[Fis] Bill Miller's contribution: the "It" of a machine, truth and trust

[JOHN TORDAY]

Dear Gordana, Mark, Michael, Bill, Joe, Tom, Pedro and fis, I will reply to
your thoughtful email in *[**brackets**]* as best I can, bearing in mind
that many of my comments are the same as those I stated in my replies to
Joe Brenner.

"Thank you for sharing your thought-provoking remarks and the fascinating
perspective you've developed regarding gravity as a fundamental driver in
the origin and evolution of life. Your work on PTHrP as a gravisensor, and
the broader implications you draw from it, raise important questions about
how we conceptualize life's emergence from a physical and developmental
standpoint.

*[I just wanted to interject as 'Proof of Principle' that the PTHrP
Receptor duplicated (amplified) during the water-land transition,
explaining how/why the skeleton, lungs, kidney and
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis evolved in that time-frame,
facilitating the vertebrate cellular-molecular physiologic adaptation to
land. This was not Darwinian 'random mutation', it was internal selection
due to stress, dysregulating homeostasis in the organs of interest, causing
the cells involved to produce radical oxygen species, known to cause
context-specific mutations and duplications.....it is that mechanism that
allows for evolution of the tissues and organs in order to adapt. It is
Maturana and Varela's self-referential self-organization, for which they
did not provide a mechanism.]*



I wanted to offer a collegial and constructive view from my perspective
that complements your argument by considering the foundational role of
*information* in biological systems—especially in the context of *cognition,
learning, and adaptation* at the cellular level.


*[I appreciate your effort to find consilience between information and
energy. Not to be argumentative, just the contrary, to hopefully provide a
mechanism that is continuous from the inert to the living, information is
secondary to energy, as I stated in my reply to Joe Brenner, beginning with
the microgravity effect on cellular phenotypic evolution, which by
definition was depriving the cell of energy, not information. And beyond
that, I have stated that the Fibonacci sequence for the Elements produced
by Stellar Nucleosynthesis, or how/why stars are formed, the Elements as
their by-products, is a story of the energy for those mechanisms. But it
must be said that the sequencing of the Elements in their exact order of
their atomic masses is information that is the 'logic' of the Cosmos. But
Life makes the Elements 'organic' through Symbiogenesis, mediating the
'serial homeostatic balance of the cell' in adapting to its environment as
evolution, in contradistinction to Darwinian 'random mutations'. ]*



While I fully agree that gravity, as well as other forms of energy—
electrical, chemical, thermal and mechanical are crucial in shaping the
physical environment that made life possible, I would suggest that these
energy forms are *enabling conditions* for a more fundamental transition:
the emergence of systems capable of *processing, storing, and responding to
information*.


*[I must take exception to the role of information as primary, because it
is derivative of the energy flows, primarily because I am of the opinion
that not unlike classical v quantum mechanics, if you need to use different
explanations for each, you're not using the correct explanation. The
ontology and epistemology must be internally consistent to understand the
meaning of both/and each. The experiment done by Claassen and Spooner
(Claassen DE, Spooner BS. Liposome formation in microgravity. Adv Space
Res. 1996;17(6-7):151-60) showing that in microgravity micelles, or
protocells, are heterogeneous.....so like soap bubbles, it they are not
uniform the biggest one will 'eat' all the smaller ones, eliminating that
'platform' for life.]*



Cells, even the simplest ones, are not passive reactors to external forces;
they sense, interpret, and adapt to their environment.



This requires:

   - Internal representations of their state (e.g., energy levels, osmotic
   pressure, etc.),
   - Interpretation of signals (via receptors and transduction pathways),
   - Decision-making logic (e.g., feedback control, signal integration),
   - Forms of memory and adaptive behavior.


These capacities reflect *informational architectures*—structured,
rule-governed processes that allow organisms to maintain homeostasis,
respond to novelty, and evolve complexity.
These processes are *not reducible to energy flow**s** alone*, even though
they are energetically instantiated.

To take your Newtonian analogy a step further: just as force requires mass
to produce acceleration, energy requires an informational structure, a
network or system capable of interpreting and responding to that energy,
for it to lead to life-like behavior.
Without that, physical processes remain inanimate.


