[Fis] New Perspectives. Reply to Bruno's Reply to Stan
Loet Leydesdorff
loet at leydesdorff.net
Fri Jun 14 11:06:26 CEST 2019
Dear Lars-Goran and colleagues,
>Since I consider myself as a natural philosopher, or in modern terms,
>philosopher of science, I want to protest against the last statement
>Loet made, viz., that natural philosophy is based on ’data’ and that
>data is to be identified what that what is given to us from nature.
I did not say so; but I pointed to the basis of natural philosophy in a
religion (Christianity, Protestantism) in which one assumes that nature
is given to us as "data" in a Revelation. The data is not given by
nature, but in Nature. We can read the book of Nature (Galilei).
>The basis from our thinking about nature is observation sentences which
>people agree upon, no matter what cultural, scientific or religious
>beliefs they have.
This seems pre-Popper to me.
>
>The empirical basis of objective science has thus nothing 'absolute'
>about it.' Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure
>of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building
>erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the
>swamp, but not down to any natural or 'given' base; and if we stop
>driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm
>ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm
>enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.
The Logic of Scientific Discovery, [1935] , 1959, p. 111.
>
Most of us, including myself, consider themselves as even more
constructivist than Popper after having read Kuhn.
>
>Furthermore I accept the basic tenet of Kant’s epistemology, viz., that
>object in the natural world are our constructions; they result from our
> judgements (in modern terms, agreed observation sentences). Many
>people think that this view leads to an unacceptable subjectivism, but
>it does not, since the basis consists of sentences which we jointly
>assent too. So nothing is given to us.
>
In my opinion, this is a religious issue. Some of us may beleive that
the world is given in a revelation. Thus, the reason "why nothing is
given to us" may be different between us.
Best,
Loet
>Lars-Göran
>
>>14 juni 2019 kl. 06:56 skrev Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net>:
>>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>We should keep in mind, in my opinion, that "natural philosophy" was
>>embedded in a religious culture. From this perspective, the world is
>>"given" to us in a Revelation by God.
>>
>>In the antique world, the sacred was hidden and only accessible via
>>the priests.
>>
>>Natural philosophy is based on the conclusion that we can directly
>>access nature as "data", that is, givens. Alternatively, one can
>>consider the world as "facta"'; that is, we have only access to nature
>>via models.
>>
>>Best,
>>Loet
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Loet Leydesdorff
>>Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
>>Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>>loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>;
>>http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>>Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of
>>Sussex;
>>Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
>>Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
>><http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>>Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of
>>London;
>>http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>>ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;
>>
>>------ Original Message ------
>>From: "Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic" <gordana.dodig-crnkovic en mdh.se>
>>To: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal en ulb.ac.be>; "fis" <fis en listas.unizar.es>
>>Sent: 6/14/2019 6:45:17 AM
>>Subject: [Fis] New Perspectives. Reply to Bruno's Reply to Stan
>>
>>>Dear Bruno,
>>>I have a few questions to your answers and would be happy if you can
>>>help me to understand.
>>>Here they come, following formulations from your mail.
>>>
>>>“This seems to assume some primary natural reality, isn’t it?”
>>>
>>>Q: What is meant by “primary natural reality”?
>>>
>>>1. If it refers to the EXISTENCE OF THE EXTERNAL/INTERNAL NATURAL
>>>WORLD, I think this is the most reasonable hypothesis to start with:
>>>The world/nature EXISTS. It is the fundamental assumption of all
>>>sciences which are our best present knowledge about the world.
>>>Otherwise, if the world does not EXIST, we can conclude any
>>>discussion about it.
>>>
>>>2. The other question is HOW that EXISTENCE of the world
>>>outside/inside cognitive agents presents itself or unfolds in an
>>>agent in the interaction with the world.
>>>That is the question of UMWELT, and the construction of knowledge
>>>through information processing. (Natural information processing =
>>>natural computation.)
