<div dir="ltr">Dear Jerry and Colleagues,<br><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jerry_lr_chandler@me.com" target="_blank">jerry_lr_chandler@me.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div>Dear Plamen, List<div><br><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Feb 29, 2016, at 12:40 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <<a href="mailto:plamen.l.simeonov@gmail.com" target="_blank">plamen.l.simeonov@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="georgia, serif">Dear Jerry, Maxine, Marcus and All,</font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif">I will come back later on discussing this interesting issue because, I have a major project deadline by tomorrow.</font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>I await your response. Has your project deadline past?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yeas, my deadline passed, but response to what? We have closed this session already.<br></div><div>Maxine has made again a last comment which I was temptated to answer, but then I decided that we have other sessions to discuss the validity of how one understands phenomenology. <br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="georgia, serif">But let me just give you this link to educate you on what Phenomenological Philosophy is really about:</font></div><div><a href="http://ibiomath.org/on-phenomenological-philosophy/" target="_blank">http://ibiomath.org/on-phenomenological-philosophy/</a><font face="georgia, serif"><br></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>Well, I certainly love to learn.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am doing that too, but why should we occupy the whole list with our private conversation?<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>FIS has a long tradition of learning from one - another (in a collegial manner). </div><div>Let’s continue that tradition.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>All right. <br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>The link you sent is merely an advertisement. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, it is an explanation for newcomers I asked a colleague, co-editor to write about it.<br></div><div>Perhaps I had to place a link to Stanford#s encyclopedia...<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>Extraordinarily broad generalities.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is what I told Maxine. I was not the one who wrote it, but I agree with most of the content.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>More Peircian than Husserlian. <br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Maybe. <br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div>Please send a meaningful link that you personally think will “educate” me on your views, particularly your views on logic and mathematical philosophy (as related to consciousness.)</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh, you wish to play on your territory ....I am actually interested in biological mathematics, to put it that way. As for consciosness, I am certainly interested in it.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><span class=""><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>One more thing about Husserl: Have you ever tried to read and understand his over 100 years notes?</div><div>Believe me, no matter how old they are, there is still something to discover there. </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>The same holds for C.S. Pierce, William James and others of that size.</div><div>What is novelty of archaeology and palaeontology then? </div><div>Just digging in the dust??? All these people are discovering new facts about the past.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>These sentences are incoherent. What is it that you are trying to say?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This as a metaphor: an example. How can you ask such a question about the use from investigating the works of old authors in the humanities? <br></div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div>What is it about archaeology that is relevant to my post? </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Old stuff...<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><br></div><div>BTW, I have been a student of Peirce for nearly two decades. I find Peircian views far more relevant to the modern bio-science than Husserl. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, Peirce is relevant and this is what the biosemioticians know well too, but with respect to the question of phenomenological time -- my fovourite theme --- Husserl and Bergson are more relevant. <br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div> The reason for this preference is simple. Peirce deals directly with the logic of relations and the role of identity as related to phenomenology. Peirce’s synthesis of a scientifically based phenomenology can be, in my opinion, aligned with the natural sciences because he expresses relationships between symbols representing the objects of the natural sciences and logic. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I totally agree. But Peirce's works are also 100+ old...Was not that your argument against Husserl? <br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div> Peirce’s logic is not drawn from the anonymity of set theory but rather rather propositions relating properties and attributes of hypernyms (identities), as well as iconic graphs that exhibit his meanings. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, what about taking the best from anyone who had good ideas about phenomenology? I do not understand also Maxine's argument about the required methodology of phenmenology that needs to be followed. If a science does not change it becomes a dogma. So, let us redefine some notion. Reformation is not bad. This is what I am doing all the time asking for constructing and developing a biology-driven -- not biology-inspired -- mathematics. Should we use statistical mechanics, probability theory and ODE/PDE in systems biology for ever? This is my topic, not the one you asked me earlier to step on.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><span class=""><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Even if microbiology was not known at the time of Husserl, it can be seen with other eyes from the perspective of phenomenological philosophy now.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>Microbiology is the science of microbes - living organism that than be seen only through a microscope.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So, you are also having a fixed view upon this. #<br></div><div>Microscopy has become more and more virtual today. This is the future I am dealing right now with pathology studies... So, why should we study microbes from outside only?<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>I used the term “molecular biology” which refers to molecules. Microbes are several orders of magnitude larger than molecules. Microbes contain thousand of different molecules, most of which are one specific form of a pair of optical isomers. Microbes reproduce. Molecules do not reproduce.</div><div>Are you confusing the two terms? </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, I know well what you are talking about. Maybe I thought you were using "microbiology".<br></div><div>I don't know, I was too busy to answer and write my proposal which is what I should do again now (the next one). I am not that lucky like you to have sufficient time for thinking. <br><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>Perhaps this confusion is part of your interpretation of what I wrote.</div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Maybe. I am sorry if this is the case.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Have a nice day.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Thank you.</div><div><br></div><div>But I would like to add a word or two about the notion of “Biomathics”. Numerous conflicts exist in the white paper in the book. