We are having our thinking served up for
us on a platter. We are being told what to believe. Fake news and
social media do our thinking for us. We don't have to think for
ourselves, we have no need for courage or individualism. Ours is a
smug, sanctimonious morality that judges harshly those that do not
conform to our narrow, cognitively dissonant boundaries… diversity
is good, but diverse opinion that is politically incorrect is bad.
Compare this with before the 20th century or the industrial
revolution. People may once have led simpler lives, but there comes a
point in their less materialistic lives, closer to the coalface, where
they have to confront their limitations and access their courage and
individualism, in order to survive. Witchburnings have limited
currency when famines or floods hit. But in this hi-tech era with
solutions to every problem, we are exempt from being tested, and our
unchallenged groupthink is making our cultures stupider than hatfulls
of bricks.
BOTTOM LINE - This indulgent groupthink of contemporary culture,
with its logos masquerading as objectivity, is not sustainable. And
people don’t see it, because they are governed by their subjective
assumptions. Today’s “pure reason of universal logic” is a lazy
indulgence that exempts us from being tested at the boundaries, and
thus it has failed to overcome its fat, well-fed illusions governed
by subjectivity. If one believes in reincarnation, then a straight
line to hell is the most likely trajectory of this cultural
narrative. Today’s neck-beard playing computer games may reappear
elsewhere digging for yams in a desert, eking out their existence as
a hunter-gatherer.
Regards,
sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de [8]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:17 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee [9]; tabor...@primus.ca [10];
peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [11]
Subject: Aw: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory,
DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen, list,
I see your points, and agree that culture, knowing how to be, and
imitation are important. But I think, that for knowing how to be
threre are other references besides culture too. Cultural evolution,
historically, takes place in a certain, relatively small time scale.
Human traits also come from much more ancient evolutional
achievements like humans, mammals, vertebrates, nervous animals,
organisms, universal natural laws. I dont think that we disagree out
of principle, we just emphasize differently: My point is, that
somebody who feels that the culture s*he lives in sucks, and wants to
get out of it, can do that, like you said, press the restart-button
"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore
rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman
traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore
I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references. But I think,
what you wrote about niches and subcultures is very helpful. E.g. in
Albania on one hand there is the blood revenge culture, but on the
other hand there also is the "Besa", which moderates it, and has
saved many Jews from the Germans during the Nazi-Regime in WW2. I
think, the "Besa" is somehow scaffolding on non-, or precultural
habits or laws. So i think, the scaffold-metaphor "one thing is put
on the former" is too simple, because there are these different time
scales.
Best, helmut
02. Dezember 2018 um 12:13 Uhr
"Stephen Jarosek"
wrote:
I agree with you, Helmut, that the concept of culture is extremely
important. More important than the vast, overwhelming majority of
people can hope to understand. I was blessed with having to grow up
in a dysfunctional war-refugee family, and having to make sense of a
hyper-materialistic-hedonistic “fun” culture that believes its
own bullshit (actually, all cultures believe their own bullshit, by
definition, but the most hedonistic-materialistic are the worst…
but I digress). Suspended within a no-man’s land without sensible
truths to anchor to, I had to formulate my own interpretations from
scratch. Eastern religions such as Buddhism often refer to the
importance of letting go of assumptions and definitions, as part of
spiritual practice. Far from the leisure of spiritual practice, this
was a condition that was foisted on me as a matter of survival, it
was not a condition that I chose.
What people don’t realize is the importance of imitation. They
don’t get it, that all that they ever have are assumptions.
Imitation is actually the wrong word… a more precise phrase is
“knowing how to be”. It’s about the replication of behavior…
taking your culture’s assumptions for granted. Maybe we need a new
word that synthesizes assuming with imitating. Assimitating maybe?
Yes… for want of a better word, let’s stick with that…
assimitating. And let’s define it in the context of “knowing how
to be”. First of all, one has to choose a niche from their culture
to belong to. Secondly, they have to assimitate and replicate the
assumptions of their chosen niche, to strictly observe its limits.
One can move across niches, and one must choose one to belong to, but
limits must be observed. Niche boundaries do not necessarily appear
strict to those observing them, however, because they assume that
this is “just” the way that reality is. Observing niche
boundaries is a fine balancing act between the courage of
individualism and the cowardice of conformity. Courageous observance
(testing the limits) is for leaders, timid observance is for
followers. But no matter what, niche boundaries MUST be observed. For
those that fail to observe said boundaries, or push the boundaries too
far with their courage, and there are sizeable numbers of both, their
lot is often disenfranchisement, invisibility, maybe even psychosis
or schizophrenia.
So what are the boundaries of the culture as a whole? As I’ve
mentioned before in other threads, culture is analogous to a thought.