>>>The “primary natural reality” reflects itself in a myriad of local
>>>“realities” in cognizing agents. As we know from empirical
>>>observations, even though existence of the world induces various
>>>information processes in various agents, communities of agents are
>>>typically sharing common “languages” about that “primary natural
>>>reality”.
>>>That is true for bacterial as well as for human communities.
>>>Languages reflect our ability to collectively navigate “primary
>>>natural reality” and share common references. So much so that we are
>>>able to commonly build a new semantic layer, that is human culture,
>>>upon that “primary natural reality”.
>>>
>>>“As I have shown, this requires a non computationalist theory of
>>>mind, which seems to me to be highly speculative.”
>>>Q: Why would that follow from the EXISTENCE of the world? What kind
>>>of phenomenon is that “computation” which minds perform? Is it the
>>>Turing model of discrete sequential symbol manipulation – calculation
>>>of mathematical function? It may at best describe linguistic part of
>>>the mind. But mind as a natural process is both data-based (even
>>>continuous data) and symbol based. Not Turing computable in it
>>>entirety, but “naturally computable” i.e. the result of natural
>>>information processing performed by living embodied minds.
>>>
>>>“I am not sure we can avoid the mind-body problem in a philosophy of
>>>information context.”
>>>Q: Why? Natural information processes in living organisms seem to me
>>>as the best way to bridge the mind-body chasm. Mind is a result of a
>>>complex network of networks of information processes going on in a
>>>cognizing agent. That process is implemented in their bodies as a
>>>material substrate that is self-organized structure growth from that
>>>“primary natural reality”. There is no contradiction between the
>>>morphology (shape, structure, material) of an organism and its
>>>functions (processes performed by that morphology. At least those
>>>organisms who have nervous systems capable of representing their
>>>bodies and their relationships to their environments can be seen as
>>>possessing intrinsic “self-models” or simply having “self” or “mind”.
>>>That “mind” is the result of the relationships of its subsystems that
>>>constitute that “self”, that process which for an organism makes a
>>>distinction between the “self” vs. the world and the relationships
>>>between the two.
>>>Mind is a process, matter is its substrate on which the process is
>>>going on. Those are inseparable in a living organism. In-formation
>>>has it roots in the concept of formation (of a material substrate).
>>>Matter and form are two aspects of the same reality. It is not a
>>>problem, it is a way how we conceptualize the world, in order to
>>>manage its complexity.
>>>
>>>“There are no evidences for physicalism or for a physical primary
>>>reality, nor are there evidences for a non computationalist theory of
>>>mind.”
>>>
>>>Q: What is meant with “physicalism” here?
>>>Wikipedia offers two different definitions,
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism according to which
>>>Physicalism is the metaphysical
>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical> thesis assuming that
>>>a) "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above"
>>>the physical,[1]
>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism#cite_note-1> or
>>>b) that everything supervenes
>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience> on the physical.[2]
>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism#cite_note-DStoljar-2>
>>>
>>>Those are two very different proposals. The first one is obviously
>>>false, as it negates all the emergent levels of organization of the
>>>world above physics.
>>>The second one depends on what is meant by “supervenience”. If it
>>>means that higher levels of organization of matter-energy emerge from
>>>the lower ones bringing completely new properties, it is in perfect
>>>agreement with what sciences today say about the world and how they
>>>model the world.*
>>>Molecules are made of atoms but bring completely new possibilities of
>>>structures, processes and interactions. Biology is more than
>>>chemistry for the same reason.
>>>
>>>Q: What would be “a physical primary reality”?
>>>Am I wrong if I imagine that I cannot go out of this room through its
>>>walls? Does not that mean that there is “a physical primary reality”
>>>that stops me from doing so, no matter how much I wish and try?
>>>
>>>“Of course some people confuse the evidences for physical laws with
>>>evidences that such laws are primary, but that is just because they
>>>“believe” in some natural world to begin with.”