*[I am an advocate for Schrodinger's "What is Life", in which he stated
that life is negative entropy within the cell, entropy in the environment,
acting as a dialectic state of energy as the ab origine form of the cell,
the subsequent Symbiogenic mechanism (Sagan, 1967) sustaining and
perpetuating that state epistemologically.]*

Both Mike and Bill have written extensively on cellular information
processing and cognition, and you in your book *Consciousness-Based
Evolution* are emphasizing the role of communication that is information
exchange.


*[With all due respect, all the articles and books I have published
regarding cellular-molecular evolution emphasize the role of cell-cell
communication as energy exchanges, not information. And Mike and Bill do
not provide a mechanism for their work that would make it amenable to
testing scientifically whereas my work is totally testable, as I and others
have shown]*



I find great resonance in your broader point that life must be understood
as a *holistic, dynamical phenomenon*, not merely a sum of parts. My aim is
not to oppose that view, but to emphasize that *information**,
**context-sensitive,
functional information**, is** one of those essential parts,* and arguably
what makes life different from non-life."


[Thank you for recognizing the value in recognizing life as holism. I
recently published an article explaining 'how ane why' Symbiogenesis is
evidence for our origin in a non-dual monistic holism (Torday JS.
Symbiogenesis redicts the monism of the cosmos. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2024
Sep;191:58-62). I am of the opinion that we should be striving to
understand the holism of our 'being'.]


Again, I share these thoughts in the spirit of consilience....


Cordially, John


John S. Torday
Professor of Pediatrics
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Evolutionary Medicine
UCLA


*Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts*


On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 9:26 AM Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <
gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se> wrote:

> Dear John, and All,
>
>
>
> Thank you for sharing your thought-provoking remarks and the fascinating
> perspective you've developed regarding gravity as a fundamental driver in
> the origin and evolution of life. Your work on PTHrP as a gravisensor, and
> the broader implications you draw from it, raise important questions about
> how we conceptualize life's emergence from a physical and developmental
> standpoint.
>
>
>
> I wanted to offer a collegial and constructive view from my perspective
> that complements your argument by considering the foundational role of
> *information* in biological systems—especially in the context of *cognition,
> learning, and adaptation* at the cellular level.
>
>
>
> While I fully agree that gravity, as well as other forms of energy—
> electrical, chemical, thermal and mechanical are crucial in shaping the
> physical environment that made life possible, I would suggest that these
> energy forms are *enabling conditions* for a more fundamental transition:
> the emergence of systems capable of *processing, storing, and responding
> to information*.
>
>
>
> Cells, even the simplest ones, are not passive reactors to external
> forces; they sense, interpret, and adapt to their environment.
>
>
>
> This requires:
>
>    - Internal representations of their state (e.g., energy levels,
>    osmotic pressure, etc.),
>    - Interpretation of signals (via receptors and transduction pathways),
>    - Decision-making logic (e.g., feedback control, signal integration),
>    - Forms of memory and adaptive behavior.
>
>
> These capacities reflect *informational architectures*—structured,
> rule-governed processes that allow organisms to maintain homeostasis,
> respond to novelty, and evolve complexity.
> These processes are *not reducible to energy flow**s** alone*, even
> though they are energetically instantiated.
>
> To take your Newtonian analogy a step further: just as force requires mass
> to produce acceleration, energy requires an informational structure, a
> network or system capable of interpreting and responding to that energy,
> for it to lead to life-like behavior.
> Without that, physical processes remain inanimate.
>
> Both Mike and Bill have written extensively on cellular information
> processing and cognition, and you in your book *Consciousness-Based
> Evolution* are emphasizing the role of communication that is information
> exchange.
>
>
>
> I find great resonance in your broader point that life must be understood
> as a *holistic, dynamical phenomenon*, not merely a sum of parts. My aim
> is not to oppose that view, but to emphasize that *information**, **context-sensitive,
> functional information**, is** one of those essential parts,* and
> arguably what makes life different from non-life.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to continuing the conversation and exchanging ideas on
> this deep and fascinating topic.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gordana
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of "
> joe.brenner at bluewin.ch" <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
> *Date: *Sunday, 18 May 2025 at 14:18
> *To: *JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu>, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>,
> "Levin, Michael" <michael.levin at tufts.edu>, Bill <wbmiller1 at cox.net>,
> "Pedro C. Marijuán" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>,
> "goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de" <goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de>
> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] Bill Miller's contribution: the "It" of a machine,
> truth and trust
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear John,
>
>
>
> I wish to apologize for not having recognized previously my failure to see
> and express the fundamental role played by gravity in science and
> philosophy as you have now expressed it. Please let me expand a little
> (like the universe, at this point) by calling attention to the fact that
> the force of gravity, or gravitational field, is inhomogeneous. We also
> exist by capitalizing (storing) the potential energy available from the
> differences in the strength of the field between two space-time points. We
> drink by catching part of a waterfall, converting gravitational energy from
> actual to potential in our cupped hands.
>
>
>
> However, to explain the further development of phenomena to the point at
> which one can start to talk about information requiires an additional
> fundamental principle, the Lupasco principle of Dynamic Opposition: all
> systems move from states constituted by more potential and less actual
> energy - gravitational, electromagnetic, electrostatic - to the reverse,
> reciprocally and sinusoidally, without ever returning to exactly the point
> of origin. (Machines are also subject to this principle, but at short
> time scales it can be ignored to all intents and purposes - just a little
> wear at a microscopic level).
>
>
>
> I thus am forced to a position that information is not more (but also not
> less) than the epistemic descriptions of those states. However our
> knowledge of these states as information is also not static. It is an ontic
> process of knowing which is itself subject to movement between actual and
> potential, becoming causally effective when transduced to muscle cells,
> *etc*. Other cognitive examples of the operation of this principle are our
> changing *views* of part and whole, or figure and ground.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you see any merit in this proposed synthesis of our
> ideas.
>
>
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
>
> Joe
>
> Le 18.05.2025 11:48 CEST, JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu> a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
> To Mark, Mike, Bill, Joe, Tom, fis,
>
> I wanted to remark on the heels of the comments by Mark, Joe, Tom
> regarding machines vs organisms, that simply put, organisms are 'holisms'
> that are greater than the sums of their parts, machines are just the sums
> of their parts, without something 'greater than' themselves. In my opinion,
> the 'greater than' is the consequence of the force of gravity that caused
