<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Joseph,<br>
<br>
I finally went through that video, in part stimulated by your
critical comments. My impression, particularly at the beginning of
the talk, was positive: that the fundamental physical reality
might partake of a similar organization to life is quite congruent
with the "informational" point of view. I was strongly reminded of
Michael Conrad's: "When we look at a biological system we are
looking at the face of the underlying physics of the universe."
This was in Madrid 1994, at the foundational conference of FIS.
Well, perhaps some aspects of the last part of that talk were not
so well focused in my view, but at least always appeared open to
argumentation if I properly interpret the style and the context.
Does a not so well-solved part destroy a whole direction of
thought? I think we must be open to the give and take, and
contribute to salvage the best parts of interesting speculations
(if that's the case here), even for our own intellectual interest.
Couldn't our own common fis enterprise be toughly criticized in
similar grounds? Just to conclude, I am reminded of one of the
most famous short essays by philosopher Ortega y Gasset, it was
about the "frame", just the frame of any painting ("Meditación del
Marco" was the title in Spanish). Sholarship is able to create
exciting reflections/discussions... on anything. <br>
So, addressed to all FIS colleagues, why we don't accept this new
discussion challenge?<br>
<br>
Friendly regards<br>
--Pedro<br>
<font size="+2"><br>
</font>El 13/07/2016 a las 19:15, Joseph Brenner escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:3B13A0B046094D438F5F3A97A2914B8C@PCdeJoseph"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6002.19567" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><span
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial;
mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><font size="2">Dear Pedro,<!--?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /--><o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><span
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial;
mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><o:p><font size="2"> </font></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><font size="2">Most of
us would agree that standard Western science does not
give a complete answer to questions about life and mind.
As we try to seek better foundations in general and for
information science in particular, we may be able to
benefit from knowledge resources which have not been
fully exploited, those of the 'Past' and those of the
‘East’. I myself have written a paper suggesting that a
metalogical rejunction is possible in which logic
recovers its original status as inclusive of all other
disciplines. As Brian Josephson writes in the Abstract
of one of his lectures, “Eastern mystics may have
relevance to scientific understanding.” Fritjof Capra
explored such parallels in his important 1967 book <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Tao of
Physics.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However,
many interpretations of what mysticism is are possible.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><o:p><font size="2"> </font></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><font size="2">There is
a further major <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">caveat
</i>to keep in mind: there are different ways of
understanding “what is missing” in science (see Terence
Deacon’s discussion of information) and what kind of
additions could be made. On the one hand, we may
legitimately associate quantum fluctuations with Indian
(not Eastern) ideas of things continuously moving in and
out of existence. On the other, as we have discussed in
connection with Conrad’s ‘fluctuons’ at least once in
the FIS Group, it may NOT be correct to say that such
fluctuations are or can carry meaningful information.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><o:p><font size="2"> </font></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><font size="2">Recent
postings to the FIS list have been made by people
associated with a project embedded in a major university
(<!--?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /--><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city
w:st="on">Cambridge</st1:city>, <st1:country-region
w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region></st1:place>), the
“Matter-Mind Unification Project”, now the “Theory of
Condensed Matter Group” which Josephson has directed.
This effort has sought and still seeks to
incorporate doubtful, self-confirming forms of Western
thought and activity. <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><font
size="2">Personally, I do not wish to be associated
with the Circular Theory of Ilexa Yardley, in which
“the core dynamic is the conservation of a circle”,
which is a misunderstanding of dynamics. I do not
wish to accept nature as controlled by some “Master
Algorithm”, any more than I do Peircean Thirdness. I
do not wish to be associated with paranormal
phenomena, cold fusion and observer created reality,
all of which are part of Josephson’s project.<o:p></o:p></font></span></font></span></p>
<font size="2"><o:p></o:p></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><o:p><font size="2"> </font></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><font size="2">A
characteristic of this thought is its dogmatism of
completeness, a theory of everything, in which things
are linked by a “subtler dimension which we have
identified with the Platonic realm” (Yardley). One might
argue that the Tao is also a theory of everything that
also sees things linked in a way different from that of,
say, chemical bonds. The major difference is that
understanding the Tao does not require abrogating
science in order to replace it by a self-serving
ideology. Deacon has characterized the ‘homunculi’ and
‘golems’, disguised as physical principles, that
interfere with thought; ‘wishful thinking’ is the most
charitable term that can be applied. <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><o:p><font size="2"> </font></o:p></span><span
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial;
mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><o:p><font size="2"> </font></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><font size="2">Other
FIS members may find these ideas harmless, perhaps even
amusing. I consider them perversions of thought by
people with an agenda of control. The one positive
result of these postings has been to cause me to
re-examine the assumptions in the logic of the included
middle of Stéphane Lupasco. This as some of you know is
the basis of my ‘Logic in Reality’ and its Principle of
Dynamic Opposition (critical formulation by Lupasco <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">ca. </i>1951). I
conclude that no new and doubtful physical concepts need
to be introduced to address the essential aspects of
life, mind and information. That information has ‘dual
aspects’ has been more or less explicit in everything I
have tried to write in the last eight years. But these
concepts are not simple; one cannot use the principles
of quantum mechanics directly. Hence I do not expect to
find a large audience nor, to be frank, a large market.
I simply hope they may deserve some more discussion on
the FIS list.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><o:p><font size="2"> </font></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><font size="2">Best
wishes,<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><o:p><font size="2"> </font></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN:
justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><font size="2">Joseph <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
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
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/">http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</a>
-------------------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>