[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38
Karl Javorszky
karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Wed Jan 15 07:39:54 CET 2025
Lou,
You say :
The history of mathematics and logic is
a long spiral of such self-examination.
In order for it to spiral as it does,
the *whole process can not be encompassed in a single formal system*.
Are you sure about that?
Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 15. Jän. 2025, 07:28:
> Some short comments:
> A. GSB stands for G. Spencer-Brown, author of “Laws of Form” published by
> George Allen and Unwin in 1969.
> B. In relation to probability I was referring to “quantum probability”
> which is actually a predictive frequency of certain events and not a
> Bayesian probability.
> C. I will repeat here the indication about a sign for itself in terms of
> self-reference.
> An iconic sign such as O, regarded as making a distinction (by some
> observer/interpretant) is then seen
> to be a sign that signifies itself as well as other distinctions. The sign
> shows itself.
>
>
>
> D. I am sympathetic with mathematical and formal modeling of “cognitive
> processes” but feel that it should be clear that formal models will not
> capture the whole phenomenon.
> An argument to this effect is the argument based on Goedel that we are not
> “Turing machines”.
> Before objecting, please examine the situation.
> You may find that this is something you already know,
> and the objection is really an objection to writing out the argument.
>
> NotTuring
> LK
>
> 1. We prove Goedel’s Theorem as follows:
> Let T be a formal system that is consistent
> and contains at least the Peano axioms for number theory.
> I examine T as a mathematical object and produce (via Goedel coding)
> a sentence G that declares its own unprovability in T.
> This declaration has an external meaning and it is
> devised so that a proof of G in T would lead to a contradiction.
>
> Thus, since T is consistent, G cannot be proved in T.
> But G states the non-provability of G in T.
> Thus G is true but not provable in T.
> We have proved, from outside T, that G is true.
> This proof is a mathematical proof of the statement G
> and it does not contradict T’s unprovability inside T,
> since we work in the larger system of
> reasoning about formal systems, including T.
>
> 2. Could I be identical with T as above?
> Certainly not.
> For I have proved G.
> So if I = T, then T has proved G.
> I have shown that T cannot prove G.
> Thus if I = T, then T is inconsistent.
> We have assumed that T is consistent.
> Therefore I am not identical with T as a mathematical reasoner.
>
> 3. Could I be a Turing machine T,
> consistent and rich enough to contain Peano Arithmetic?
> Suppose it is so and
> go to 1. and 2. above
> to arrive at the conclusion that
> this is not possible.
>
> 4. Go back to 1.
> and note that I have the capacity to take T as an object of study.
> The discussion in 2. and 3. leads to the
> ancient questions about whether a person can know themselves.
>
> In the mathematical context,
> if I do stand outside my own processes of reasoning
> and then reason about these processes,
> this is a practical capacity that I have.
>
> The history of mathematics and logic is
> a long spiral of such self-examination.
> In order for it to spiral as it does,
> the whole process can not be encompassed in a single formal system.
>
> This is the import of Goedel’s theorem
> and it actually applies to the entities
> that we call persons,
> individual reasoners with understanding.
> The individual reasoners are not single formal systems
> (to the extent that they are consistent).
>
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2025, at 3:38 PM, Katherine Peil <ktpeil at outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Lou, Krassimir, et al,
> I must say, this is my kind of rollicking discussion – thank you. Lou, let
> me take your excellent questions in order.
>
>
> 1. First, concerning Ian McGilchrist. He is perhaps the leading expert
> on functional lateralization of the right and left hemispheres of the
> brain. I’ve appended a ChatGPT synopsis of his major works below.
> Second, my allusion to his work relates to quantum biology, and the
> oft-muddled word “perception”. To liberate us from Cartesian habits, I
> offer an “agent in the machine” metaphor to functionally distinguish the
> “hardwired” (deterministic, machine-like) from the “soft-wired” biophysical
> processes of the embodied organism. The agentic software (also fully
> embodied) includes subjective observation, computation, intelligence,
> perception, personal memory and history). Your term “registration” (and my
> term “sentience”) would be classified as a hardwired response to a physical
> stimulus – they are part of “the machine”. Both “Information” and direct
> emotional experience straddle both domains. I suspect that math models that
> include iteration, self-reference, geometric structures, network
> assemblies, and transformational dynamics (topical and otherwise) are on
> the right track to model. I also suspect that fruitful explanations will
> depend upon Gödellian incompleteness and the unique features of the quantum
> world, including quantum indeterminacy (randomness), contextuality,
> complementarity, and observer dependance which all imply a direct role for
> the sentience agent – however small and deterministically constrained. In
> my Tao Story, the deterministic hardware, both quantum and classical
> processes (although happening always across all timescales) are represented
> by an ongoing flow between Domains 0 and 1, each cycle yielding a
> Whiteheadian actualization of specific potential events, a locally bounded
> actualization of self in classical space, and an experiential tick in the
> perception of time. The lateral functionalization of hemispheres in the
> prefrontal cortex is perhaps an example of how the most complex organism
> mediates and responds to information from both realms.