>>>Q: What is primary? Indeed, physical laws are not primary, in the
>>>sense of eternal and unchangeable, as they evolve with the universe*.
>>>Primary is the EXISTENCE of the world that we all share and
>>>experience. It presents itself in both fluid, intrinsic ways
>>>(subjective feelings and emotions) and crisp, well defined
>>>inter-subjective forms (as in sciences, logics, mathematics).
>>>
>>>“We can’t have both Mechanism in cognitive science, and materialism,
>>>or just physicalism, in the “natural science”. That has been shown
>>>logically inconsistent.”
>>>It depends on the choice of “mechanism”, “cognitive science”
>>>(classical-computationalist disembodied or contemporary EEEE models
>>>of cognition), along with the kind of “physicalism” assumed, and even
>>>the choice of “natural sciences” to support your thesis. In the paper
>>>below (*) I argue, for a given choice of all those terms and with
>>>heavy reliance on the contemporary scientific knowledge, that
>>>computational mind is not only (naturally) compatible but essentially
>>>dependent on its physical substrate on succession of levels of
>>>organization.
>>>Q: If we have such model in which “mechanisms” of information
>>>processing (natural computation in the framework of computing nature)
>>>from the lowest levels of exchanges between elementary particles to
>>>the highest levels of exchanges among people of symbolic structures
>>>and artifacts, wouldn’t that constitute a counter-example to the
>>>claim that mind and body have nothing to do with each other ? (**)
>>>
>>>All the best,
>>>Gordana
>>>
>>>
>>>*
>>>http://www.gordana.se/work/PUBLICATIONS-files/2019-Laws%20of%20Science%20as%20Laws%20of%20Nature.pdf
>>>
>>>** No model or framework can explain everything about the world
>>>(including humans) at the same time, but info-computational approach
>>>can be used to model some interesting aspects of the mind emergent
>>>from, in interaction with its matter/energy substrate.
>>>
>>>From: Fis <fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Bruno Marchal
>>><marchal en ulb.ac.be>
>>>Date: Thursday, 13 June 2019 at 15:11
>>>To: fis <fis en listas.unizar.es>
>>>Subject: Re: [Fis] New Perspectives. Reply to Stan
>>>
>>>Joseph,
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 12 Jun 2019, at 16:40, Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Stan,
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for your question. I reply with a modified excerpt from an
>>>>article in Philosophies. The full article is Open Access. I am
>>>>indebted to Rafael Capurro for part of this formulation. Comments
>>>>welcome.
>>>>
>>>>Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>>Joseph
>>>>
>>>>Natural Philosophy: Excerpt from Brenner, J. 2018. The
>>>>Naturalization of Natural Philosophy. Philosophies 2018 3, 41.
>>>>Natural Philosophy deals with the question of nature as a whole
>>>>stated by beings (ourselves) that find themselves in nature without
>>>>having the possibility of a holistic view, being ourselves in nature
>>>>and not beyond it. The fact that we are able to ask this question
>>>>means that we have some kind of pre-knowledge about nature as a
>>>>whole while at the same time this pre-knowledge is problematic,
>>>>otherwise we would not ask the question and would not be able to
>>>>become natural philosophers.
>>>>The question then changes to the difference between nature and
>>>>reality as a whole, including fictions, non-verifiable beliefs and
>>>>intangible objects of thought. Since the idea that classical Natural
>>>>Philosophy evolved into science seems correct, we are left,
>>>>for the domain of Natural Philosophy, with only a speculative
>>>>interpretation of nature viewed in its entirety. This interpretation
>>>>is, ipso facto, at a lower ontological level than the science which
>>>>has largely replaced it. Much of the 20th Century linguistic turn,
>>>>expressed in both analytical and phenomenological and residual
>>>>transcendental traditions, is well visible in contemporary
>>>>philosophy.