> the transition from non-life to life in the first place (Torday JS.
> Parathyroid hormone-related protein is a gravisensor in lung and bone cell
> biology. Adv Space Res. 2003;32(8):1569-76). I would like to point out
> that that experiment and that of others showed that it is the energy of
> gravity that is necessary for evolution, not information, with all due
> respect. There is no singular piece of information that one could deprive
> the cell by doing a so-called 'knockout' experiment that would have the
> same fundamental effect. And as for ontology and epistemology, I am of the
> opinion that to identify the fundamental nature of life, both of them must
> be accounted for by the same mechanism, as in the case of the effect of
> gravity, causing the protocell to react as an 'equal and opposite reaction'
> (Newton's Third Law of Motion). Subsequently, life is constituted by serial
> homeostatic control of energy by the organism, facilitated by
> Symbiogenesis, Lynn Sagan's explanation that, for example, bacteria were
> assimilated by archaea to form eukaryotes in order to maintain homeostatic
> balance in an ever-changing environment due to an expanding Cosmos.
>
>
>
> Best, John
>
>
>
>
>
> John S. Torday
>
> Professor of Pediatrics
>
> Obstetrics and Gynecology
>
> Evolutionary Medicine
>
> UCLA
>
>
>
> *Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts*
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 5:25 PM Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Bill, Mike and John
>
>
>
> First of all thank you to Bill and Mike for continuing the very
> stimulating discussion that began in the video call a few weeks ago.
>
>
>
> There are, as is often the case on FIS, a number of ontological assertions
> flying around which make navigating this space rather difficult. Mike does
> his best to address this head-on in his identification of two fundamental
> problems: "First, the belief that we can objectively and uniquely nail down
> what something is. And second, that our formal models of life, computers or
> materials tell the entire story of their capabilities and limitations."
>
>
>
> Channelling Warren McCulloch, and perhaps in response to those who ask
> "what is a machine?", I would like to ask "What is a machine that we might
> know it, and what are we that we might know a machine?"
>
>
>
> What follows from the formulation such a question (whether you ask about
> number, distinction, etc), is that any determination of "what a machine is"
> - the "it" of a machine - is both contingent and necessary. It is
> contingent because it must depend on the determination by the observer
> (Maturana). It is necessary because without any determination of what a
> machine is, we would have no machines, no science, no institutions, no
> coordination - the world would not be like the world we experience.
>
>
>
> Our arguments about ontology are an expression of the contingency of
> definition. The fact that we keep on going at it is indicative of the
> necessity of definition. We perhaps should be mindful that alongside
> contingency, is paraconsistency in definition: it is not x OR y,
> information OR energy. It is probably x AND y.
>
>
>
> This gives rise to something that doesn't often come up on this list,
> which I have been reflecting on, which is dialectic. If you take necessity
> and contingency together, you get a dialectical process. This is political.
> I know (I'm sure he won't mind me saying this) that behind John's
> passionate emphasis on energy is a personal story about the pathology of
> humankind, and a fear that misapprehending the underlying mechanism of
> evolutionary development will lead to the kind of terrible consequences we
> saw in the middle of the last century. Personally, I very swayed by his
> arguments - they run very deep.
>
>
>
> Indeed, behind much of the anxiety of AI are political feelings, which are
> not properly inspected. As scientists, we are often rather too buttoned-up,
> pretending this is all completely rational. Well, we know it isn't. There
> are feasible dystopias and infeasible dystopias, and equally infeasible
> utopias.
>
>
>
> The politics comes from the dialectics which comes from the contingency
> and necessity of definition of what a machine is. This is not to say that
> there cannot be coordinated stability through science. But it fundamentally
> requires trust and humility, and acceptance of contingency and
> paraconsistency. As Von Foerster pointed out many years ago, the word
> "truth" has the same root as the word "trust" (see
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/Mc6YFUoPWSI?feature=shared__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!ViBITr_IxN7dswpoiHbBmb_AXUBu_roCql9VpgE3_H52EEn_5EPipDjRYSw0TXiGkFOrhpZiJk_0IkmJLF4$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/youtu.be/Mc6YFUoPWSI?feature=shared__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Wsl84qM48TWmEsBlAC9YhD2IHxjMVlFr6erxin6en2yFgbYBGQlM8a5NGAk5ong88K_SAvMIBduo89SVofc$>)
>
>
>
>
> Trust appears to be some kind of physiological process. Do machines help
> us to trust each other? Well, what do you think? You're in a machine right
> now. Do you trust me? If this wasn't email, what might we do to engender
> trust between us better? Could a machine help? How?
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 22:02, JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Pedro, Bill and fis,with all due respect,  I have attached my replies
> to Bill's *Information in a cellular framework – abstract for discussion*
>
> *William B. Miller, Jr.*
>
>
>
> John S. Torday
>
> Professor of Pediatrics
>
> Obstetrics and Gynecology
>
> Evolutionary Medicine
>
> UCLA
>
>
>
> *Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts*
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *JOHN TORDAY* <jtorday at ucla.edu>
> Date: Wed, May 14, 2025 at 4:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Bill Miller's contribution
> To: Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> Dear Pedro and Bill and fis, I have attached my responses to Bill's
> "Information in a Cellular Framework".....
>
>
>
> John S. Torday
>
> Professor of Pediatrics
>
> Obstetrics and Gynecology
>
> Evolutionary Medicine
>
