[Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning - [chaotic issues]
Louis Kauffman
loukau at gmail.com
Sun Jan 26 08:39:30 CET 2025
Dear Terry,
Thank you for this comment and the implicit pointer to your work!
I shall be exploring your website.
I am very interested in the relationships between LoF and C.S. Peirce.
I think that logicians like Quine got quite far away from iconic representations (such as Carroll, Venn, Peirce), and also when confronted with LoF they did not see that it was about the generality of distinction and indication. Still I am baffled that very few mathematicians or logicians were taken by the elegance of the formalism of LoF. Partly this is related to the
pervasive role of the unmarked state and the double role of the mark as value and operator.
For example, consider the review of LoF by Abraham Robinson.
Robinson describes the formalism in his own terms and does not see that the concept “distinction” is relevant.
On the other hand, one finds the assessment below at Wolfram Mathworld (Eric Weinstein).
This is the most original assessment that I have seen in a public document.
He takes as a property that a form can take itself as its own argument and disappear.
" Two instances of the form are equivalent to no instance of the form alias empty space if one of the
forms is the argument of the other form."
I take this as a description of the mark as transformation, but Weinstein puts it into words
So we have a verbal description of the disappearance of form to void, or the appearance of form from void.
There is a power to putting <<>> = back into words, just as there was originally a power to saying that what is not marked is unmarked.
Best,
Lou
The Spencer-Brown form is a simple mathematical concept that formalizes what a mathematical object is formally
identical to what it is not (Spencer-Brown 1997, pp. ix and 180). The Spencer-Brown form is defined by two primitive
equations which are its axioms (Spencer-Brown 1969):
1. Condensation: Two instances of the form are equivalent to one instance of the form if they are placed in the same
space.
2. Cancellation: Two instances of the form are equivalent to no instance of the form alias empty space if one of the
forms is the argument of the other form.
This cancellation is of particular interest because it permits bootstrapping of a binary domain and a binary range for the
form function from itself. Hence empty space can be represented as a form taking itself as its argument, and can thus
be called the inverse of itself.
The traditional notation for the form is a kind of vinculum token that spans its arguments thus offering a bracket-free
notation that is always syntactically correct. Nested circles or rectangles and graphs offer alternative ways of
representing form expressions (Spencer-Brown 1969). Notations that use nested brackets have been used by various
authors (c.f. Meguire 2003).
Arguments of the form can be either explicit instances of the form itself (primary arithmetic) or collections of arguments
that are variables defined as representing either the form or the empty space obtained by processing a form by a form
(primary algebra). Arithmetic form expressions involving only constants simplify instantly. Algebraic form expressions
involving variables can be evaluated by enumerating and testing all possible replacements of these variables. These
primary definitions define an abstract algebra and can be used to reconstruct numbers and operations of an algebra
over an infinite field of integers.
The Spencer-Brown form can hence be regarded as a symbol for a distinction which takes itself as its own domain to
generate the range for functions it represents and operates on. Contrary to some interpretations the form is not
equivalent to NAND, the Peirce "cut" in a sheet of assertion, or the Sheffer stroke, because it starts from empty space,
uses itself as its argument and because each form token accepts an arbitrary number of constant, variable or
recursively reentrant arguments.
The form approach has been adopted as a formal resource of for instance a sociologic theory systems (Luhmann
1996). On the other hand it has also been criticized as inconsistent (Cull et al. 1979), but it turns out that arbitrary
nested form token can be evaluated automatically in the Wolfram Language if brackets for form tokens are replaced by
DiscreteDelta (Schreiber 2003).
Numbers can be represented as forms following either the original interpretation given by Spencer-Brown (1957), by
adding further axioms and tokens not included in the original system (James 1993), or by relating form expressions to
their corresponding Wolfram rule numbers (Schreiber 2004). This third approach is able to handle arbitrary integers or
Boolean algebras of degree in general, and to reconstruct the 256 binary cellular automaton rules (Wolfram 1983,
2002) from 26 Spencer-Brown forms in particular. Large numbers can be represented efficiently by constructing form
expressions which specify only positions of ones.