>>>>The reaction to this unsatisfactory state of affairs has been the
>>>>reinstatement of realisms and materialisms of various kinds,
>>>>associated today with the names of Derrida, Badiou, Zizek, and
>>>>others. The ‘ontological turn’ in philosophy is a term of art that
>>>>designates dissatisfaction with descriptions of reality based on
>>>>analytical, semantic criteria of truth. Starting with Heidegger’s
>>>>critique of hermeneutics and the basing of philosophy on human life,
>>>>the ontological turn is a challenge to neo-Kantian epistemologies,
>>>>and looks to what the structure of the world might be like to enable
>>>>scientific, that is, non-absolute knowledge. Unfortunately,
>>>>ontological theories have been hobbled by the retention of static
>>>>terms whose characteristics are determined by bivalent logic. In
>>>>2002, Priest suggested that such an ontological turn in philosophy
>>>>was taking place, away from language in the direction of an
>>>>contradictorial view of reality. Priest proposed paraconsistent
>>>>logic as appropriate to this turn, but his system suffers from the
>>>>epistemological limitations of paraconsistency. Lupasco, on the
>>>>other hand, anticipated the ontological turn by some 60 years. (In
>>>>the complete article, I show that his logical system can be used to
>>>>differentiate between Natural Philosophy and Philosophy tout court.)
>>>>The most important point for me is that Natural Philosophy tells us
>>>>something real about the world that is consistent with our best
>>>>science, physical, biological and cognitive. Speculative philosophy
>>>>can always re-illuminate ‘eternal’ questions such as what it means
>>>>to be a thinking being in a non-thinking environment. This
>>>>non-Natural Philosophy, to repeat, exists for ‘natural’ reasons: it
>>>>is a natural necessity for human beings to create it, by a natural
>>>>process, but it is not part of nature qua content.
>>>
>>>This seems to assume some primary natural reality, isn’t it?
>>>
>>>As I have shown, this requires a non computationalist theory of mind,
>>>which seems to me to be highly speculative.
>>>
>>>I am not sure we can avoid the mind-body problem in a philosophy of
>>>information context.
>>>
>>>There are no evidences for physicalism or for a physical primary
>>>reality, nor are there evidences for a non computationalist theory of
>>>mind. Of course some people confuse the evidences for physical laws
>>>with evidences that such laws are primary, but that is just because
>>>they “believes” in some natural world to begin with. I think it is
>>>better to be agnostic and see where the facts (experimental) and
>>>working theories lead us.
>>>
>>>We can’t have both Mechanism in cognitive science, and materialism,
>>>or just physicalism, in the “natural science”. That has been shown
>>>logically inconsistent (ask for reference if interested).
>>>
>>>Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley
>>>>N Salthe
>>>>Sent: mardi, 11 juin 2019 21:09
>>>>To: fis
>>>>Subject: Re: [Fis] New Perspectives
>>>>
>>>>Joseph -- Would you like to write how you define Natural Philosophy?
>>>>
>>>>STAN
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:03 PM Joseph Brenner
>>>><joe.brenner en bluewin.ch> wrote:
>>>>>Dear Pedro and All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Many thanks are due to you, Pedro, for this new and valuable
>>>>>formulation of the – daunting - task at hand. The task is logical
>>>>>and philosophical, as well as scientific. Philosophy here,
>>>>>exemplified by the Philosophy of Information, does not mean
>>>>>standard discussions of ‘where did we come from’ and ‘does a
>>>>>transcendent deity exist’, which are as sterile in their way as the
>>>>>excesses of the IT and AI ideologists. Natural Philosophy can be a
>>>>>‘vehicle’ for interaction between people of good will, the
>>>>>collaboration that you point to that may help to advance IS4SI.