A society of people is to culture what a brain of neurons is to
thought. Metaphors from chaos theory are informative. Role models as
attractors. Boundary conditions. Initial conditions. A culture
comprised of subcultures (niches) is still a unity. The farthest
niches from one another, within a culture, are still fundamentally
united in their sharing of the assumptions that matter (pragmatism).
Assimitation within a culture is integral to pragmatism, because
it’s how people establish the assumptions that matter. Assumptions
are habits… thirdness.
Initial conditions is a concept that has especially caught my
attention of late. It relates to scaffolding. Meaning is built upon
meaning, and the initial conditions… first experiences… are
important because of this. You can’t just wake up one morning and
decide to change your world-view with the affirmative “this is the
first day of the rest of my life.” But it also goes much deeper
than that. I am recognizing this as I walk around the city streets of
my grandfather’s homeland, with the realization “hey, so that’s
where I got that quirky trait from!” (yes, I’m still discovering
things about myself). It begins with mother\'s nurturing [13]…
nay, it begins in the womb… there are several examples of the
latter referenced in my paper Pragmatism, Neural Plasticity and
Mind-body Unity [14].
Which brings us to your reference to fundamentalist religions,
mafias, etc. That is, groupthink. What is the distinction between
groupthink and healthy culture? One clue lies in the moral
individualism of Christianity, its relationship to courage, and Jesus
as a role model (I’m not a Christian, but I respect why Christianity
was effective). Groupthink is a feature of fear and cowardice, and it
sticks like glue, turning people into unquestioning NPC-bots yearning
for social approval and the need to belong. Particularly relevant to
today’s culture of social media. Hedonism and “fun” cultures
are obsessed with needs and, despite their apparent “freedoms”
and indulgences, are contained within strictly self-enforced limits
revolving around social approval.
Buddhism seems to incorporate a lot of these understandings. I’d
just like to see one thing corrected though. Buddhists assume that
all problems stem from desire. No, desire (firstness?) is downstream
from assimitation (pragmatism). Assimitation, knowing how to be, is
where all the problems begin, because that’s where all choices
begin.
Regards, sj
no woo
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de [15]]
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 8:07 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee [16]
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee [17]; tabor...@primus.ca [18];
peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [19]
Subject: Aw: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA
entanglement, agents and semiosis
Supplement: I think there is so much more to discuss, esp. about
the concept of culture: Is culture merely tradition and a homeostatic
system of unquestioned habits, or may it also be a culture of culture
criticism and innovation, like a culture of habit-revising and
habit-breaking? Or would this not be "culture" anymore, but something
else, an emancipation from culture? And so on. Anyway, "culture" is
merely the produce of an observation, just secondness, but not
something containing thirdness essentialities such as values or laws.
Btw, evolution has not stopped with the evolution of nervous systems.
Causa efficiens is like proto-symbolic (force, laws... . To say
natural laws are conventional, would suggest a polytheistic idea of
gods having had a meeting, haha. So proto). Needs are indexical, id
say, and wishes iconical. Simple nervous animals iconize. In their
evolution there comes indexicality (like pheromons smelling,
pointing, yelling) and symbolicity (like language) again. So I see
individuation (evolution of individuals out of the universe) like a
wave: symbolic(1), indexical(1), iconical(1), indexical(2),
symbolical(2), and so on. Indexical(3) and symbolical(3) would mean,
that individuality is handed over to a supersystem (like the
internet), that integrates us, strips our individuality from us, and
organizes us (makes us organs and no-more-organisms). In our own
human interest, we must avoid this. It would be natural, but not good
for us. In our civilized convenience-swing we have forgotten, that
"natural" does not automatically mean "good", but may and often does
mean "hostile". Nature in ancient times was justifiedly regarded as
mostly hostile (sabre-teeth-tigers, snakes, locusts, diseases,
famines...). Now, as nature appears in the form of technology, we
dont recognize it as nature, but it is, and it is pure nature
untamed, though phenomenologically completely different from the
common-conceptual (green) nature we know and have tamed.
Stephen, Edwina, list,
I agree, that the term "operationally closed" is too much suggesting
an objectivity, because "operation" sounds like something objective:
An operation is mostly the same operation, seen from any perspective.
So, with my own terms, i rather say "causally closed", and
therefore, additionally to effect causation and final causation, I
propose a secular kind of example cause (causa exemplaris).
Causa efficiens I see as force reason, as effect causes are forced
by natural laws. Regarding causa efficiens, no system is causally
closed.
Causa finalis I see as need reason, applying to organisms. Organisms
have needs, and the system border for them and this causally
closedness is the skin or the cell membrane of an organism.
Causa exemplaris (secular) I see as wish reason or volation reason,
applying to organisms with a nervous system, and any wish is causally
contained within the nervous system, so there is causal closedness
too.
