<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>I am trying again to submit my message to the list.</DIV>
<DIV>Marcin</DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=mjs@aiu.ac.jp
href="mailto:mjs@aiu.ac.jp">MARCIN Schroeder</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:22 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es
href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">Pedro C. Marijuan</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=fis@listas.unizar.es
href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis@listas.unizar.es</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: SV: "The Travellers"]</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>Dear
Pedro and FIS Colleagues,<BR>I do not contribute much to FIS discussions, but
always read them with interest. I found recent contributions from Soeren very
disturbing. Actually, I feel insulted by them. I understand that the rules
adopted by FIS require academic code of conduct. Personal atacks, or even
argumenta ad personam directed at any member of the list are degrading
discussion to the level beneath dignity of the academic discourse. <BR>I
would like to propose that we stick to the old academic rule to ignore all
contributions which are directed not against some views, opinions, statements or
works, but against the person associated with them.
<BR>Regards,<BR>Marcin<BR><BR>Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D. <BR>Professor <BR>Akita
International University <BR>Akita, Japan <BR>mjs@aiu.ac.jp<BR><BR>
<HR>
<BR><B>From: </B>"Pedro C. Marijuan"
<pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es><BR><B>Date: </B>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:54:53
+0900<BR><B>To: </B><fis@listas.unizar.es><BR><B>Subject: </B>[Fis] [Fwd:
SV: SV: "The Travellers"]<BR><BR><BR>
<P>(Herewith Soeren's response, again the server has stopped it (?) From my
<BR>part, only saying that we are in polar opposites, so the difficulty
<BR>--and interest-- of the exchanges. Anyone can interpret sentences in his
<BR>own, but my intention was far from offending: knowledge exchanges are
<BR>fun in themselves and should always be fun. OK, I suggest a future fis
<BR>discussion session inviting some interesting semiotician --outside our
<BR>circle-- so that a lively discussion might be
maintained. best --Pedro)<BR><BR><BR>-------- Original
Message&nbs p;--------<BR>Subject: SV: SV: [Fis]
"The Travellers"<BR>Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:38:24
+0100<BR>From: Søren Brier
<sb.ibc@cbs.dk><BR>To: Pedro C. Marijuan
<pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es>, fis@listas.unizar.es
<BR><fis@listas.unizar.es><BR>References:
<BR><207c3aeedf3347258b028dd5f67f0659@HCC-MBX-2.local.ukzn.ac.za>
<BR><201410270613.s9R6DBm7004098@ortiz.unizar.es>
<BR><CAEvKwyRr06Wg=fzkk+5Dq1Hf3z9=zRGb86Dt06PR-43TV2TvvQ@mail.gmail.com>
<BR><CA+nf4CX-M2auL891wG-qrm568tVNRjznneQK+pBcQ+PBrryGAQ@mail.gmail.com>
<BR><5450EF85.2060108@aragon.es>
<BR><D98697A7796AED4589385CF99329A76C05C66BE1B1@EXCHANGE01.hhk.dk>
<BR><54523D16.4060603@aragon.es><BR><BR><BR><BR>Dear Pedro<BR><BR>Thank
you for your answer. Reading it, I& nbsp;am surprised that you are
unable to see that you are the one starting this discussion with an arrogant
tone. I certainly felt offended by your mail.<BR><BR>Though I am originally a
biologist I have come to teach philosophy of science interdisciplinary and do
research in many different paradigms and learned to consciously reflect on
paradigms and methodology and has had to live with the neglect of these aspect
from people within classical educations and research traditions. But in Denmark
it is now obligatory for all students to have ;a course in
philosophy or theory of science.<BR><BR>What I read out of you answer
is, that you are so entranced in the received view of science (which I was
originally educated in) that you do not consider yourself to be in any
kind of paradigm or metaphysics and therefore do not have to make a conscious
reflection and a comparison with the work in other paradigms, which is of cause
an insult to us who have worked with these things for 30 years and who's work
you seem to neglect. Neglecting is a muc h more powerful weapon than critique
in& nbsp;the world of science - actually the ultimate one -and then you can
top it off by suggesting to leave those paradigms that has not had your interest
anyway and you therefore do not have the proper knowledge of.<BR><BR>I wonder
what the non-insulting meaning of your sentence: "Semiotics could be OK
for the previous generation--something attuned to our scientific times is needed
now." is for a biologist like me who has worked with semiotics for 25 years and
being part of creating the association of biosemiotic studies, which now h as it
yearly conference, a journal and a book series with Springer?? A status
that FIS has not achieved yet.<BR><BR>I have known you for a long time and in
that period you have shown no interest in semiotics or commented on any papers
and books in biosemiotics or on the relation between information and what
so ever. My own book "Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough" is now out
in paperback and Kindle and as a Google book .<BR><BR>It has taken me more
than 20 years to get a reasonable understanding of& nbsp;Peirce's semiotic
philosophy and why and how I think it offers a more comprehensive
framework for transdisciplinary view of the natural, life, social and human
sciences that is much more fruitful than info-computationalism. So I am a little
impatient with people who discharge Peirce without having studying him properly.
