[Fis] _ Just my two cents worth.

[Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov]

Dear Jerry and Colleagues,


On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chandler at me.com>
wrote:

>
> Dear Plamen, List
>
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 12:40 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
> plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Jerry, Maxine, Marcus and All,
>
> I will come back later on discussing this interesting issue because, I
> have a major project deadline by tomorrow.
>
>
> I await your response. Has your project deadline past?
>

Yeas, my deadline passed, but response to what? We have closed this session
already.
Maxine has made again a last comment which I was temptated to answer, but
then I decided that we have other sessions to discuss the validity of how
one understands phenomenology.


>
> But let me just give you this link to educate you on what Phenomenological
> Philosophy is really about:
> http://ibiomath.org/on-phenomenological-philosophy/
>
>
> Well, I certainly love to learn.
>

I am doing that too, but why should we occupy the whole list with our
private conversation?


> FIS has a long tradition of learning from one - another (in a collegial
> manner).
> Let’s continue that tradition.
>

All right.


> The link you sent is merely an advertisement.
>

No, it is an explanation for newcomers I asked a colleague, co-editor to
write about it.
Perhaps I had to place a link to Stanford#s encyclopedia...


> Extraordinarily broad generalities.
>

This is what I told Maxine. I was not the one who wrote it, but I agree
with most of the content.


> More Peircian than Husserlian.
>

Maybe.


> Please send a meaningful link that you personally think will “educate” me
> on your views, particularly your views on logic and mathematical philosophy
> (as related to consciousness.)
>

Oh, you wish to play on your territory ....I am actually interested in
biological mathematics, to put it that way. As for consciosness, I am
certainly interested in it.


>
>
> One more thing about Husserl: Have you ever tried to read and understand
> his over 100 years notes?
> Believe me, no matter how old they are, there is still something to
> discover there.
>
> The same holds for C.S. Pierce, William James and others of that size.
> What is novelty of archaeology and palaeontology then?
> Just digging in the dust??? All these people are discovering new facts
> about the past.
>
>
> These sentences are incoherent.  What is it that you are trying to say?
>

This as a metaphor: an example. How can you ask such a question about the
use from investigating the works of old authors in the humanities?



> What is it about archaeology that is relevant to my post?
>

Old stuff...


>
> BTW, I have been a student of Peirce for nearly two decades.  I find
> Peircian views far more relevant to the modern bio-science than Husserl.
>

Yes, Peirce is relevant and this is what the biosemioticians know well too,
but with respect to the question of phenomenological time -- my fovourite
theme --- Husserl and Bergson are more relevant.


>  The reason for this preference is simple. Peirce deals directly with the
> logic of relations and the role of identity as related to phenomenology.
> Peirce’s synthesis of a scientifically based phenomenology can be, in my
> opinion, aligned with the natural sciences because he expresses
> relationships between symbols representing the objects of the natural
> sciences and logic.
>

Yes, I totally agree. But Peirce's works are also 100+ old...Was not that
your argument against Husserl?



>  Peirce’s logic is not drawn from the anonymity of set theory but rather
> rather propositions relating properties and attributes of hypernyms
> (identities), as well as iconic graphs that exhibit his meanings.
>

Yes, what about taking the best from anyone who had good ideas about
phenomenology? I do not understand also Maxine's argument about the
required methodology of phenmenology that needs to be followed. If a
science does not change it becomes a dogma. So, let us redefine some
notion. Reformation is not bad. This is what I am doing all the time asking
for constructing and developing a biology-driven -- not biology-inspired --
mathematics. Should we use statistical mechanics, probability theory and
ODE/PDE in systems biology for ever? This is my topic, not the one you
asked me earlier to step on.


>
> Even if microbiology was not known at the time of Husserl, it can be seen
> with other eyes from the perspective of phenomenological philosophy now.
>
>
> Microbiology is the science of microbes - living organism that than be
> seen only through a microscope.
>

So, you are also having a fixed view upon this. #
Microscopy has become more and more virtual today. This is the future I am
dealing right now with pathology studies... So, why should we study
microbes from outside only?


> I used the term “molecular biology” which refers to molecules.  Microbes
> are several orders of magnitude larger than molecules. Microbes  contain
>  thousand of different molecules, most of which are one specific form of a
> pair of optical isomers. Microbes reproduce. Molecules do not reproduce.
> Are you confusing the two terms?
>

No, I know well what you are talking about. Maybe I thought you were using
"microbiology".
I don't know, I was too busy to answer and write my proposal which is what
I should do again now (the next one). I am not that lucky like you to have
sufficient time for thinking.



> Perhaps this confusion is part of your interpretation of what I wrote.
>
>
Maybe. I am sorry if this is the case.


> Have a nice day.
>
> Thank you.
>
> But I would like to add a word or two about the notion of “Biomathics”.
> Numerous conflicts exist in the white paper in the book.
>

You should tell this to the other 16 co-authors too.
We worked ahd to avoid conflicts of viewpoints.
If there is something left, you should be more specific.
It is however, one of the most frequently downloaded papers in Academia.edu
and researchgate.net.