A form expressions can process results of its own operation as input recursively. Varela (1975, pp. 5-24) proposed to
extend the domain and the range of the form by including an "autonomous state" as a symbol for this imaginary value
which according to that so-called "extended calculus of indication" would not change its value when processed by the
form. The obvious problem of this modification is that the form could not draw a distinction between two autonomous
states. While this could be handled by postulating a fourth state which differs from the autonomous state in phase it is
possible to avoid such complication. This can be demonstrated by using form reentry to add two infinite length
sequences of forms (Schreiber 2004).
Very best,
Lou
> On Jan 25, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Terrence W Deacon <deacon at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Louis,
> I have long appreciated your interest in probing the implications of Laws of Form.
> Sadly, its importance has been largely missed or forgotten.
> For me it has been a useful tool for teaching the underlying basis for symbolic logical
> which for me dates back to the late 1970s,
> but it also has been a critical bridge in my understanding of the links between the semiotic and inferential theories of C S Peirce (which was never explicitly discussed in his writings).
> So, although I have seldom if ever made GSBs influence clear in any of my writing
> it has played a critical role in my thinking.
> — Terry
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 8:11 AM Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear Terrence,
> Thank you for sending correct and comprehensive definition of transduction.
> It is the case that one can interpret the general notion of “crossing” (the boundary if there is one) a distinction or change of state as transduction. Mark was pointing out that this may be way to make a dictionary for some people who would study LoF.
> I see LoF use of crossing is more abstract (general) than the present use of the word transduction, and it appears that transduction and transformation are synonymous in many domains.
> Best,
> Lou
>
>
>> On Jan 24, 2025, at 1:39 PM, Terrence W Deacon <deacon at berkeley.edu <mailto:deacon at berkeley.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Louis, Mark, and all,
>>
>> I have remained a spectator in these last two threads of discussion, even though the nature of emotion is of particular interest to me from a neurophysiological perspective (and I think is largely misunderstood both philosophically and in the cognitive neurosciences).
>> I also have a particular fondness for GSB's Laws of Form and its semiotic and Gödelian implications (as should be evident from my book Incomplete Nature). I think that its depth and elegance has been under-appreciated, in part because of the hint of mysticism that GSB implies and because logicians often consider it a kind of knock-off of Scheffer's stroke (I remember as a grad student receiving a stinging rebuke from one of my heroes, WVO Quine, when I mentioned that I thought LoF was insightful - I still think he was wrong).
>> But because I am wary of getting drawn into discussions where my contrary views will lead to endless back and forth debates that are often animated by unacknowledged incompatible semantic uses of the same term (a problem with the term 'information' in particular), I will only contribute the following comment.
>>
>> I regularly find the concept of "transduction" useful in my neuroscience research, to refer to the form-energy transfer processes between neurons. It is especially useful with respect to perception (where the concept is often applied). Below, I quote some etymological analyses of the term to illustrate its potential relevance, and to help us avoid semantic quibbles.
>>
>> — Terry
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.etymonline.com/word/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VKqeZch-3l_lYiF9vPgHbZqLFRbRPhJjWyF3hajL25HeBASk8Hr5o5LdeVznUb0ykK803mpI0JrTOa53$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.etymonline.com/word/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VKqeZch-3l_lYiF9vPgHbZqLFRbRPhJjWyF3hajL25HeBASk8Hr5o5LdeVznUb0ykK803mpI0JrTOa53$ >
>> transduction (n.)
>> "act of leading or carrying over," 1650s, from Latin transductionem/traducionem (nominative transductio) "a removal, transfer," noun of action from past-participle stem of transducere/traducere "change over, convert," …
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VKqeZch-3l_lYiF9vPgHbZqLFRbRPhJjWyF3hajL25HeBASk8Hr5o5LdeVznUb0ykK803mpI0JbzYEqq$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VKqeZch-3l_lYiF9vPgHbZqLFRbRPhJjWyF3hajL25HeBASk8Hr5o5LdeVznUb0ykK803mpI0JbzYEqq$ >
>> transduction (n.)
