[Fis] [External] Re: Mind, Life & Machines

Fri May 23 08:30:18 CEST 2025

Hi all, just a couple of things to add (and I apologize my Inbox is a black hole and so I don't see all the messages):

> I personally am skeptical about electricity and gravity overreach.
> They do not really explain development of embryos even if they have essential roles. By that I mean we have to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions.

	I don't know what "explain" really means, in the sense that I'm not sure what kind of "explanation" would be satisfactory - at what point would you say "ok yes, now we have explained it, it's done."  I think whatever theory we have, you can ask further questions and some will never be satisfied because any theory that explains something can be critiqued as having "explained it away" instead.  So I am less interested in theories that look backward and try to explain what already happens, and more interested in theories that are aimed forward - they help us do better new experiments that no one had thought of before, or help us reach new capabilities and do new things (in biomedicine, bioengineering, etc.) that could not have been done before or with other competing theories.  I don't worry about wrangling over terms or ancient philosophical categories - I want to know, how does a given formalism help make new discoveries. Whatever theory enables better *future* research and discovery - more interesting new findings - in my opinion is a better theory. So for any theory, worldview, or conceptual framework, I ask: what does it help you do that we couldn't have done otherwise?
	So for example, I don't know what was said before about bioelectricity, and whether it over-reached, but as an experimentalist, I can make just one strong claim: having found out something about how bioelectric networks (whether in brain or in body) process information, resulted in the discovery of a lot of new biology, and reached new capabilities, in development, regeneration, cancer, and bioengineering, compared to existing competing theories. No doubt future theories will do even better, and I make no claim about having finished any kind of explanation; only that, as a matter of empirical fact, having found that bioelectrical pattern memories serve as stored setpoints for a goal-directed (homeodynamic) process of navigating anatomical space (i.e., they guide morphogenesis in ways we can now see directly, and re-write as needed), unlocked many novel aspects of biology and applied biosciences (I can provide specific pointers if anyone is interested in detailed examples). I think that's the only defense any view has - a track record of what it has enabled that was useful and interesting. We can lay those out on the table and use them to compare views.

Re. life, my thoughts are here:  
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLerGKoz2A$ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://thoughtforms.life/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLc_FT8jnw$ 

	so I would ask the same question as above:  if one wants to maintain categorical definitions of "life" or "machine" etc. etc., what I would like to see is the empirical fecundity of keeping such categories. What do they help do or discover? I know what erasing such boundaries does - it facilitates the movement of tools across domains, which has led to all sorts of interesting new findings. I'm much less confident that maintaining such categories has led to anything new (but happy to learn of examples if I'm wrong).

All the best,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: OARF <eric.werner at oarf.org <mailto:eric.werner at oarf.org>>
Date: Friday, May 23, 2025 at 2:04 AM
To: Howard Bloom <howlbloom at aol.com <mailto:howlbloom at aol.com>>, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>>
Cc: "Pedro C. Marijuán" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com <mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>>, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>>, William Miller <wbmiller1 at cox.net <mailto:wbmiller1 at cox.net>>, Michael Levin <michael.levin at allencenter.tufts.edu <mailto:michael.levin at allencenter.tufts.edu>>, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com <mailto:johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>>, Michael Levin <michael.levin at allencenter.tufts.edu <mailto:michael.levin at allencenter.tufts.edu>>
Subject: [External] Re: [Fis] Mind, Life & Machines

Dear Fis and All,

So far the talk is pretty abstract and with little to celebrate regarding new insights. I personally am skeptical about electricity and gravity overreach. They do not really explain development of embryos even if they have essential roles. By that I mean we have to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions. 

Somehow I feel my Complexity Conservation Principle seems relevant: 
(PDF) What Ants Cannot Do. <false>
researchgate.net <false>

<false> 

As it show the limits of the generative power of necessary but not sufficient conditional theories. 

