[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38
Karl Javorszky
karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Wed Jan 15 07:51:20 CET 2025
You say :
*"... by “encapsulate” I mean that the formal system in question has to run
entirely by itself, be consistent, and use a fundamentally finite set of
rules"*
Exactly what would it be worth for you if one shows you a formal system
that does run entirely by itself, be consistent, and use a fundamentally
finite set of rules?
Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 15. Jän. 2025,
07:49:
> You say :
> *"... by “encapsulate” I mean that the formal system in question has to
> run entirely by itself, be consistent, and use a fundamentally finite set
> of rules"*
>
> Exactly what would it be worth for you if one shows you a formal system
> that does run entirely by itself, be consistent, and use a fundamentally
> finite set of rules?
>
>
> Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 15. Jän. 2025, 07:43:
>
>> Yes. But you will note that by “encapsulate” I mean that the formal
>> system in question has to run entirely by itself, be consistent, and use a
>> fundamentally finite set of rules.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2025, at 12:39 AM, Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> <zencircle.png>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/ce2c644a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list