> Can you give a simple statement of your hypothesis in terms of meaningful
> logic propositions?
>

Not in simple terms. We are correcting the vision all the time. You should
read the 2013 and 2015 updates of the vision. It is a collective vision,
not only mine. I cannot enter into the minds of the others who have
co-authored and co-edited it. Besides, have you seen a research programme
defined in terms of logic propositions? I have not.


>
> Andree generously gifted me with a copy of “Biomathics". After studying
> “Biomathics” in some detail and your essays, I remain un-informed about
> deeper philosophical roots of your thinking.  My intuition and ‘gut-level’
> instinct is that certain basic notions of the natural sciences are missing
> from your propositions, suggesting that the representation of the logics of
> nature is incomplete/problematic.
>
>
Have you heared of second and higher-levels logic?
I hope you will not feel offended by this question.


> It seems to me that the concept of “Biomathics” either emerges or fades on
> finding logical correspondence relations (or illations) between
> mathematical symbols and the biological symbols used by naturalists and
> physicians.
>

Thisis not simple at all. You can try reading Goranson's papers and his
examples in the 2013 and 2015 PBMB special issues where the left side of
the proposition becomes right and vice versa depending on some incident
external signal, thus changing the "flow of causation". Imagine this if
having multiple levels of logics inside an an organ(ism). This is how a
disease can come up.


> Do you agree or disagree with this conjecture?
>

No, you will not be able to prove this within conventional first-order
logic....


> Finally, do you think that Tarski’s logical construction of meta-languages
> is necessary for the relations of “Biomathics”?
>
>
Tarski may be useful, at the higher layers of organisation. We have
different phenomena when e.g. a tumor emerges.


> I look forward to developing a meaningful dialogue.
>
>
We have another working group discussing these issue for very specific
problems such as understanding cancer mergence and development. If  you are
interested to participae, i will send you the link. We do not have much
time for general philosophical discussions, unless they are constructive in
this respect.



> Have a nice day!
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
>

Have a nice weekend!

Plamen


>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Plamen
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
> (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016)
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <
> Jerry_LR_Chandler at me.com> wrote:
>
>> Maxine, List:
>>
>> Just my two cents worth.
>> After puzzling about the potential connections between your
>> interpretations of Husserl and evolutionary biology, I remain uncertain
>> about where this line of reasoning starts and where it leads.
>>
>> I should say at the beginning that I am a hardcore realist and a
>> pragmatist. The value of vague philosophies for doing science is
>> problematic, in my opinion.  The value of the philosophy of mathematics can
>> be quite useful for scientific practice, if the appropriate correspondence
>> relations can be symbolized and exploited. The necessity for rigorous
>> symbolic relations between the meta-languages of science and logic of the
>> sciences is well known.  (See Malatesta, The Primary Logic, 1999?).
>>
>> Husserl’s (1859-1938)  writings are about a Century old.  What does he
>> bring to the table today?
>>
>> Molecular biology barely existed in his day.
>>
>> In this context, the concept of oscillators is proposed as the linkage
>> between movement and mathematical modeling.  Yet, the physical basis of the
>> mathematical oscillators is Hook’s Law for springs.  The mental image for a
>> two dimensional network of oscillators is a the old-fashioned
>> “bed-spring”.  Admittedly, a hypothetical oscillator model was used for a
>> few decades to model the source of epileptic seizures, but it is so crude
>> that it is hardly more than a metaphor.  (For a review, NeuroQuantology
>> | June 2006 | Vol. 4 | Issue 2 | 155-165 155 Velazquez JLP. Coupled
>> oscillators field
>>
>>
>> Molecular biology requires the use of the atomic numbers in arithmetic
>> operations.
>> It further requires the use of three - dimensional asymmetric structures
>> to describe handedness (even for dance!).
>>
>> These two facts suggest to me that Husserlian vagueness can be improved
>> upon in the modern inquiry into the conceptualization of motion and its
>> relationships to evolutionary biology.
>>
>> A different line of reasoning concerns the questions raised by Pedro.
>> That is, the cultural roots of the tremendous array of dance movements and
>> the encoding of ballad movements into a symbol system.
>> This issue raises the far wider issue of the roles of diagrammatic logic
>> in relation to dance “logic”.  Has anyone explored how the diagrammatic
>> logic of CS Peirce may relate to dance?  Or even Venn diagrams?  Or how are
>> the diagrams of chemical logic related to dance symbols, if at all?  Or,
>> should we follow Hilbert and simply ignore the role of diagrams in the
>> mathematics of evolutionary biology.  (see: Greaves, The Philosophical
>> Status of Diagrams (2001))
>>
>> Another topic worth exploring is the communication among ballad dancers
>> during a performance.  The range of emotions exhibited during a ballad
>> performance can be truly spectacular.  How is this accomplished from an
>> informational theory perspective?
>>
>> Thus, I would close with a question:
>> Does the modern state of human communication and information exchange go
>> far beyond early 20th Century German Philosophy?  An essay on either
>> Kantian or Shelling’s philosophy, as contrasted with Husserl, could be of
>> substantial interest to me.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> Research Professor
>> Krasnow Institute for Advanced Studies
>> GMU
>>
>> Headwater House
>> On the Banks of the Mississippi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160304/f14d18c3/attachment.html>