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You should tell this to the other 16 co-authors too.<br></div><div>We worked ahd to avoid conflicts of viewpoints.<br></div><div>If there is something left, you should be more specific.<br></div><div>It is however, one of the most frequently downloaded papers in Academia.edu and <a href="http://researchgate.net">researchgate.net</a>.<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div>Can you give a simple statement of your hypothesis in terms of meaningful logic propositions?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not in simple terms. We are correcting the vision all the time. You should read the 2013 and 2015 updates of the vision. It is a collective vision, not only mine. I cannot enter into the minds of the others who have co-authored and co-edited it. Besides, have you seen a research programme defined in terms of logic propositions? I have not.<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><br></div><div><div>Andree generously gifted me with a copy of “Biomathics". After studying “Biomathics” in some detail and your essays, I remain un-informed about deeper philosophical roots of your thinking. My intuition and ‘gut-level’ instinct is that certain basic notions of the natural sciences are missing from your propositions, suggesting that the representation of the logics of nature is incomplete/problematic.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Have you heared of second and higher-levels logic?<br></div><div>I hope you will not feel offended by this question.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><div></div><div>It seems to me that the concept of “Biomathics” either emerges or fades on finding logical correspondence relations (or illations) between mathematical symbols and the biological symbols used by naturalists and physicians. </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thisis not simple at all. You can try reading Goranson's papers and his examples in the 2013 and 2015 PBMB special issues where the left side of the proposition becomes right and vice versa depending on some incident external signal, thus changing the "flow of causation". Imagine this if having multiple levels of logics inside an an organ(ism). This is how a disease can come up. <br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><div>Do you agree or disagree with this conjecture?</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, you will not be able to prove this within conventional first-order logic....<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><div>Finally, do you think that Tarski’s logical construction of meta-languages is necessary for the relations of “Biomathics”?</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Tarski may be useful, at the higher layers of organisation. We have different phenomena when e.g. a tumor emerges.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><div></div><div>I look forward to developing a meaningful dialogue.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We have another working group discussing these issue for very specific problems such as understanding cancer mergence and development. If you are interested to participae, i will send you the link. We do not have much time for general philosophical discussions, unless they are constructive in this respect.<br><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><div></div><div>Have a nice day!</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Jerry</div><div><br></div></font></span></div><div><div class="h5"><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>Have a nice weekend!<br><br></div><div>Plamen<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><div class="h5"><div></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Plamen</div><div> </div><div dir="ltr"><div>____________________________________________________________</div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3" target="_blank">2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy</a> </span></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif">(note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016)</span></div><div><br></div><div><div>____________________________________________________________</div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jerry_LR_Chandler@me.com" target="_blank">Jerry_LR_Chandler@me.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Maxine, List:<div><br></div><div>Just my two cents worth.</div><div>After puzzling about the potential connections between your interpretations of Husserl and evolutionary biology, I remain uncertain about where this line of reasoning starts and where it leads.</div><div><br></div><div>I should say at the beginning that I am a hardcore realist and a pragmatist. The value of vague philosophies for doing science is problematic, in my opinion. The value of the philosophy of mathematics can be quite useful for scientific practice, if the appropriate correspondence relations can be symbolized and exploited. The necessity for rigorous symbolic relations between the meta-languages of science and logic of the sciences is well known. (See Malatesta, The Primary Logic, 1999?).</div><div><br></div><div>Husserl’s (1859-1938) writings are about a Century old. What does he bring to the table today?</div><div><br></div><div>Molecular biology barely existed in his day. </div><div><br></div><div>In this context, the concept of oscillators is proposed as the linkage between movement and mathematical modeling. Yet, the physical basis of the mathematical oscillators is Hook’s Law for springs. The mental image for a two dimensional network of oscillators is a the old-fashioned “bed-spring”. Admittedly, a hypothetical oscillator model was used for a few decades to model the source of epileptic seizures, but it is so crude that it is hardly more than a metaphor. (For a review, <span style="font-family:GillSans;font-size:9pt">NeuroQuantology | June 2006 | Vol. 4 | Issue 2 | 155-165 155
Velazquez JLP. Coupled oscillators field</span></div><div><span style="font-family:GillSans;font-size:9pt"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:GillSans;font-size:9pt"> </span></div>
<div>Molecular biology requires the use of the atomic numbers in arithmetic operations. </div><div>It further requires the use of three - dimensional asymmetric structures to describe handedness (even for dance!). </div><div><br></div><div>These two facts suggest to me that Husserlian vagueness can be improved upon in the modern inquiry into the conceptualization of motion and its relationships to evolutionary biology. </div><div><br></div><div>A different line of reasoning concerns the questions raised by Pedro. That is, the cultural roots of the tremendous array of dance movements and the encoding of ballad movements into a symbol system. </div><div>This issue raises the far wider issue of the roles of diagrammatic logic in relation to dance “logic”. Has anyone explored how the diagrammatic logic of CS Peirce may relate to dance? Or even Venn diagrams? Or how are the diagrams of chemical logic related to dance symbols, if at all? Or, should we follow Hilbert and simply ignore the role of diagrams in the mathematics of evolutionary biology. (see: Greaves, The Philosophical Status of Diagrams (2001))</div><div><br></div><div>Another topic worth exploring is the communication among ballad dancers during a performance. The range of emotions exhibited during a ballad performance can be truly spectacular. How is this accomplished from an informational theory perspective?</div><div><br></div><div>Thus, I would close with a question:</div><div>Does the modern state of human communication and information exchange go far beyond early 20th Century German Philosophy? An essay on either Kantian or Shelling’s philosophy, as contrasted with Husserl, could be of substantial interest to me.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div>Jerry </div><div><br></div><div>Research Professor</div><div>Krasnow Institute for Advanced Studies</div><div>GMU</div><div><br></div><div>Headwater House</div><div>On the Banks of the Mississippi</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>