>
>
>
> 2. Yes! By all means let’s reframe “probability” – which in this
> context would be the catch-all term for the informational structures and
> patterning processes (the deterministic machinery in the quantum realm).
> What are we counting? We are counting, sorting and resorting possibilities
> into both relational and “adjacent” probabilistic trajectories. So, let’s
> reframe quantum randomness, statistical “probability” distributions, and
> Bayesian computational processes as part of the agentic software. (That’s
> what the AI designers are already doing, with Deep Neural Network learning
> models! Krassimir’s points are highly relevant to the differences between
> AI approaches and what the organism is hardwired to do). And by all means,
> let’s use frequency and phase relations to ground both sentience and
> relational connectivity in harmonics as well!
>
> 3. Yes, “unconscious” processing affects perception. Because the
> embodied hardware (your registration, my sensory-motor stimulus-response)
> came first and remains the primary informational foundation for the agentic
> software. In my model the agentic software begins with a 4-step cybernetic
> loop that delivers hedonic qualia as both feedback signal and
> self-correcting behavior, builds feed-forward motivation (and prediction),
> therefore enacting and developing the autopoietic “mind”. Hedonic qualia
> informs and drives this loop, yielding Pavlovian conditioning - building
> semantic memory models via primal categories of what was “good for me”
> (pleasurable, rewarding) or “bad for me” (painful innately punitive). AI
> models don’t do this, and suffer the frame problem.) The emotional
> sentience provided by even the simplest living embodiment provides,
> self-relevant information, communicating the non-negotiable requirements of
> the embodiment in light of the immediate environmental circumstances.
> Without this semantic foundation, higher symbolic, syntactic, language
> systems would be devoid of any deeper biological meaning. Creatures evolved
> for eons with just this singular flow of information – embodied affective
> computations. They carry binary logic with evaluations that reflect the
> criteria for natural selection, and an even deeper quantum logic of
> identity, wherein each autonomous agent is ALSO a part of a larger
> collective, both a part and a whole. So yes! I do suspect that “awareness”
> is related to emotions, because it involved sensory stimulus that calls our
> attention – as agents - to non-negotiable foundational “self-regulatory”
> information born of our universal machinery. No one likes pain, no one
> likes “when shit happens”, but painful feelings offer messages about the
> deterministic aspects of physical reality that we must agentically attend
> or be selected against. Pain serves as a reality sandwich as it concerns
> self-preservation of form, while pleasure entices self-development of
> mental growth and collective creation of culture. (Not sure who “GSB” is
> but if he associates each distinction with an intrinsic motive” he’s all
> right in my book! Behavioral motivation is all about the hardwired binary
> feels!)
>
> 4. In terms of Peirce, I’m no expert. But with the help of ChatGPT, I
> can offer a translation of his terms in the above framework.
>
> *ChatGPT said:*
>
> *In Peirce's semiotic theory, a sign is anything that communicates
> meaning, and it always involves a relationship between the sign (the
> representamen), the object (the thing the sign refers to, and
> the interpretant. **KPK: *In this triad, the foundational sign is binary *emotional
> qualia*, signifying the *immediate spatiotemporal relationship* between
> the object – *the embodiment in its local environment* - and its
> interpretant, the *subjective agentic self*. As Krassimir mentioned, the
> role of the environment is key, but often neglected. We need to think of
> that relationship in terms of *boundaries* between system and environment
> in terms of biologically relative, dynamic and partially agentic
> distinctions. Likewise, given quantum contextuality, both the observer and
> measuring system form an indivisible complementary whole. This is reflected
> in daily experience in Jakob Von Uexküll’s concept of “Umwelt”, and James
> Gibson’s concept of “affordances” both of which meld physical objects in
> the external environment with the subjective conceptual models of them in
> embodied agents. In short, the Umwelt is the “relationship” between object
> and interpretant.
