[Fis] New Perspectives. Reply to Bruno's Reply to Stan

[Stanley N Salthe]

It is interesting to see the far-back reaches into religion that some of us
think of as 'natural philosophy'.  For myself as an ex-scientist (in
several fields seriatim).
the natural philosophy that I derive my own approach upon (ref:
Philosophies 2018 3,12, doi:10.3390/philosophies3030023) is shown in this
chart.
STAN

[image: image.png]

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 7:56 AM Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es>
wrote:

> (It should have appeared on Friday... again a blocked list??)
>
> -------- Mensaje reenviado --------
> Asunto: Re: [Fis] New Perspectives. Reply to Bruno's Reply to Stan
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:06:45 +0200
> De: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es>
> <pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es>
> Para: fis en listas.unizar.es
> Dear All,
>
> It is quite nice listening to all these exchanges after the "diet" of past
> months. I have a few lateral comments to make:
>
> 1. Natural philosophy is not religiously laden but it is quite "modern".
> It was used along the scientific revolution, mostly around Newton's time,
> to separate from scholastic philosophy (Wooton, 2015). Actually it becomes
> the intellectual expression of the fundamental revolution that had been
> taking place around the printing press and the accelerated circulation of
> ideas in the Western World. The term science was non-existing at that time
> and only the trivium-quadrivium ancient framework was at hand... so,
> natural philosophy (as Lars-Goran points) was a growing consensus along a
> new view of the world and of knowledge, irrespective that one could ad of
> subtract his/her religious personal background.
>
> 2. About religious legacies, we cannot complain so much. Priesthood was a
> way of living, much like civil servants today, or "tenure" in the
> university system. By the way, Western universities are a religious legacy
> themselves. They were the transplantation to the urban milieu of the highly
> successful formula of the monastic system. During long centuries, after the
> disintegration of the Roman Empire, it was the widespread diffusion of
> monastic institutions what kept afloat the knowledge system in a chaotic
> world. Technologies were tremendously developed there, together with the
> "mechanical arts" (term of monastic origins). It represented the social
> elevation of the previously practical skills reserved to servants.
>
> 3. OK, coming back to our exchanges, it is very exciting the philosophical
> discussion per se, but if it is not related to the scientific &
> technological changes of today (see comments from Gordana) it will be of
> scarce help in the "daunting task" (Joseph) we have at hand. I will insist,
> notwithstanding the healthy skepticism of my FIS colleagues, that we have
> BIG PIECES of new biomolecular knowledge (a genuine bioinfo revolution
> still taking place) waiting to be translated into general
> conceptualizations of multidisciplinary and philosophical fields. And I
> will keep trying it...
>
> By the way, Bruno has made very intriguing points that I think dovetail
> with my comments on laws of nature many weeks ago. Often we really speak
> different tongues, and mutual comprehension becomes blurred.  But that's
> part of the intrigue and charm of our unending exchanges.
>
> And this my second cent for this week.
>
> Best--Pedro
>
> El 14/06/2019 a las 11:06, Loet Leydesdorff escribió:
>
> 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  <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
> <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: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing listFis en listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20190616/f33e2cee/attachment-0001.html>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 49856 bytes
Desc: no disponible
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20190616/f33e2cee/attachment-0001.png>