Hmm, so what else can we add? 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/117787/nicholsond.pdf?sequence=2__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLcsgg32aA$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/117787/nicholsond.pdf?sequence=2__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLcsgg32aA$ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/117787/nicholsond.pdf?sequence=2__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLcsgg32aA$ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/117787/nicholsond.pdf?sequence=2>__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLcySDlR9g$ >

Here is a bit of AI generated history: 

The History of the Debate: Is Life a Machine?
The question of whether life is fundamentally machine-like has a long and complex history, marked by philosophical, scientific, and technological developments. The debate centers on whether living beings can be fully explained as mechanisms—assemblies of parts governed by physical laws—or whether life possesses qualities that transcend mere machinery.
Early Mechanistic Views and Automata
• The roots of the debate can be traced back at least to the ancient world, but it gained particular prominence in the 17th century. Philosophers and inventors constructed sophisticated automata—mechanical devices that mimicked living beings—to explore the boundary between life and mechanism.
• René Descartes (1596–1650) was a pivotal figure, arguing that animals (and, to some extent, humans) could be understood as complex machines. This mechanistic view suggested that biological processes could be explained in terms of physics and engineering.
Mechanism vs. Vitalism
• The mechanistic conception of life faced opposition from vitalism, the belief that living organisms are fundamentally different from machines because they possess a non-physical “vital force” or life principle.
• Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, this debate shaped the development of biology. Mechanists argued for the sufficiency of physical and chemical explanations, while vitalists insisted on the irreducibility of life to mechanical laws.
Industrial Revolution and Evolution
• The Industrial Revolution and the rise of machines intensified comparisons between living beings and mechanical devices. The publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) marked a turning point, as evolutionary theory suggested that humans and all life forms are products of natural processes—further supporting mechanistic interpretations.
• In the late 1800s, thinkers began to speculate about machines that could self-replicate and evolve, blurring the line between life and mechanism even more.
20th Century: From Mechanism to Organicism and Artificial Life
• In the early 20th century, vitalism lost ground, but it did not disappear. It evolved into organicism, which emphasized the holistic and self-organizing properties of living systems—features not easily captured by simple machine analogies.
• The development of computers and cybernetics in the mid-20th century revived mechanistic metaphors, as scientists like John von Neumann explored the idea of self-replicating automata and cellular automata, drawing explicit parallels between living organisms and computational machines.
Contemporary Perspectives
• Today, the debate persists in new forms. Some argue that advances in biology, evolution, and engineering reveal living things as “remarkable, agential, morally-important machines,” while others maintain that organisms exhibit agency, learning, and inner perspectives that distinguish them from machines.
• The philosophical “biological objection” holds that machines, regardless of their complexity, cannot be truly alive because they lack the vital embodiment and subjective experience characteristic of living beings.
• Recent scholarship suggests that the boundaries between mechanism and vitalism (or organicism) remain central to ongoing discussions about the nature of life, consciousness, and artificial intelligence.
Summary Table: Mechanism vs. Vitalism

Eric 

Sent from my iPad

On May 23, 2025, at 4:19 AM, Howard Bloom <howlbloom at aol.com <mailto:howlbloom at aol.com>> wrote:

Mark, hi.

could you explain what the topology of a mechanism is?

with warmth and oomph--howard

On Thursday, May 22, 2025 at 05:46:30 PM EDT, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com <mailto:johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>> wrote: 

Dear Mike, Bill, all,

I must confess to have slightly lost the plot with the present discussion. It could be just me, but FIS feels like a broken record sometimes. It certainly isn't caused by Bill or Mike - personally I blame the technology... (for reasons of trust and truth which I mentioned earlier - incidentally, on that topic, Ian McGilchrist here is great - https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_KNgKQVkcFI__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLeNTC77mw$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_KNgKQVkcFI__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLeNTC77mw$ > <_blank> )

I want to suggest a few propositions, relating particularly to Mike's concern for the distinction between machines and living things, and I'm interested if Bill, Mike or others agree. 

1. Although we humans are living things, in the context of a mechanised world, we (and perhaps only we) can behave like machines. The irony of this is that if we knew how machine-like the organic substrate of our consciousness is, we would behave more humanely, organically and less mechanically. This is the essential message of cybernetics. 

2. Our apprehension of what it is to be mechanical is a charicature of mechanism. Essentially human perception of "mechanical" is low-variety, unadaptive and by definition, inorganic - Von Foerster's trivial machine. It is from this charicature that our apprehension of "binary" systems comes. 

3. Our mechanistic charicature comes from an inability to perceive the topology of mechanism. I think this is more than Von Foerster's non-trivial machine, although it may be the case that to build a non-trivial machine a spatial dimension in its behaviour is necessary (see Tom Fischer's work on the Ashby's box: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337959136_Learning_the_Ashby_Box_an_experiment_in_second_order_cybernetic_modeling__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLcnCJt3uw$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337959136_Learning_the_Ashby_Box_an_experiment_in_second_order_cybernetic_modeling__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLcnCJt3uw$ > <_blank> ). We miss the full dimensional picture, and so attenuate it, and things like the Ashby box make no sense to us.