>
> *ChatGPT said:*
> *C.S. Peirce's concept of a "sign for itself" refers to a sign that
> operates independently of the interpretive context or the need for an
> external reference*. *The "sign for itself" essentially functions as a
> self-contained sign. **KPK:* To my mind, the only sign that qualifies
> under these conditions is what Federico Faggin describes as state of “pure
> quantum information”, a state that can never be copied exactly in a
> classical sense, but one that in-forms the external world. He associates it
> with a unified Field of nonlocal consciousness he calls The One, within and
> from which all other local identities are distinguished. In my Tao story,
> I’d associated the “sign for itself” with the pattern-forming processes in
> Res Potentia, Domain 0.
>
> Sorry for the long missive. I look forward to your talk on Friday.
> Kate Kauffman
>
> Oh, and here is McGilchrist…
>
> *CHAT GPT: Ian McGilchrist’s core thesis* across both works is that the
> human brain’s two hemispheres offer distinct yet complementary ways of
> attending to the world, but modern culture has become perilously unbalanced
> by favoring the left hemisphere’s narrow, abstract approach over the right
> hemisphere’s broader, context-sensitive mode.
> ------------------------------
> *The Master and His Emissary (2009)*
>
> - *Divided Brain, Divided Modes of Attention*
> McGilchrist examines the contrasting perspectives of the brain’s
> hemispheres, demonstrating that the *right hemisphere* is attuned to
> the “big picture” (holistic, contextual, relational), while the *left
> hemisphere* specializes in detail-oriented, analytic, and
> decontextualized thinking.
> - *Historical and Cultural Analysis*
> Tracing Western history from the ancient Greeks to modernity, he
> argues that *left-hemisphere thinking has gradually overshadowed* the
> more integrative right-hemisphere outlook, fueling an overly mechanistic,
> fragmented worldview.
> - *Consequences of Left-Hemisphere Dominance*
> This imbalance, McGilchrist contends, diminishes our capacity for
> empathy, meaning, and genuine creativity. He maintains we must restore the *right
> hemisphere* to its guiding role (the “master”), lest we remain trapped
> in a reductive interpretation of reality.
>
> ------------------------------
> *The Matter with Things (2021)*
>
> - *Extending the Argument*
> In this two-volume work, McGilchrist *expands on his earlier thesis*,
> delving deeper into how left-hemisphere overreach distorts our
> understanding of *consciousness, truth, and value*—leading us to
> embrace illusions about the nature of mind and matter.
> - *A More Holistic Epistemology*
> He challenges the supremacy of narrowly defined “reason” and reductive
> science, proposing a *broader, more integrated approach* that
> recognizes intuition, embodied experience, and the living, ever-unfolding
> context as crucial for genuine knowledge.
> - *Rebalancing Our Relationship with Reality*
> By weaving in philosophy, neuroscience, and cultural analysis,
> McGilchrist shows how *correcting this hemispheric imbalance* can open
> the door to deeper insight, richer meaning, and a renewed sense of
> wholeness in how we engage with the world.
>
>
> >>
> >>> On Jan 14, 2025, at 3:58 AM, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <
> mailto:loukau at gmail.com <loukau at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ?Dear Kate,
> >>> I have questions and comments.
> >>> 1. While the notions of right and left hemispheres are useful to
> summarize certain aspects, I actually do not know what is really meant when
> people use those words.
> >>> So it would be better in communicating with me, a mathematician who
> needs definitions whenever possible, to rewrite statements without those
> metaphors.
> >>> 2. I do not want the word probability unless you can tell me what you
> are counting. If you cannot tell, then please speak of frequencies. Same
> for so called probability in QM.
> >>> 3. Perception does not include unconscious processing, but unconcious
> processing can affect perception. Perception is accompanied by awareness,
> often by consciousness.
> >>> This is how I use the word perception. My camera does not perceive the
> sunset. I perceive the photo produced by the camera and I am involved in
> the taking of photos by the camera.
> >>> Of course, I can set the camera to taking photos automatically. No
> perception occurs until I see them or you see them. But registration does
> occur. These issues are related to QM as well.
> >>> The cat registers and is dead or alive at the end of the hour. I find
> out. But the potentia have come to rest before I find out because the cat
> is corporeal.
> >>> 4. Do you feel that all awareness is related to emotions? GSB says
> every distinction is associated with motive. So maybe. Feeling is more
> general then emotion in my ways of speaking.
> >>> Feeling has to do with going outside given language and meaning to a
> wider and not defined domain from which we return with possibly new ways of
> speaking. This is for me what Wittgenstein is speaking
> >>> about when he says ?Whereof one cannot speak one must be silent.?, and
> then new speaking can emerge, but NOT from a ?hierarchy of languages? as
> Russell said in his introduction to W?s Tractatus, but by going beneath
> language to
> >>> Its source.