>>>>>Some of you who may not have been at the Conference in San
>>>>>Francisco (Berkeley) may wish to look at abstracts of papers from
>>>>>the Philosophy of Information sub-conferences at the 2015, 2017 and
>>>>>2019 Summit conferences on Information.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>To revitalize the list is indeed a key first step. But it starts,
>>>>>in my opinion, with some self-examination, examination of whether
>>>>>one’s own theories are just ‘pet’ theories. Applying this criterion
>>>>>to my own Logic in Reality, about which I have written on several
>>>>>occasions, I claim that it is not just a pet theory. It is a new
>>>>>perspective on how information, logic and thought operate as real
>>>>>processes, following laws within the laws of physics, without loss
>>>>>of a human, ethical dimension. However, LIR makes many demands on
>>>>>one. It requires an understanding and acceptance of what is /not/
>>>>>Natural Philosophy, which may include some of the ideas that have
>>>>>appeared in this list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, accepting my own criterion of interactive non-separability,
>>>>>I do not call for any exclusions or limitations on the list. I only
>>>>>wish that everyone makes the necessary effort to position his or
>>>>>her own views in relation to the overriding need for furthering the
>>>>>Common Good. The sum of all such honest self-referential (or
>>>>>second-order recursive) opinions of people about their own work
>>>>>would itself be a useful creative effort, I think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you and best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Joseph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro
>>>>>C. Marijuan
>>>>>Sent: mardi, 11 juin 2019 13:05
>>>>>To: 'fis'
>>>>>Subject: [Fis] New Perspectives
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dear FIS Colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A few days ago took place the IS4SI Meeting, in SFco, with one of
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>parallel sessions devoted to FIS and other sessions also with
>>>>>presence
>>>>>
>>>>>of veteran parties of this list. Relevant speakers in the plenary
>>>>>
>>>>>sessions covered the main topic of the conference, expressed as:
>>>>>Where
>>>>>
>>>>>is the I in Artificial Intelligence and the Meaning in Information?
>>>>>From
>>>>>
>>>>>Tristan Harris to Melanie Mitchell, to Paul Verschure, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In my view the perspectives in these IT fields are changing
>>>>>
>>>>>significantly. The tremendous hype in AI, Deep Learning, IOT, etc.
>>>>>keeps
>>>>>
>>>>>unabated, but critical voices are being heard, not just from a few
>>>>>
>>>>>Academia corners as usual, but now by leading technologists and
>>>>>
>>>>>researchers of big companies in these very fields. "Dissent" on the
>>>>>
>>>>>contents, methodologies, and consequences of social applications is
>>>>>growing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The industrial development of this IT sector --notwithstanding the
>>>>>
>>>>>inflated proclamations and all the hype of the gurus-- does not
>>>>>mean the
>>>>>
>>>>>arrival of some great singularity, or the symbiosis with machines,
>>>>>or
>>>>>
>>>>>widespread menace of robots & cyborgs... these are slogans coming
>>>>>from
>>>>>
>>>>>the industrialists to maintain social/ideological preeminence for
>>>>>their
>>>>>
>>>>>whole sector. Rather I think they are starting to feel the
>>>>>consequences
>>>>>
>>>>>of their social overstretching in different ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The fundamental point, in my opinion, is that our solitary,
>>>>>isolated
>>>>>
>>>>>efforts from a few Academia places (Sciences & Humanities) in the
>>>>>quest
>>>>>
>>>>>for new perspectives in Information Science, and not just AI
>>>>>
>>>>>development, should not isolated any more. We can now establish an
>>>>>
>>>>>interesting dialog and partnership with those new "dissenters" of
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>technology in its concepts, methods, and social applications. It is
>>>>>upon
>>>>>
>>>>>us to improve the discussion procedures, the collaborations, the
>>>>>
>>>>>organization, etc. so that this opportunity might materialize