4. If we could perceive the full topology of mechanism we would revise our understanding of logic, binary, distinction, evolution and organisation. I wonder if such a new logic may resemble Joe's work, or Lou's topological work. 

5. Our present rapidly advancing AI technologies are scientific instruments that may yet extend our perception to apprehend the topology of mechanism. Alongside this, empirical biological work (particularly Mike's bioelectricity work) may well complement the technology and help establish a coordinated scientific understanding. 

What do you think? 

Best wishes

Mark 

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> <_blank>
Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLetZgZ7tg$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLetZgZ7tg$ > <_blank>

On Tue, 13 May 2025, 14:31 Pedro C. Marijuán, <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com <mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> <_blank>> wrote:

Mind, Life & Machines 
>From Mike Levin: Living Things Are Not Machines (Also, They
Totally Are) 

To start with, different contexts require us to adopt diverse perspectives as to
how much mind, or mechanism, is before us. The continuing battle over whether
living beings are or are not machines is based on two mistaken but pervasive
beliefs. 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.

Despite the continued expansion and mainstream prominence of molecular
biology, and its reductionist machine metaphors, or likely because of it, there has
been an increasing upsurge of papers and science social media posts arguing that
“living things are not machines” (LTNM). There are thoughtful, informative,
nuanced pieces exploring this direction, such as this exploration of “new post-
genomic biology” and others, masterfully reviewed and analyzed by cognitive
scientist and historian Ann-Sophie Barwich and historian Matthew James
Rodriguez at Indiana University Bloomington. (A non-exhaustive list includes
engineer Perry Marshall’s look at how biology transcends the limits of
computation, computer scientist Alexander Ororbia’s discussion of “mortal
computation,” biologist Stuart Kauffman and computer scientist Andrea Roli’s
look at the evolution of the biosphere, and the works of philosophers like Daniel
Nicholson, George Kampis and Günther Witzani.)
Many others, however, use the siren song of biological exceptionalism and
outdated or poorly defined notions of “machines” to push a view that misleads lay
readers and stalls progress in fields such as evolution, cell biology, biomedicine,
cognitive science (and basal cognition), computer science, bioengineering,
philosophy and more. All of these fields are held back by hidden assumptions
within the LTNM-lens that are better shed in favor of a more fundamental framework.
In arguing against LTNM, I use cognitive science-based 
approaches to understand and manipulate biological substrates.
I have claimed that cognition goes all the way down to the molecular level; after all,
we find memory and learning in small networks of mutually interacting
chemicals, and studies show that molecular circuits can act as agential materials.
I take the existence of goals, preferences, problem-solving skills, attention,
memories, etc., in biological substrates such as cells and tissues so seriously that
I’ve staked my entire laboratory career on this approach.

Some molecular biology colleagues consider my views — that bottom-up
molecular approaches simply won’t suffice, and must be augmented with the tools
and concepts of cognitive science — to be an extreme form of animism. Thus, my
quarrel with LTNM is not coming from a place of sympathy with molecular
reductionism; I consider myself squarely within the organicist tradition of
theoretical biologists like Denis Noble, Brian Goodwin, Robert Rosen, Francisco
Varela and Humberto Maturana, whose works all focus on the irreducible,
creative, agential quality of life; however, I want to push this view further than
many of its adherents might.

LTNM must go, but we should not replace this concept with its opposite, 
the dreaded presumption that living things are machines;
that is equally wrong and also holds back progress.
Still, it is easy to see why the LTNM-lens persists. The LTNM framing gives the
feeling that one has said something powerful — cut nature at its joints with
respect to the most important thing there is, life and mind, by establishing a
fundamental category that separates life from the rest of the cold, inanimate
universe. It feels as if it forestalls the constant, pernicious efforts to reduce the
majesty of life to predictable mechanisms with no ability to drive consideration or
the first-person experiences that make life worth living.
“Many use the siren song of biological exceptionalism and outdated
or poorly defined notions of ‘machines’ to push a view that misleads
lay readers and stalls progress.”