> >>> 5. In relation to 4. C.S.Peirce had the idea of a ?sign for itself?
> that emerged from the ever expanding hierarchy of a person?s language.
> There is a truth in that. One can also see an icon, such as O, as a sign
> for itself when seen as both a distinction and a sign for a distinction.
> But then the sign O is enveloped in the interpretant that would see it that
> way. And we only understand the interpretant in terms of the ever expanding
> hierarchy of our language. The O is like a ?quantum particle?. It takes
> the whole universe of
> >>> discourse to disclose its meaning. All of language collapses into the
> meaning of a single word or sign.
> >>> Best,
> >>> Lou
> >>>
> >>>> On Jan 13, 2025, at 3:57 PM, Katherine Peil <ktpeil at outlook.com <
> mailto:ktpeil at outlook.com <ktpeil at outlook.com>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you so much Lou.
> >>>> Self-reference is something very deep indeed, perhaps fundamentally
> located at the nexus of subject~object itself (in terms of geometry and
> association with quantum physics). The step from the Peircian triangle to
> George Spencer-Brown?s observer intervention and wavefunction collapse
> seems to be in this territory. Self-reference as being the perfect circle,
> representing the emergence from a sea of possibilities the probabilistic
> manifestation of percept and concept in one lovely unit.
> >>>>
> >>>> From a psychological perspective, however, perception is a different
> can of worms, distinct from (but related to physical sensory stimulus) and
> the embodied response. Behaviorism noted the stimulus-response coupling
> (and its essential role in learning), but remained intentionally blind to
> any internal cognitive processing inside the proverbial Black Box.
> Perception can be defined as everything happening inside that Black Box,
> everything between that stimulus and response, and the more neurally
> endowed the creature, the more the perceptual processing involved. Unlike
> the perfect zero, it can be reasonably accurate or riddled with error. This
> is why some self-referential feedback is required in the stimulus itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> This marks the distinction between affective computations and
> cognitive computations. Affective computations specifically concern the
> self, they feel either good or bad, offering evaluative feedback about the
> self within its local physical environment and they trigger direct
> stimulus-response behavior. The stream of emotional information came first
> and still provides primary behavioral motivation. No observation no qualia?
> I agree but add no sensory stimulus, no percept!
> >>>>
> >>>> Ian McGlichest?s work in the dual yet interacting functions of the
> left and right brain hemispheres is instructive here as well. Music, maths,
> non-verbal wholism, creative ?unconscious?, intuitive capacities and all
> imaginable possibilities?? and emotion?collectively dwell in the right
> hemisphere ? the Master to the left-brain emissary where complex linguistic
> perceptual processing occurs.
> >>>> Kate Kauffman
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/12/25, 9:39 PM, "Stuart Kauffman" <stukauffman at gmail.com<
> mailto:stukauffman at gmail.com <stukauffman at gmail.com>>> wrote: Katherine
> Peil Kauffman
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you both,
> >>>>
> >>>> Stu
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 12, 2025, at 8:52?PM, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <
> mailto:loukau at gmail.com <loukau at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Katherine
> >>>> I do not yet take the step to ?explain? how to go from percept to
> concept.
> >>>> The point I inhabit is prior to that.
> >>>> In every situation where you have percept you also have concept.
> >>>> They arise together for you.
> >>>> Possibly not with the good concept you are searching for.
> >>>> For example, consider the way the perception of Saturn?s rings first
> appeared as lune-like patterns on the orb of the planet.
> >>>> The better concept of rings took some time.
> >>>> But every time there is a perception there is at the very least some
> concept, some description and it is from this place of percept/concept
> together that we proceed.
> >>>> From there you may or may not conclude that there is no way to reduce
> percept to concept and there is no way to reduce concept to percept.
> >>>> That is my position as a working position.
> >>>>
> >>>> Experience provides evidence that there is much more to the
> concurrence. In typing I can accomplish the task without looking at the
> keys.
> >>>> I have no training in this. I found that eventually I did it. I do
> not know how it works or why it is reliable. If you asked me which fingers
> make which letters, I could not answer.
> >>>> The same goes for improvisation on my clarinet, but there I do keep
> conscious track of the key and some other contextual information. Then my
> ?fingers? do the rest in feedback with ear and brain.