The same goes for Luhmann's systems theory. It is not unusual to see people
discharge theoretical work they have not come to terms with and are
therefore unable to deliver a fruitful critique of on the basis of their own
conception of being in the received view and therefore not having to
bother with other views; which is pretty much my interpretation of your
standing.<BR><BR>It is of cause your right to choose your own outlook and peace
be with that, but when you deem research you have not worked with deeply for
many years - be it the theories of Peircean semiotics and information concept or
Luhmann or Ethological theory of cognition - as obsolete, it is certainly
insulting for those who has chosen to work with these theories and have
published within them for more than 20 years against the dominating views,
to& nbsp;proceed as if they have no standing what so ever worth mentioning
and it is certainly not supportive for the fruitful research exchange that FIS
is supposed to support.<BR><BR>So I responded to your arrogance with a
comparable arrogance. <BR><BR>But now I have given you a little phenomenological
insight in my first person experience and my intersubjective hermeneutical
horizon from a long life in inter- and transdisciplinary work going from
physics, chemistry, biology to comparative psychology, information and
library science, first and second order c ybernetics, systems theory and
science, information theory and science, Saussurian semiology as well as
Peircean semiotics and biosemiotics from a philosophy of science view
point.<BR><BR>Best
wishes<BR><BR>
Søren/Soeren
<BR>
home page with articles: Cybersemiotics.com<BR><BR><BR>-----Oprindelig
meddelelse----- <BR>Fra: Pedro C. Marijuan [mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs @aragon.es]
<BR>Sendt: 30. oktober 2014 14:29<BR>Til: fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>Cc: Søren
Brier<BR>Emne: Re: SV: [Fis] "The Travellers"<BR><BR>Dear FIS
colleagues,<BR><BR>I am responding to a mail from Soeren (below) that,
curiously, was retained by the list filter. Sorry, but some parts of his message
are written in a rather arrogant tone that does not match the unconditionally
polite style of our exchanges. This is a pluralistic list and quite different
positions may be defended, always within appropriate scholarly
bounds.<BR><BR>First, my comment on semiotics was as it was&nb sp;--not with
the exaggeration introduced by Soeren. Looking in positive, it is interesting
that in the 80's I also started a PhD thesis on the parallel evolution of
neuroanatomy and behavior, with a pretty strong ethological content, but stopped
it as I could not converge to any relevant outcome. Instead I moved downwards,
and started the informational study of the cell and the evolution of biological
information processing... Later on the approach pleased Michel Conrad, and the
rest is part of fis history.<BR><BR>About my "physicalist" conception of&
nbsp;signaling and biological information, I think the two recent papers
in BioSystems ("On prokaryotic Intelligence..." and "On eukaryotic
Intelligence...") represent an original view that can enrich the current system
biology debates on signaling bases of intelligence--or not!, people will tell.
<BR>To keep the explanation short, the way cellular life has channeled the
energy flow (eg, Morowitz, 1968) versus the channeling of the "information flow"
contains lessons for the further deployment of biological and social complexity.