>> (biology) The transfer of genetic material from one cell to another typically between bacterial cells, and typically via a bacteriophage or pilus.
>> The process whereby a transducer converts energy from one form to another.
>> (physiology) The conversion of a stimulus from one form to another.
>> (physics) The conversion of energy (especially light energy) into another form, especially in a biological process such as photosynthesis or in a transducer.
>> (logic) Particularly in the discipline of artificial intelligence, a form of inference, according to which the response appropriate to a particular known case, also is appropriate to another particular case diagnosed to be functionally identical. This contrasts with induction, in which general rules derived from past observations are applied to future cases as a class (compare also analogy).
>> (logic design) The improvement of an electronic logic network by reduction of redundant components in an initial version, using an established pruning procedure, then applying permissible functions for transformation of the network into a workable form. Thereafter the transformation and reduction may be repeated till no worthwhile further improvement results
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 12:08 AM Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Dear Mark,
>> I looked up “transduction” and found:
>>
>> “Transduction is the process by which a virus transfers genetic material from one bacterium to another. Viruses called bateriophages are able to infect bacterial cells and use them as hosts to make more viruses.”
>>
>> Perhaps you have something else in mind.
>> Please elucidate what you mean by transduction.
>>
>> It is certainly the case that indication reaches a “viral” level in that we can repeat indications and send them around.
>> Indication is how we infect one another with ideas of distinction and indication. Transduction in this sense is a perfect
>> description of the human literary and academic process, not to speak of our social and political processes (but I do speak of them). We also infect ourselves by fundamental indicative recursion.
>> Heinz von Förster: “I am the observed relation between myself and observing myself.”
>> But in that fundamental relationship of the self (and the other) there is more than just the multiplying of viral indicators.
>> So, using transduction in this sense, I would say that it is describing a level where only indication is recognized and the allowance and letting go of indication, the movement toward unity, is ignored. Of course I am saying here what cannot be said.
>> What cannot be said shows itself.
>> Best,
>> Lou
>>
>> Transduction is the process by which a virus transfers genetic material from one bacterium to another. Viruses called bacteriophages are able to infect bacterial cells and use them as hosts to make more viruses.
>>> On Jan 24, 2025, at 1:37 AM, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com <mailto:johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Lou - that's helpful.
>>>
>>> If I can push this a little bit further, I take the point about my wish to say indication = transduction. Indeed that is what I'm saying.
>>>
>>> Taking "one cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction" (with which I completely agree), I might say "a distinction is the result of transduction" - at the very least our senses or consciousness. We cannot not transduce. I think Simondon said something similar.
>>>
>>> Is it reasonable then to transpose the question "what is the structure of an indication?" to "what is the structure of a transduction?" (and what cannot be transduced.). This does open the door to the biologists and experimentalists...
>>>
>>> What I find fascinating in your work, and what I want to understand if my interpretation resonates with you at all, is that from the structures of LoF you arrive at a 3-dimensional topology, Clifford algebra, etc - all of which provides a powerful answer to the question "what is the structure of an indication?".
>>>
>>> I want to stick my neck out and say that to conceive of this approach as being about the structure of transduction is potentially more practical in addressing some of what Jason and others point out. Am I mistaken?
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025, 00:05 Louis Kauffman, <loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Dear Mark,
>>> GSB’s diagrams are intended for “digital circuitry” (maybe transcendental digital circuitry!) and we use them that way with a possible assignment of a “time delay” across the mark. The “signal” that traverses the mark in the diagram undergoes a flip from value A to value <A> (cross A).
>>> In the usual interpretation we have only the values marked and unmarked happening at the lines in the diagrams. Already this is very rich. People including myself have used these diagrams more generally so that the mark is a black box, or a more general boundary and the signals running through are also more complex. At that point the diagram could actually be any directed graph with various interpretations for its parts. Stafford is advocating using directed graphs to indicate flow of information or goods or spirituality or … and all this is close to very general descriptions of the systems. Some people like to restrict to just Spencer-Brown type boundaries and indicate how boundaries are crossed between different sometimes nested domains. You will see this is in Dirk Baecker’s work. Diagrams can have many interpretations and one does not need to speak as though these interpretations are necessarily implicit in say Spencer-Brown from the beginning.