> >>>> LeDoux has an important point and I would like to know how he links
> the Cognitive Computations with the Affective Computations. In music
> practice we do this very deliberately, but in performance
> >>>> (also part of practice) we let it happen. Music seems to begin with
> the affective. Doing mathematics seems to often begin in the cognitive, but
> achieves new creation at the nexus of cognitive and affective levels.
> >>>> This is why many people gravitate to geometry. And the Pythagoreans
> knew that music and geometry were one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Steiner in his early work focused on the self-reference of "thought
> thinking thought? which I take to be at the nexus of concept and percept.
> >>>>
> >>>> In logical and pre logical work it helps to use signs iconically.
> >>>> Thus a circle such as O can stand for a distinction and we can ?see?
> that the circle itself makes a distinction in the plane.
> >>>> Thus the circle O is seen to refer to itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> In this self-reference the Peircian Triangle
> >>>>
> >>>> Interpretant
> >>>> Signifier Signified
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Collapses to.
> >>>>
> >>>> Interpretant
> >>>> O
> >>>>
> >>>> The O does not have a separate meaning from its interpretant.
> >>>> This leads George Spencer-Brown to declaim:
> >>>>
> >>>> <GSBMarkObserverQuote.png>
> >>>>
> >>>> I suggest that this situation is imaged in the orthodox form of
> quantum measurement where the smooth and determinate evolution of the wave
> function is
> >>>> Interrupted by the mark of observation. Without an observer there is
> no distinction and the world unseen evolves in potentia. With an observer
> comes
> >>>> percept and concept and all the rest. When I was 16 I called the
> potentia the ?guarded source of the discrete?. Can?t do any better yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Lou
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 12, 2025, at 5:21 PM, Katherine Peil <ktpeil at outlook.com <
> mailto:ktpeil at outlook.com <ktpeil at outlook.com>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks Pedro ? great to hear from you. A quick comment on:
> >>>> ?. I see a problem going from "percepts to concepts" as Lou claims
> >>>> below. Neuroscience has nowadays a rare consensus on not dissociating
>
> >>>> PERCEPTION and ACTION. The "Action Perception Cycle"?
> >>>> From the view of emotion science, this reflects a neurocentric
> problem wherein ?cognition? (perceptual processing) confounds sensations
> that lead to actions ? embodied emotional sensations that came on the
> evolutionary stage well before nerve nets or brains. It is emotion that is
> central to action, behavior and motivation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Neuroscientist Jospeh LeDoux made this key distinction:
> >>>> Cognitive computations: Reflective, conscious, goal-directed thought,
> often linked to areas of the brain involved in higher cognitive functions.
> >>>> Affective computations: Automatic, unconscious, emotional processing,
> often linked to areas of the brain involved in emotional regulation and
> survival mechanisms. They always concern ?the self? and the lead to actions.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can paraphrase his example?? there is a huge experiential
> difference between the thought that a snake is a reptile, that its skin can
> be made into belts and shoes, and the thought that a snake is likely to be
> dangerous.?
> >>>>
> >>>> Recall my claim that emotion in its simplest binary form ? akin to
> pleasure or pain - carries the foundational semantic information bit that
> undergirds all learning systems, but emerges from the dynamics and logic of
> genetic, epigenetic and immune regulation. The Perception-Action-Cycle
> relies on the emotional component, so IMHO Lou is still on safe and
> important new ground.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kate Kauffman
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/12/25, 2:59 PM, "Fis" <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es <
> mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es>>>
> wrote: Katherine Peil Kauffman
> >>>>
> >>>> Send Fis mailing list submissions to
> >>>> fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es
> <fis at listas.unizar.es>>
> >>>>
> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >>>>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C434c624c332c49aaea7808dd34d4b093%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638724810284656715%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gf%2FMzyeFUBtW%2B%2F3TppyBFet9FtJQnBIzNyLC3mh3gXw%3D&reserved=0
> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C434c624c332c49aaea7808dd34d4b093%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638724810284663651%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S5UL%2F98z%2BVFvc%2B5qWP10UVkhFFBFTccVDRyIpbTjOkM%3D&reserved=0
> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>>
> >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >>>> fis-request at listas.unizar.es <
> mailto:fis-request at listas.unizar.es <fis-request at listas.unizar.es>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >>>> fis-owner at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis-owner at listas.unizar.es
> <fis-owner at listas.unizar.es>>
> >>>>
> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >>>> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> *************************
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250115/75f21a05/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: zencircle.png
Type: image/png
Size: 48648 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250115/75f21a05/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the Fis
mailing list