But this is all smoke and mirrors, from an idea that took hold as a bulwark against
reductionism and mechanism; it refuses to go away even though we have
outgrown it. The approach I am advocating for is anchored by the principles of
pluralism and pragmatism: no system definitively is our formal model of it, but if
we move beyond expecting everything to be a nail for one particular favorite
hammer, we are freed up to do the important work of actually characterizing the
sets of tools that may open new frontiers.

As scientists and philosophers, we owe everyone realistic stories of scaling and
gradual metamorphosis along a continuum — not of magical and sharp
transitions — and a description of the tools we propose to use to interact with a
wide range of systems, along with a commitment to empirical evaluation of those
tools. We must battle our innate mind-blindness with new theories in the field of
Diverse Intelligence and the facilitating technology it enables, much as a theory
and apparatus for electromagnetism enabled access to an enormous, unifying
spectrum of phenomena of which we had previously had only narrow, disparate-
seeming glimpses. We must resist the urge to see the limits of reality in the limits
of our formal models. Everything, even things that look simple to us, are a lot
more than we think they are because we, too, are finite observers — wondrous
embodied minds with limited perspectives but massive potential and the moral
responsibility to get this (at least somewhat) right.

See an enlarged version of this text at: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLerGKoz2A$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLerGKoz2A$ > <_blank>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From William B. Miller, Jr. : Information in a cellular framework – abstract for discussion 
See in the accompanying attached file (for technical reasons)

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es> <_blank>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis  <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > <_blank>
----------
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 > <_blank>
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 > <_blank>
----------

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es> <_blank>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis  <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > <_blank>
----------
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 > <_blank>
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 > <_blank>
---------- 

__________________________
Howard Bloom
The Howard Bloom Institute
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://howardbloom.institute__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLdki7G5_w$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://howardbloom.institute__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLdki7G5_w$ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://howardbloom.institute__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TtitjjOw-yh75vJB7Jj3FEssQaqTuPIgzj11TZm5mkeFB8iRQgQzHaCtNCD4aUAPpYaAKFkSSEWl_E7Xww$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://howardbloom.institute__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TtitjjOw-yh75vJB7Jj3FEssQaqTuPIgzj11TZm5mkeFB8iRQgQzHaCtNCD4aUAPpYaAKFkSSEWl_E7Xww$>>
Author of: The Case of the Sexual Cosmos: Everything You Know About Nature is Wrong ("A massive achievement, WOW!" Richard Foreman, MacArthur Genius Award Winner, Officer of the Order of Arts & Letters, France)
Previous books: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), 
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker),
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic), 
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich),
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” Timothy Leary),
The Mohammed Code (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” David Swindle, PJ Media),
Einstein, Michael Jackson & Me: a Search for Soul in the Power Pits of Rock & Roll ("Amazing. The writing is revelatory." Freddy DeMann, manager of Michael Jackson and Madonna), Best Book of 2020, New York Weekly Times 

A Quartz Magazine Pro
Professor of Practice, Kepler Space University 
Co-founder, The Asian Space Technology Summit
Former Visiting Scholar, Graduate Psychology Department, New York University, Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; 
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project. Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Member Of Board Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project.

BRIC-TV's 66-minute film, The Grand Unified Theory of Howard Bloom, https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atYmiEZ6YDU__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLei1avxdw$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atYmiEZ6YDU__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U4fG_q83tfyntA4WbVhjZYAGDEKwOMhq9xntpv_YILhc3N2rJgGtCUUTIhrEVcfJ0fmbg-UXq8HHO7sAuG36MvBr_zcFgLei1avxdw$ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atYmiEZ6YDU__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TtitjjOw-yh75vJB7Jj3FEssQaqTuPIgzj11TZm5mkeFB8iRQgQzHaCtNCD4aUAPpYaAKFkSSEWetgEKrg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atYmiEZ6YDU__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TtitjjOw-yh75vJB7Jj3FEssQaqTuPIgzj11TZm5mkeFB8iRQgQzHaCtNCD4aUAPpYaAKFkSSEWetgEKrg$>>
Best Picture, Science Design Film Festival. Best Documentary Feature, Not Film Festival, Italy. Available on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play, Microsoft, Vimeo, Vudu, and Fandango.

_______________________________________________
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 >
----------

Caution: This message originated from outside of the Tufts University organization. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, email the TTS Service Desk at it at tufts.edu <mailto:it at tufts.edu> <mailto:it at tufts.edu <mailto:it at tufts.edu>> or call them directly at 617-627-3376. 