<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Friends,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US">the goal of
our interactions is to </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span style lang="EN-US"><span style>a)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style lang="EN-US">Learn
from each other,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span style lang="EN-US"><span style>b)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style lang="EN-US">Instruct
each other,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span style lang="EN-US"><span style>c)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style lang="EN-US">Move
forward the cause of science,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span style lang="EN-US"><span style>d)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style lang="EN-US">Move
forward the cause of one’s own,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span style lang="EN-US"><span style>e)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style lang="EN-US">Feel
good.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US">Each of us
is an individual, so there will be individual weights to the factors enumerated
above; other persons may classify or formulate the motivations (of one’s own,
of others’) differently.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US">This being
a <b style>grupo bio-informatico</b>, as opposed
to a <b style>grupo socio-importantico</b>, we
should maybe keep in focus the fundamentals of information theory/science in
our communications. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US">To me, quite
a percentage of the contributions appear to be deflecting attention from the
suspicion, that the person contributing has no idea about how in hell
information management in biology can or could be conceptualized. These follow
the general structure of praising their own contributions to what Abraham said
to Bebraham about Cebraham’s work on Debraham’s views regarding Ebraham and so
forth. These contributions are – as I understand Wolfgang’s intentions – part
of the sociology of scientific discourse, specifically the stabilizing effects
on hierarchies of mantras and catechisms.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US">Opposed to
this, there is the much less rewarding approach of trials to consolidate
information theory as understood in the humanities as opposed to the concept’s
usage in the technical sciences. It would be refreshing to discuss ideas on why
mnemotechnics shows that we remember <b style>better
</b>if the content is embedded in a <b style>lot
of irrelevant</b> packaging. Alternatively, how a model would look like which
consolidates electric bursts with biochemical properties.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US">In my
opinion, until we accept that it is our good selves that have to come up with
some new ideas, there will only be huffing and puffing and clearing of throats.
Also something to be discussed in Wolfgang’s works: the natural reluctance of
established knowledge to jump to revolutionary opinions. But there is no
escape: either we sum up the courage to think something new, or no one will. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US">We can
discuss in Vienna in June (an extremely well chosen time of the year: Vienna is
beautiful at the maximum end May, beginning of June) both sides of this coin:
the complications and hardships of thinking radically new thoughts if one is a
part of the establishment (cf. Friedell: Cultural History), and some could also
maybe give it a try to immerse one toe into the uncharted waters of conflicting
order concepts, sets that are in a compromise state between being well-ordered
in one fashion and being well-ordered in a different fashion. These are
subjects that are traditionally part of the Great Taboo, but, hélas!, commercial
interests may force us to acknowledge that genetics is rational and that it is
based on triplets, of which each takes one of 4 varieties and that this can be
shown to appear once one plays with order and conflicting concepts of order. If
FIS does not take the jump, it will come into a situation, where de facto
expeditions circumnavigate the Earth and bring treasures from Zipangu while the
Council of the Wise remains of the orthodox view that the Earth is a disc,
uphold by four turtles. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US">There is an
intuitive timidity and modesty among the members of the group, and this shows
that we are intelligent and socially competent people: we know that if we have
nothing to say, then saying it twice a week is sufficient.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US">Do come to
Wolfgang’s conference: there will be great occasions of self-reflexion on
Ovid’s “bene vixit bene qui latuit”, social importance and what differentiates
Hollywood from a group of scientists brooding over the Fundamentals of
Information Science, specifically in a biologic context.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style lang="EN-US">Karl<br></span></p>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-11-03 22:05 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" target="_blank">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear All,<br>
<br>
I agree with Krassimir's suggestions. Implementing them would relieve a certain frustration one experiences. On the other hand, the discipline of not posting more than two substantive messages a week, which should contain something really new, is essential.<br>