In particular, the cellular processual distinction between "metabolite" and
"signal" looks fa scinating, in human terms it is like reading the newspaper vs,
eating a sandwich (it can be found in my recent paper of fis-Moscow, journal
Information)... <BR>Not far from these views, engineer Adrian Bejan (2012)
has recently proposed a "constructal law" based on the circulation needs of the
energy flow in nature and society--could we devise a parallel or complementary
scheme for the information flow? Actually Bejan's attempt covers it but rather
poorly, at least compared with the depth of the energetic part.<BR><BR>In part,
I am frustrated&nbs p;that we have been living the most ;momentous
changes in the social history of information and at fis have been able to say
very little about. Rather than struggling to achieve the true, monolithic,
universal theory of information, shouldn't we aspire to frame a convivial
multi-disciplinary space where plenty of both APPLIED and theoretical research
on informational entities can be developed and cross-fertilize?<BR><BR>And this
is my Second of the week.<BR>Best regards<BR><BR>---Pedro<BR><BR>Søren Brier
wrote:<BR>> Dear Pedro<BR>><BR>> This is a wonderful mail revealing all
sorts of theoretical views and ph ilosophy of science prejudices. This one takes
the price: " Semiotics could be OK for the previous generation--something
attuned to our scientific times is needed now." The conclusion is that semiotics
is not something new and advanced but old-fashioned and outdated !!! The
Peircean biosemioticians are fooling themselves ! They are not
scientific.<BR>><BR>> This is a crucial discussion that many of us have
with Marcello Barbieri on a somewhat different theoretical platform. But he is
wonderfully clear and explicit in his argumentation and always atte mpting to
produce new alternative models ;and theories, not just arguing from the
status quo of science. <BR>><BR>> I wonder how deep your own understanding
of semiotics actually is - especially Peircean semiotics. Peirce is very
naturalistic. Your other price remark arouse this suspicion " of
course, later on Tinbergen, Lorenz, Eibl-Eibelsfeldt, etc. were to develop ad
hoc theoretical schemes". As one having written a master dissertation in Lorenz
theoretical development of the ethological paradigm over a period of 30 years
and lecturing at the Konrad Lorenz institute and researched i n comparative
psychology for three years after that, I must say that your knowledge of this
area of research is very weak. I have used some of the results of this
analysis in my book "Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough". Which you
probably have not bothered to read as you deemed it outdated in its birth and
unscientific.<BR>><BR>> I also wonder what the theoretical framework is
for the concept of "signal". Is it objective information transfer in a Shannon
or a Wiener framework? Does it include any first perso n
experiential aspects and any social&n bsp;meaning aspects? Or is
it - as I suspect - a pure physicalistic approach used for
explaining processes on the biological, the psychological and the social level
as well, but ignoring the special qualities of those compared to the physical
level?<BR>><BR>>
Best
<BR>>
Søren<BR>><BR>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----<BR>> Fra: Fis
[mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] På vegne af Pedro C. <BR>>
Marijuan<BR>> Sendt: 29. oktober 2014 14:46<BR>> Til:
fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>> Emne: Re: [Fis] "The Travellers"<BR>><BR>>
Dear FIS colleagues,<BR>><BR>> Quite interesting exchanges, really. The
discussion reminds me the <BR>> times when behaviorism and ethology were at
odds on how to focus the <BR>> study of human/animal behavior. (Maybe I
already talked about that <BR>> some months<BR>> ago.) On the one side, a
rigorous theory and a strongly reductionist point of view were advanced --about
learning, conditioned & unconditioned stimuli, responses, observation stand
ards, laboratory exclusive scenario, etc. On& nbsp;the other side, it was
observing behavior in nature, approaching without preconceptions and tentatively
characterizing the situations and results; it was the naturalistic strategy,
apprehending from nature before forming any theoretical scheme (of course, later
on Tinbergen, Lorenz, Eibl-Eibestfeldt, etc. were to develop ad hoc theoretical
schemes).<BR>><BR>> How can we develop a theory on signals without the
previous naturalistic approach to the involved phenomena? Particularly when the
panorama has dramatically changed after the information-biomolecular revolution.
We have a rich background of cellular signaling systems, both prokaryotic
and eukaryotic, to explore and cohere. We have important neuroscientific ideas
(although not so well developed). We have social physics and social networks
approaches to the social dynamics of information. We should travel to all of
those camps, not to stay there, but to advance a soft all-encompassing
perspective, later on to be confronted with the new ideas from physics too. The
intertwining between self-production and communication is a promising general
aspect to explore, in my opinion... <BR>& gt; socially and biologically it
makes a lot of sense.<BR>><BR>> Semiotics could be OK for the
previous generation--something attuned to our scientific times is needed
now.<BR>><BR>> best ---Pedro<BR>><BR>>
<BR>--<BR>-------------------------------------------------<BR>Pedro C.
Marijuán<BR>Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de
Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda.
San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X<BR>50009 Zaragoza, Spain<BR>Tfno. +34 976 71 3526
(&
6818)<BR>pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es<BR>http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/<BR>-------------------------------------------------<BR><BR><BR><BR>--
<BR>---------------- ---------------------------------<BR>Pedro C.
Marijuán<BR>Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group<BR>Instituto Aragonés
de Ciencias de la Salud<BR>Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón
(CIBA)<BR>Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X<BR>50009 Zaragoza, Spain<BR>Tfno.
+34 976 71 3526 (&
6818)<BR>pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es<BR>http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/<BR>-------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis
mailing
list<BR>Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<BR></P>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Fis mailing
list<BR>Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>