With social systems, I think, it is so, that they have an intention
of becoming organism-like, or even human-like. Luhmann speaks of
intentional systems. This intention, I think, is the reason life has
emerged and evolved, as it more or less applies to any CAS, the more
complex it is, the more, and the more complex (like humans) the
agents it relies on are, the more too.
So the emergence of fundamentalist religions, rigid ideologies,
mafias, and so on, is a natural thing, and the goal of systems theory
imho would be to show this danger, and so to help prevent it.
So, politically I see value in the dogma, that a social system
should be kept as trivial (non-complex) and transparent as possible,
for not being able to develop causal closedness (systems´ own needs
and wishes). This dogma is in accord with democratic achievements
like separation of powers, civil and human rights, freedom of speech,
press, religion..., mobility (travel, work, and habitation
freedom...). This dogma stands in opposition against right-wing
people-think (volkskoerper), compulsory communism, and excessive
(intransparent) dataism.
Best, Helmut
29. November 2018 um 22:02 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek"
EDWINA >"Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal
of fundamentalism in religion."
Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed"
perspective seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm.
Fundamentalist religion, man-made-in-god's-image, Darwinism, human
exceptionalism, etc, all make assumptions about objective truth where
reality plays out independently of the observer, and I think that this
is the same trap that Luhmann's interpretation falls into. Reminds me
of Richard Dawkins' memetics theory.
This is a perspective where human behavior is regarded merely as an
impartial medium for the transmission of cultural communications... a
very odd position I must say. They're failing to recognize a most
important point... the relationship between human behavior and
culture... the "knowing how to be", imitation and pragmatism.
sj
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca [21]]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:55 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [22]; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee [23];
Stephen Jarosek
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA
entanglement, agents and semiosis
I think this is an important distinction.
Do societies function by ideology or by interactional relations with
their environment and others?
Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of
fundamentalism in religion. This is where " the cultural narrative
exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it"
that Stephen refers to.
Cultural anthropology believes in the determinism of the cultural
narrative.
However, I think that a society, as a CAS [complex adaptive system]
operates as an interactional system - and that includes its operating
narrative. Granted - it can take generations for a cultural narrative
to change - but - it does.
Edwina
On Thu 29/11/18 4:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au
[24] sent:
Dear members,
In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored
with
others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)
and
autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives
playing
out:
1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED:
The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not
externally
caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social
systems as
"... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on
resources from
their environment, those resources do not become part of the
systems'
operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions
for
communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note,
however,
that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of
autopoietic
theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of
communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social
systems as
operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according
to
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human
communicators."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann [25]
Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally
closed
culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay,
independently
of the humans engaging it.
2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT:
This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent,
semiosis, and
the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former
regards
an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the
agents
making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents
inextricably
as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central
role.
In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem
that
pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any
doubt,
Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an
agent.
Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration.
DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to
move over
to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of
including
agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better
appreciate the
potential of the semiotic paradigm.
The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by
incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement
addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem.
In this
regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further
compelled to
focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer
comprised
of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making
choices
from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA
entanglement
deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides
an
outline:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
[26]
3
By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more
compelling
position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is
first
cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its
experiences into its being, its unity.
WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR?
There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA
entanglement,
and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing
correlations
between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is
only
one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA
entanglement.
So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo.
Professionals
terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't
dare
utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is
unfortunate that
in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being
unpersoned
for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into
silence. As
I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so
I'm so
I'm going to say it loud and proud:
DNA entanglement. It's a thing.
Regards,
Stephen Jarosek
no woo
REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT:
Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of
Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between
Neuronal
(Human SK-N-SH Neuroblastoma) Cells by Using a Novel Bioelectric
Biosensor
(JCS Volume 25, Numbers 9-10, 2018, pp. 62-74(13))
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000025/f0020009/art
[27]
00002
Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA
replication, and
it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com:
https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected
[28]
Greentechnique. (2011, January 15). Cleve Backster - Primary
Perception
(beginning at 344 seconds):
https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s [29]
Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A.
(2004).
Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor,
A.
Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and Computation
(Proceedings
of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117.
http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.540785
[30]
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu [31] . To UNSUBSCRIBE,
send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [32] with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [33] .
Links:
------
[1] https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg
[2]
https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-nazi-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'sjaro...@iinet.net.au\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'sjaro...@iinet.net.au\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[11]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[12]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'sjaro...@iinet.net.au\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[13]
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultures-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/
[14] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-012-9145-5
[15]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[16]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[17]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[18]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[19]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[20]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'sjaro...@iinet.net.au\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[21]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[22]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[23]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[24]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'sjaro...@iinet.net.au\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[25] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann
[26]
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
[27]
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000025/f0020009/art
[28]
https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected
[29] https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s
[30] http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.540785
[31]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[32]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[33] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