>>>
>>> I believe that the correct understanding is that what Spencer-Brown shows us, the structure that he shows us and that we can develop further if we wish, is inherent in any and all indicative domains. LoF is about the structure of indication. And it is obliquely therefore about what cannot be indicated. One cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction.
>>>
>>> But when you start asking questions in the form "In GSB transduction must happen "in the line" of the mark. In not specifying exactly what is going on there, is GSB saying that the transduction occurs in the observer? (and so doesn't need to be shown on the page?)” you are making a mistake of a peculiar kind. YOU are the one who wishes to make indications about transduction! If you find that it fits to be “on the line” fine do that. If you wish to understand the relationship with the observer, fine do that. It is ALL your responsibility and ALL your creation!
>>> Best,
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 23, 2025, at 12:30 PM, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com <mailto:johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Lou and Joe,
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting, Lou, that you raise Stafford Beer's diagrams, because these have an intimate connection to GSB (by virtue of the Beer's facilitation of LoF). Beer's tribute to GSB is in his archive in Liverpool - a children's story called "Kate gets a Bird" (example picture here - Improvisation Blog: Beer's Tribute to Laws of Form <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com/2025/01/beers-tribute-to-laws-of-form.html__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WRuR2-u4W5LHuc7pCqkoZ5hxc6RMwobVWfbAcmo-u0rMOaSoBcIgju1DxQ8NhsI8RJuOKYx8vhIokzhl$>).
>>>>
>>>> What's different between Beer's diagrams and GSB is that Beer draws the transducers in his diagrams as lines between boxes, converting variety from one form to another. In GSM transduction is presumably the mechanism by which the unmarked becomes marked. For Beer, transduction always infers amplification and attenuation of variety. It's just that GSB doesn't show it.
>>>>
>>>> In GSB transduction must happen "in the line" of the mark. In not specifying exactly what is going on there, is GSB saying that the transduction occurs in the observer? (and so doesn't need to be shown on the page?)
>>>>
>>>> However, if we could zoom-in on a line/mark, we would probably encounter transducers within transducers within transducers - like Beer's diagrams. That, it seems to me, is a "moving picture". I'm not sure it's the kind of moving picture that Joe or Lupasco would approve of, but it is dynamic - particularly when taken together with the form of the mark itself.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 07:47, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>> I have already answered this in some other ways, but lets try again.
>>>>
>>>> Diagrams
>>>> (a) A diagram is not particularly static. It could be a movie or an injunction to make a movie.
>>>> It could be a dance or a ritual, a temple or a war.
>>>>
>>>> That is how you might view the diagrams about topology of DNA recombination.
>>>> And it is in that mode that diagrammatic work and the possibility of creating a diagram from the “microword” by electron microscopy, led to the understandings about
>>>> Knotted DNA and topological enzymes. These in turn have had an effect at some medical levels since if your topo enzymes do not work, your cells cannot divide and you die.
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.excedr.com/resources/topoisomerase-overview*:*:text=In*20pharmaceuticals*2C*20topoisomerases*20are*20used,anticancer*20therapeutics*20other*20than*20chemotherapy__;I34lJSUlJSUlJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VKqeZch-3l_lYiF9vPgHbZqLFRbRPhJjWyF3hajL25HeBASk8Hr5o5LdeVznUb0ykK803mpI0BpnEtWA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.excedr.com/resources/topoisomerase-overview*:*:text=In*20pharmaceuticals*2C*20topoisomerases*20are*20used,anticancer*20therapeutics*20other*20than*20chemotherapy__;I34lJSUlJSUlJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_ygvadEF65$>.
>>>>
>>>> So here you have a real example of how diagrammatic topological mathematics is closely allied with applications that can save lives.
>>>>
>>>> (b) For the design of quantum algorithms and all things quantum field theoretic we use diagrams quite intensively.