> UCLA
>
>
>
> *Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts*
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 3:45 PM Pedro C. Marijuán <
> pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Given the archive difficulties with attached files, systematically
> scrubbed by the server, I am posting Bill's text as a regular message
> (today I finally could do that!).
> It is an angle pretty different from the mechanism/non mechanism
> one...      Regards --Pedro
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> *Information in a cellular framework – abstract for discussion*
> * William B. Miller, Jr.*
>
> A long-standing presumption among many physicists and mathematicians is
> that biology is a descriptive endeavor and any deep understanding of the
> living frame must issue from their more rigorous disciplines. Nonetheless,
> neither physics nor mathematics has explained the non-equilibrium living
> state in which intelligent self-referential cells deploy problem-solving
> competencies to sustain themselves across living scales. Consequently, some
> scientists argue that the reverse may be correct: biology might
> productively
> inform physics and mathematics, offering insights into how natural laws
> might extend beyond known physical and mathematical principles.
> In the same spirit, examining the specific attributes of biological
> information processing and living information management as specifically
> exemplified by cells might provide a productive further thrust to the
> fundamental action-logic of those theoretical information systems
> formulated
> by visionary information theorists.
>
> To stimulate that initiative, it is proposed that information theorists
> might
> direct their attention to the specific informational characteristics of
> intelligent,
> measuring cells, which represent the basal strata of our living planetary
> system.
>
> Several specific attributes of biological information have been
> empirically verified at the cellular level, thereby defining the
> informational
> conditions of our living system:
>
> --All cells are cognitive, problem-solving agents.
>
> --Their living context is the ambiguity of information.
>
> --The uncertain validity of environmental stimuli governs the cellular
> reception, analysis, and deployment of all cellular resources.
>
> --Imperfect information requires cells to internally measure their
> received information.
>
> --Accordingly, all cellular information is a product of infoautopoiesis,
> entailing that all the information that any cell has about its external
> environment is exclusive, self-referential, and self-produced.
>
> --Cellular infoautopiesis drives an obligatory and little appreciated
> derivative: each cell, and then we as cellular beings, create our
> exclusive self-referential representations of reality and act upon that
> self-generated purview.
>
> --Obliged informational uncertainties stimulate the collective cellular
> analysis of self-generated cellular information, driving ubiquitous
> planetary multicellularity as a cellular expression of the familiar
> 'wisdom of crowds'.
>
> --Cellular information processing directs toward narrowing distinctions
> on the adjacents to diminish their obligatory uncertainty gap, yielding
> the effective minimization of surprisal in conformity with the Free
> Energy Principle.
>
> --Every cell does work to sustain its self-directed state of homeorhetic
> preferential flux.
>
> --Narrowing the distinctions on the adjacents as the effective
> minimization of surprisal enables cellular predictions and
> anticipations.
>
> --Self-referential cellular states of homeorhetic preference drive
> multicellular eukaryotic macroorganic behaviors and emotions.
>
> *SOME BASIC QUESTIONS (for the discussion)*
>
> Information in the living frame has been commonly defined according to
> Bateson’s familiar definition as a 'difference that makes a difference over
> time.' How might that definition explain internal self reference that
> governs
> our lives, enabling living information management? Might other definitions
> serve better?
>
> How can previously formulated information theories illuminate the cellular
> living process within its obligatory context of informational ambiguity?
> How do current information theories explain the presence of inference,
> prediction, and anticipation.
>
> Why do these informational cues, which must first manifest at the level of
> cells as exclusive states of self-referential homeorhetic preference,
> exert in
> multicellularity as nuanced multicellular behaviors and emotions?
> Recent research confirms the remarkable competencies of diverse
> intelligences across living scales. How might applying information systems
> theory contribute to our debate about any categorical distinctions between
> the
> living frame and the abiotic realm? If a fluid continuum is asserted, how
> might that be rationalized?
>
> Is our understanding of biological systems improved by asserting an
> immaterial Platonic informational platform permitting cells to interrogate
> a
> constrained portion of universal informational space-time (? phase space
> partition) as part of a universal informational fabric?
>
> Given the extraordinary competencies of current AI systems and projected
> future abilities, how might information theory inform constructive
> responses
> to inevitable social, economic, and cultural pressures?
>
> What should govern our ethical responses to the still-developing organic
> constructs
>  which will include synthetic combinations of digital competencies and
> living cells?
> If 'consciousness' is determined to be a litmus of our ethical stance
> toward
> other living entities, what practical informational threshold exists, if
> any?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 
> ----------
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
> Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!ViBITr_IxN7dswpoiHbBmb_AXUBu_roCql9VpgE3_H52EEn_5EPipDjRYSw0TXiGkFOrhpZiJk_0uXk10Mo$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Wsl84qM48TWmEsBlAC9YhD2IHxjMVlFr6erxin6en2yFgbYBGQlM8a5NGAk5ong88K_SAvMIBduo1JSG9f0$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20250518/829c1377/attachment-0001.html>