<br>
Joseph<br>
<br>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Krassimir Markov" <<a href="mailto:markov@foibg.com" target="_blank">markov@foibg.com</a>><br>
To: <<a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a>><br>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:16 PM<br>
Subject: [Fis] About weekly posting frequency.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Pedro, Jerry, and FIS Colleagues,<br>
<br>
Several times I have not finished my discussions because of very long time I<br>
needed to wait for next (third or fourth) letter.<br>
<br>
Practically no serious discussion could be provided - only messages on the<br>
moment and, of course - invited starting and finishing explanations.<br>
<br>
In the same time, I see that the active part of FIS colleagues who really<br>
write letters is not so great.<br>
<br>
And this part is separated in other two parts - colleagues who are<br>
permanently "on line" and those who respond only if it is in their short<br>
interest area.<br>
<br>
Because of this I propose to add two new rules:<br>
<br>
- to permit posting more than two or three letters if and only if they<br>
contain questions for clarifying the already presented ideas from other<br>
colleagues. It is possible to send such letters "of line" but practically<br>
one and the same questions rise from different colleagues and it is more<br>
good to see that such questions are already sent. For me, the questions are<br>
important part of the discussions. To make clear that the letter contains<br>
questions, in subject of the letter may be written "Question ...".<br>
<br>
- to answer the questions in cumulative manner, i.e. the answering person<br>
has to collect questions and to answer to all of them in one or two letters.<br>
In this case we may permit two additional letters for answering the<br>
questions with corresponded subject: "Answers ...".<br>
<br>
For explanations, comments and other messages I think two letters per week<br>
are enough<br>
<br>
Friendly regards<br>
Krassimir<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message----- From: pedro marijuan<br>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:00 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
Subject: [Fis] RV: FIS, Weekly posting frequency.<br>
<br>
<br>
BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Jerry LR Chandler <<a href="mailto:jerry_lr_chandler@me.com" target="_blank">jerry_lr_chandler@me.com</a>><br>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:37:32<br>
To: Pedro C. Marijuan<<a href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es" target="_blank">pcmarijuan.iacs@<u></u>aragon.es</a>><br>
Subject: FIS, Weekly posting frequency.<br>
<br>
Pedro:<br>
<br>
Just a small suggestion about the rules for posting to the FIS list serve.<br>
<br>
Personally, I find the current constraint of two posts per week is so<br>
restrictive that it makes a conversation very difficult. It necessitates<br>
long delays, during which time, one looses interest in the topic. (We are<br>
flooded by a plethora of new ideas!)<br>
<br>
I feel that the value of the list would be enhanced by permitting three or<br>
even four posts per week.<br>
<br>
I would suggest that you consult with other members about this issue.<br>
<br>
You may post this message to the list serve if you wish.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Jerry<br>
<br>
<br>
On Nov 3, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear Marcin and colleagues,<br>
<br>
Many thanks for the sympathy and for the suggestion. I think your proposal is quite in the spirit of the fis initiative. Maintaining the academic code of conduct should be the First Rule of the list. The Second Rule, as is well known, says that only two messages per week are allowed. And the Third Rule, should be about clean posting. I mean, in order to placate the susceptibility of the server filters the messages should be addressed only to fis, exclusively, (a few other addresses might appear in the "cc", but the lesser the better), and not dragging old messages at the bottom is strongly recommended... Additionally, we have a fis steering committee (integrated by Yixin, Krassimir, Shu-Kun, and myself) that can arbitrate in contentious cases where the First Rule should apply.<br>
<br>
Let us forget the present incident; always clarifying that FIS list is completely open to criticisms, first on fis itself, and also addressed to any other school or doctrine, either contemporary or from the past... knowing the opinion of "contrarians" is as much important as knowing the opinions of the followers. INFORMATION HAS ENORMOUSLY CHANGED OUR SCIENTIFIC-ECONOMIC-CULTURAL-<u></u>SOCIAL WORLD AND WE NEED RADICALLY DIFFERENT IDEAS. By the way, there is an important work on "social physics" (but arguing from the information flow point of view) by Alex Pentland that in my opinion establishes the very foundations of "SOCIAL INFORMATION SCIENCE"--it is a pity, and possibly an error (?), that this author has placed his exciting research under the banner of physics.<br>
<br>
best wishes ---Pedro<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<u></u>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<u></u>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a> <br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<u></u>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>