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

Sun Jun 16 18:59:39 CEST 2019

Dear Stan and List,

This approach with tabulating the perceived family tree of thoughts on
Nature and us in her is a potent tool to steer the discussion.

Could you please summarise in a few words, that what you call your own
approach and assign it a place on the tree you have drawn? It is surprising
for me that you have included semantic thinkers and no grammatical
thinkers. Please allow me to offer you my version of the relations among
concepts of thinking about Nature:

Is there Order in the world

no: Anarchists, Nihilists

yes

Can we recognise it?

no:: Mystics, Sceptics

yes

By assuming working principles at work

inside

outside

both/neither outside & inside

Superman, Priest, Saint, Übermensch

God people

mono vs multi

Animalists

Encyclopaedists, Observationists

Fatalists, Determinists

Laws of Nature

Rational thinking

mono

multi

one chief

many chiefs

depends on situation

Coherent explanatory vision of the world

Can be expressed and shared by

Tongues, song, dance, unidirectional art

Cathartic experiences, collaborative art

Myths, tales, confessiones, parables

Relating concepts to other concepts, treatises

Predictions of the future, determinations, pointing out specific facts
based on relations among concepts

As a general principle of relations among concepts

Where are you?

Here am I

Am So., 16. Juni 2019 um 16:39 Uhr schrieb Stanley N Salthe <
ssalthe en binghamton.edu>:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190616/22bcfec1/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/20190616/22bcfec1/attachment-0001.png>