>>>> The same is true for working out the reactions that lead to the bomb. So diagrams can also be used to kill en masse, as can all of language.
>>>>
>>>> (c) Written language is a work of diagrams. Those little characters you string together are stylized diagrams, rather static by themselves. And if you live in China or Japan your
>>>> Language is an incredible pastiche of diagrams.
>>>>
>>>> (d) Actually all of mathematics is a pastiche of diagrams for all sorts of conceptual and calculational purposes.
>>>>
>>>> (e) I refer you to C.S. Peirce for the role of diagrams and signs in thought.
>>>>
>>>> (f) The greatest masters of diagrams in Cybernetics were Strafford Beer and Humberto Maturana. Perhaps you see some value in their work.
>>>>
>>>> (f) The GUI that began with Mac and infiltrated PC is the
>>>> diagrams of finitely nested boxes
>>>> that are the basis of the distinctions and indications of LOF.
>>>> LOF is about distinctions and indications.
>>>> Its diagrams are just a particular representation of that.
>>>> Mac uses these diagrams and never had to pay any royalties to GSB.
>>>>
>>>> Religion
>>>> (g) The Heart Sutra explains clearly how to use the unmarked state (emptiness) to solve all human problems.
>>>> That it has not been applied to this end is not the fault of either GSB or the Buddha.
>>>>
>>>> (h) I am aware that no matter what I say,
>>>> someone will complain
>>>> about something
>>>> that comes up for them
>>>> when we get near to no-thing.
>>>> That is the nature of it.
>>>> Believe it or not,
>>>> I am not an advocate of the absolute binary distinction.
>>>> It is in contrast to what cannot be said.
>>>> See the quote below that fell into my email from Malcolm Dean.
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VKqeZch-3l_lYiF9vPgHbZqLFRbRPhJjWyF3hajL25HeBASk8Hr5o5LdeVznUb0ykK803mpI0FfEgesH$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_yggIa9BkE$> GIF by Etienne Jacob <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bleuje.com/mp4set/2019/2019_25.mp4__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_ygkOzwPOE$> used to illustrate Bits forming an Information process.
>>>>
>>>> "The tentative and non-black-and-white nature of categorization is inevitable, and yet the act of categorization often feels perfectly definite and absolute to the categorizer, since many of our most familiar categories seem on first glance to have precise and sharp boundaries, and this naïve impression is encouraged by the fact that people’s everyday, run-of-the mill use of words is seldom questioned; in fact, every culture constantly, although tacitly, reinforces the impression that words are simply automatic labels that come naturally to mind and that belong intrinsically to things and entities. If a category has fringe members, they are made to seem extremely quirky and unnatural, suggesting that nature is really cut precisely at the joints by the categories that we know. The resulting illusory sense of the near-perfect certainty and clarity of categories gives rise to much confusion about categories and the mental processes that underlie categorization. The idea that category membership always comes in shades of gray rather than in just black and white runs strongly against ancient cultural conventionsand is therefore disorienting and even disturbing; accordingly, it gets swept under the rug most of the time."
>>>>
>>>> (i) Oh, and what did you think Hofstader was about?
>>>> Did you think that he was bragging about the clarity and perfection of logic?
>>>> He was telling you the story of how logic in the hands of human understanding
>>>> slayed the Jabberwock of the completeness of formality.
>>>> Don’t worry. You are not the only one who did not listen.
>>>> We sell you fake word makers to do your job.
>>>> And in the year of our T, you can buy cryptocurrency, watches and bibles from your leader.
>>>>
>>>> "It was one of those pictures <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_yglukToEj$> which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move."
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 19, 2025, at 4:14 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se <mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>>> I’m having some difficulty understanding the message conveyed through the pictures you’ve shared.
>>>>> For instance, the images representing EU countries depict flames coming from burning cars.
>>>>> However, Europe is vast and diverse, and such scenes can be found all over the world.
>>>>> It would be helpful if you could clarify your intention in plain English, so I can better grasp the context and meaning behind.
>>>>> Additionally, the last four pictures have no country labels and address issues concerning humanity on a global scale.