>>>>>
>>>>>progressively. Do not ask me how... In any case I pointed out three
>>>>>
>>>>>future directions for IS4SI advancement: community building,
>>>>>attracting
>>>>>
>>>>>scientific/technological avantgarde, and organizational
>>>>>improvement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Revitalizing this discussion list--shouldn't it be one of the first
>>>>>steps?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Best greetings to all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--Pedro
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>Pedro C. Marijuán
>>>>>
>>>>>Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es
>>>>>
>>>>>http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>>>>><https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Fpedrocmarijuan%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgordana.dodig-crnkovic%40mdh.se%7Ce3cf40966de148aaf4b108d6f0009e4b%7Ca1795b64dabd4758b988b309292316cf%7C0%7C0%7C636960282786234083&sdata=rRk9RxUKvWoq1nnH7eSkg5gRTil1tVUTgTK0pDa5Ihg%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>>-------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico
>>>>>en busca de virus.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>><https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fantivirus&data=02%7C01%7Cgordana.dodig-crnkovic%40mdh.se%7Ce3cf40966de148aaf4b108d6f0009e4b%7Ca1795b64dabd4758b988b309292316cf%7C0%7C0%7C636960282786234083&sdata=Wbrn7sp1W%2Fg4GOIdAmb0U1geydhcdm%2FOX6Hu5N7Lc3k%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>Fis mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>>Fis en listas.unizar.es
>>>>>
>>>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>><https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Cgordana.dodig-crnkovic%40mdh.se%7Ce3cf40966de148aaf4b108d6f0009e4b%7Ca1795b64dabd4758b988b309292316cf%7C0%7C0%7C636960282786244082&sdata=%2BSp0SCZdqFLqq%2FPes13pr84YSlKm03qEikuJ5vzJ2CQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Image removed by sender.
>>>>><https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Demailclient&data=02%7C01%7Cgordana.dodig-crnkovic%40mdh.se%7Ce3cf40966de148aaf4b108d6f0009e4b%7Ca1795b64dabd4758b988b309292316cf%7C0%7C0%7C636960282786244082&sdata=E3huy%2FK%2BF2q8BQYe%2FpMNb5mXlwom5sE3WuctW2DVN2M%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com
>>>>><https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Demailclient&data=02%7C01%7Cgordana.dodig-crnkovic%40mdh.se%7Ce3cf40966de148aaf4b108d6f0009e4b%7Ca1795b64dabd4758b988b309292316cf%7C0%7C0%7C636960282786254081&sdata=TeOIk53ReL3Aw0mMz3wLptFb2cmnkwV7enRUKCWARyo%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Fis mailing list
>>>>>Fis en listas.unizar.es
>>>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>><https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Cgordana.dodig-crnkovic%40mdh.se%7Ce3cf40966de148aaf4b108d6f0009e4b%7Ca1795b64dabd4758b988b309292316cf%7C0%7C0%7C636960282786254081&sdata=NgDErO3w5%2B7%2FDm3G3dobqSaXFjrR6EAlvN32HliQgpM%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Fis mailing list
>>>>Fis en listas.unizar.es
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>><https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Cgordana.dodig-crnkovic%40mdh.se%7Ce3cf40966de148aaf4b108d6f0009e4b%7Ca1795b64dabd4758b988b309292316cf%7C0%7C0%7C636960282786264068&sdata=%2F3c%2BLJrQ9VLXSWXyuWjGNwdxCc2QSslqv%2BIyz%2F1ooX8%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Fis mailing list
>>Fis en listas.unizar.es
>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>Lars-Göran Johansson
>Professor i teoretisk filosofi, emeritus
>Uppsala Universitet
>
>
>
>
>Page Title
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>När du har kontakt med oss på Uppsala universitet med e-post så innebär
>det att vi behandlar dina personuppgifter. För att läsa mer om hur vi
>gör det kan du läsa här:
>http://www.uu.se/om-uu/dataskydd-personuppgifter/
>
>E-mailing Uppsala University means that we will process your personal
>data. For more information on how this is performed, please read here:
>http://www.uu.se/en/about-uu/data-protection-policy
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20190614/fe722037/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list