>>>>> Extraterrestrials I don’t know where to place conceptually.
>>>>> Looking forward to your clarification.
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Gordana
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Jason Hu <jasonthegoodman at gmail.com <mailto:jasonthegoodman at gmail.com>>
>>>>> Date: Sunday, 19 January 2025 at 19:11
>>>>> To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se <mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se>>
>>>>> Cc: fis <fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning - [chaotic issues]
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Gordana, these roughly illustrate what I meant for the question you asked, maybe you're not aware of. I hope each of these images is clear enough. If not, please let me know. Best - Jason
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 9:43 AM Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se <mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say: ”the chaotic social issues in the U.K. and the Europe”
>>>>>> I wonder which countries are you referring to with “the chaotic social issues”?
>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2266__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VKqeZch-3l_lYiF9vPgHbZqLFRbRPhJjWyF3hajL25HeBASk8Hr5o5LdeVznUb0ykK803mpI0N0SjeDs$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2266__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RS9jkPrXovtaK9OrMobFA5d-EXulXksAnRW7oZifSq9nxdVB2X27XUh6Co48niXvyVseo1lew6BDerrJGfgXTFnKLUxXAA$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Gordana
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es>> on behalf of Jason Hu <jasonthegoodman at gmail.com <mailto:jasonthegoodman at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> Date: Sunday, 19 January 2025 at 16:01
>>>>>> To: "joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>" <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>>
>>>>>> Cc: "Pedro C. Marijuán" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com <mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>>, Jerry Swatez <swatez at mac.com <mailto:swatez at mac.com>>, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I second Joe strongly here, "they are a possibly misleading way of describing natural physical processes, including and especially cognition."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to be a fan of Hofstadter's "Gedel, Escher, Bach" in my younger years, but gradually started realizing that type of thoughts might be an intellectual trap - an endless rabbit hole that leads to just self-entertainment or self-glory but no useful actions, no tools for handyman to do everyday work to benefit normal people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, "I have just written may not be completely correct (what is?)" so I welcome any of you to prove me wrong or even change my mind, by offering some solid example of how GSB thinking has been beneficial to solve/resolve/dissolve the huge conflicts going on in the Middle East, or the deep divide among the Americans between Trump supporters and Trump haters, or the chaotic social issues in the U.K. and the Europe. If no such examples exist so far, at least point out to me how it could be, under what conditions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards - Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 3:29 AM <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Lou and All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just some comments to explain my resistence to GSB and much of Lou's otherwise essential work: the diagrams used do not nove; they are "eternal". They accurately reflect only epistemic self-reference and not recursion or ontic hetero-reference. Therefore, they are a possibly misleading way of describing natural physical processes, including and especially cognition. Information applies to the content of the diagram below, but the mental "movement" from figure to ground and back, and its logic, is at a low level of complexity. Information more broadly. however, is easily seen as a dynamic phenomenon, embodying and describing change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I submit that what I have just written may not be completely correct (what is?), but that it has received insufficient serious attention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you and best wishes,
>>>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>>>> Le 19.01.2025 02:08 CET, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Karl,
>>>>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Background.
>>>>>>>> Figure and Ground.
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>> And in starting with the idea of a distinction one needs to have an unfettered notion of background.
>>>>>>>> That notion is emptiness.
>>>>>>>> The empty set is placed against a background of non-membership and it has no members.
>>>>>>>> { }
>>>>>>>> The GSB mark is a relative of the empty set and stands for a distinction and for that state obtained by crossing from emptiness
>>>>>>>> (the first distinction, if you will.)
>>>>>>>> <image002.png>
>>>>>>>> As soon as one fixes on a representation of a concept, that representation has more properties, more inherent and indicated distinctions, than the concept “itself”.
>>>>>>>> Thus the curly brackets of the representation of the empty set, { }, are not necessary for the concept. And the right angle bracket is not necessary for the mark.
>>>>>>>> We sometimes use < > for the mark as it is useful in typing, but execrable as an icon since < > is two characters representing one distinction. And so it goes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is in fact very powerful to understand the backgrounds that are appropriate for discourse and keep them as minimal as possible.
>>>>>>>> In LOF, GSB uses the notational plane as a background, not the line.
>>>>>>>> This has some eplstemological advantages and some drawbacks.
>>>>>>>> After studying any indication set-up it is useful to examine what kind of background is being used.
>>>>>>>> Mathematical advances and scientific advances have resulted from such scrutiny.
>>>>>>>> At the level of the Heart Sutra the concept of emptiness can be the basis for (everything).
>>>>>>>> Very best,
>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 18, 2025, at 3:55 PM, Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com <mailto:karl.javorszky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Remark: this is usually called BACKGROUND.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>> schrieb am Sa., 18. Jän. 2025, 22:43:
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pedro,
>>>>>>>>>> It depends on how you look at it.
>>>>>>>>>> Consider the Heart Sutra.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In Mathematics, all forms are brought forth from emptiness.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> { }
>>>>>>>>>> {{}}
>>>>>>>>>> {{},{{}}}
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Emptiness can mean “that which is not (yet) articulated or indicated”.
>>>>>>>>>> At the bottom of what is indicated is what is not indicated.
>>>>>>>>>> What is not indicated is not marked.
>>>>>>>>>> Emptiness is a word for what is not marked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Very best,
>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 18, 2025, at 3:05 PM, Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com <mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Lou and List,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to you (and Eric) for the thought-provoking exchange. Along it, I was reminded of a maverick approach to distinctions I read long ago. It was pointing to a set with N elements carrying multiple "signs" or "marks". The distinctions between these elements carrying heterogeneous signs within the set were expressed by means of partitions, actually multidimensional partitions. Other related authors tried to systematically obtain and compile those multidimensional partitions via a few 'logical' principles (economy, parsimony, symmetry) applied to the pruning of redundant signs, and subsequently the 'canonical' multid.partitions could be obtained 'almost' algorithmically (at least for small N)... etc. etc. At least, in my non-mathematical mind I could make some practical sense of this distinctional stuff (in which I was interested regarding cellular signaling systems and the way receptors combinations were occupied by different signaling molecules).
>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with the closing statement (THE FORM WE TAKE TO EXIST ARISES FROM FRAMING NOTHING), because it situates itself above the conditions of any previous kind of existence. IMO it is a Barón of Münchhausen's type of statement. Maths as I pointed days ago inherit the inner dynamics of our sensorimotor transformations from which language developed. Maths, as it has often been recognized, is a particular form of collective language. It partakes of an enormous historical accumulation of thought-experimentation and pruning, particularly trying to capture the transformations of the external world. The implicit subject is always "us", the writer plus the concerned learned community of 'practitioners' of that particular math 'dialect'. And concerning distinctions, it obviously includes the possibility of entering into the scheme of other subjects (as Eric points) endowed with genuine distinctional capability--from living cells to...
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyhow, in spite of the disagreement, your message was a great reading. Thanks for those GSB quotations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Concerning Kate's recent emphasis on E. coli's two component system in charge of motion control, the discoveries on prokaryotic signaling during last two decades have left a richer panorama. For instance, E. coli counts with about 100 one-component-systems (1CSs), 28 of the 2 CSs class, and just two of the 3 CSs (actually one of them is the motion control). The 1CSs are more simple and primitive (evolutionarily), and slower, with respect to the faster, more specific, and more evolved 2CSs, which in their turn are less complex and sophisticate than 3CSs, which are applied to the treatment of very important signals than need a further layer of intervening processes. It always depend on the whole advancement of the cell cycle, or life history, which endowment the bacterium will contain... Anyhow, the whole signaling panorama of 'primitive' cells is fascinating--it is indeed the beginning of biological sensing & communication.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, Jason, thanks for that amazing report on the proton innards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Greetings to all,
>>>>>>>>>>> --Pedro
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> El 17/01/2025 a las 21:57, Louis Kauffman escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Eric,
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a confusion here that is quite natural.
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOF is a book of mathematics and philosophy. It discusses the idea of a distinction.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When one takes a mathematical approach one attempts to begin with very simple structures and
>>>>>>>>>>>> explore outward into complexity. LOF dwells on the possibility of one distinction throughout the whole book.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> “We take as given the idea of distinction and the idea of indication
>>>>>>>>>>>> and that one cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We take therefore the form of distinction for the form.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As such LOF is not concerned with where or how the distinction is made.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the same way, a mathematics book about number is not concerned with particular representations of numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course we have these concerns and we want to understand more and more about numbers in general
>>>>>>>>>>>> and we feel that some representations will help and some ways to use signs and symbols will help.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The same is the case with the idea of distinction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> GSB does have his ontology (or lack thereof!).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people are made a bit nervous by declarations that the world is created from nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can investigate this if you are not annoyed by it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What could ’things’ be ‘made of’?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you’re bothered, then you are bothered.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics is similarly annoying
>>>>>>>>>>>> as we have systematically shown
>>>>>>>>>>>> how to build it all from nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>> but the act of collecting/distinguishing
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the act of creating signs and indications.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has their niche of ideas and ways that they want to continue to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the approach of a big general idea, what we already “know" looks too good be abandoned,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and so we keep demanding that the other talk in our language.
>>>>>>>>>>>> GSB created new language.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein pointed out the ontological consequences of the limitations of language.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Both are very challenging.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither are making religions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> These are anti-religions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THE FORM WE TAKE TO EXIST ARISES FROM FRAMING NOTHING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2025, at 6:19 AM, Eric Werner <eric.werner at oarf.org <mailto:eric.werner at oarf.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Lou,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To point 4. Yes, I admit it was sarcasm. To me a distinction requires a subject. And that subject's neuro-hardware or firmware or software limits the distinctions that that subject can make. For example, the distinctions made by an ant, a frog, a cat or a human may be quite different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realize you are probably the world top expert on Spencer Brown so you probably have a reply. But my instinct is that GSB is claiming too much by using 'distinction' as an ONTOLOGICAL or metaphysical foundation for what requires a subjective capacity. OK, this last sentence is not fully clear, but I think GSB is confusing subject and being.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the sarcasm, it is a more personal emotional reaction having little to do with you. Although you may unknowingly have had a role in the matter through your publications. I have friends who study early Wittgenstein and GSB as if their texts were biblical texts. Going to the library every day to read the Tractatus and LOF like a disciple doing his or her religious studies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the onset of puberty and the ability to consciously reason, my mother took each of us into the kitchen and taught us to be critical of the bible, both the old and new testament. We were raised Christian but there were also Jews in my mother's ancestry. Who knows why, but I have maintained my religious skepticism and hence my perhaps inappropriate reaction when I smell religiosity. Apologies dear Lou.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In spite of my critical attitude, I do believe there is more to the universe. There may be a God or Gods and angels. There may be life after death. Life is always surprising. So, I am open to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Eric
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <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 <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 <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>>>>>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>>>>>> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>>>>>>>> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas <https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas>
>>>>>>>>>>> Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>>>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>>>>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <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 <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 <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <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 <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 <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <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 <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 <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas <https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas>
>>>>> Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <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 <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 <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Mark William Johnson
>>>> Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
>>>> University of Manchester
>>>>
>>>> Department of Science Education
>>>> University of Copenhagen
>>>>
>>>> Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
>>>> University of Liverpool
>>>> Phone: 07786 064505
>>>> Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com <mailto:johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>
>>>> Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VKqeZch-3l_lYiF9vPgHbZqLFRbRPhJjWyF3hajL25HeBASk8Hr5o5LdeVznUb0ykK803mpI0BFqUrXk$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WRuR2-u4W5LHuc7pCqkoZ5hxc6RMwobVWfbAcmo-u0rMOaSoBcIgju1DxQ8NhsI8RJuOKYx8viBacWGE$>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <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 <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 <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>> ----------
>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
>> University of California, Berkeley
>
>
>
> --
> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
> University of California, Berkeley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250126/38bd9ec6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RobinsonReview.png
Type: image/png
Size: 52100 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250126/38bd9ec6/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the Fis
mailing list