<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="HU">Dear All,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="HU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="HU">Intelligence is a
wide subject</span> and there are many opinions on it. Eric gives a brilliant
overview of areas and aspects of intelligence. We should clarify, following
Pedro’s question: <i>is there an inanimate
form of intelligence?, </i>which of the many layers of the mental construct ‘intelligence’
we talk about, and to what ends.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric does not distinguish between mechanical problem solving
(finding out one specific among many alternatives) and that what comes after <i>cogito
ergo sum. </i>The self-referential application of intelligence on the system
that does problem-solving intelligently is where a boundary between Genius
(Eric’s term) and a finite automaton can be drawn. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At our present stage of insight and knowledge, it appears
more prudent to concentrate on the lower parts of the continuum. This approach
leads us to the lower boundary, separating ‘regulation, cybernetic decision
making’ to the ‘ability to remember and to learn’. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Answering Pedro’s question about the inanimate forms of
interregulation by feedback loops uncovers the fundamental paradigm that needs
to be changed. We have learnt at Programming 101 to see a thermostat as the simplest
decision-making unit. <b>Temp < threshold<sub>low</sub>: switch on, temp
> threshold<sub>up</sub>: switch off. </b>The general idea is to trisect a continuum and apply consequences to the
perceived position on the continuum. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The paradigm
question is: where do you get any <b>thresholds </b>using the Wittgenstein-type
rational logic, since it is based solely on <b>N</b>? The Sumerian concept,
which was formalized by Wittgenstein and refined by Shannon, does not allow for
any irregularities or additional amounts for any of its basic elements. Using
a counting system with <i>a = 1 + 1 + 1+…+1</i>
where the <i>number of how many times 1 </i>is
the definition of a symbol is not suitable by its grammatical rules to generate
thresholds. One has to get planar and use trigonometry to establish e.g. <i>sin(x) </i>to encounter thresholds, albeit
these also come up with a regularity which gives no rise to any situation of
dramatic change in whatever properties we talk about. The Sumerian system of
symbols is incapable of generating explosions, discharges, breaks, collapses
and the like, because the elements of the symbols set remain standardized. There
is no bias that could add up, in the Sumerian system. The words of the
Wittgenstein language suggest that the elements are ordered among each other,
and no cracks or contradictions exist within that part of the picture about
which we make sentences that are interpersonally understandable. The basic,
cultural consensus of the presently valid systems of thought is, that the
picture of the world is built up of symbols that fit seamlessly and are exactly
so as one has defined them and no discussion about it. There is 1 set of
definitions and 1 number line of which the unit is 1. Observations cannot be
otherwise than expectations.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is what needs to be changed. The paradigm shift shows
us the world which can be seen by two glasses of a stereoscopic eyepiece. So
far, we have used he right way of looking at things, where everything is built
of identical units and the units have no other properties than being of the
extent 1. In this view, everything is as expected.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now we learn to look through the left eyeglass. <span></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">If you take a collection
of symbols which each are made up of 2 natural numbers, then<span></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">You have cohorts, in
dependence of how many variants of <i>a,b
</i>you use, and<span></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">For deeper reasons [1] you
play with a cohort of <i>136 </i>individuals
which are each a pair of <i>(a,b), </i>namely
<i>{(1,1),(1,2),(2,2),(1,3),…,(15,16),(16,16)}</i>, then you have <b>Cohort 16</b>.;<span></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">This etalon collection C16 can be described by establishing the individuals’
linear place in any of the sorting orders you subject the collection to; <span></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">You will find characteristic names for the individuals, which names
are as good an identification as naming them by their identifiers <i>(a,b),
</i>namely e.g. <i>{(stands near the middle in [</i><i>αβ]), (is way off in
[</i><i>γδ]), (at
two-thirds in [</i><i>κλ]),
etc.}. </i><span></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">The identification by association is an alternative to counting so
many 1-s on <b>N</b> that identify the
individual in a defined linear order. The identification by <b>N</b> degenerates into a special case
of identification by sorting, but without referring to its neighbors.<span></span></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal">Using both looking
glasses in stereo, one will find areas and circumstances, where the inner
relations among the members of a cohesive whole are worthy of consideration. Group
sociometry, palace intrigues, economic modeling, and apparently also the
mechanism governing the memory <i>plusque </i>genetic, all these methods use
symbols sets that are doubly indexed: a. according to place in Newton sense and
b: place according to properties differentiating the elements against other
elements, individuals among their peers. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the case that
the <b>three-way interdependence <i>diverse-similar-numbering</i></b><i>
</i>is at its mathematically possible limits, the ideal, maximally cohesive cum
diverse arrangement of symbols on the etalon collection shows <i>32, 97 </i>to
be thresholds that trisect the continuum, here in the form of the number line. Outside
the thresholds <i>32, 97 </i>the collection can be more similar than diverse;
inside the range, the collection can be in more diverse states than it can be
similar within itself. (Matter spills out.)<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Intelligence is an
activity that is observed on organisms with a functioning neural system. The
neural system must work in accordance with, as a daughter of, the rules
governing Physics, Chemistry, Physiology. Problem solving must have antecedents
in the inanimate world. To have the formalized case of problems, one needs to
have distinction markers on something that can change. No thresholds, no
problems. Thresholds are existentially necessary to anything out of which
intelligence and genius can evolve.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thresholds are impossible
to find within the Sumerian system. There needs to be an independent, but interacting
way of counting which allows for thresholds to appear.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When we consider
the members of a group, the individuals carry and possess their individuating
marks (most of the time invisibly to us), showing how they relate as neighbors
to whom during reorders. <span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">“Example: X is good as {engineer, cook,
cartographer,…} but is risky because {no team leader, bad husband, can’t economize,…}.”</span> The fit to one’s place is determined by
several concurring factors, that have to do with one’s likeness to the most
average of the elements in that comparison. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The conflicting
assignments of linear, planar or spatial attributes to an element that is a
member of a cohesive group creates thresholds, levels, units of level change.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">AI needs something
to ponder about. Why not give it the task of tabulating instances of <i>(a,b) </i>that
can coexist during reorders? There are very many details that AM (artificial
memory) can remember and typify. Creating a generic lexicon organically, starting
with <i>(a,b)</i>, should be no greater a challenge than to write an automaton
that can play Chess or Go. Bundling cycles of the etalon collection that can go
together, one could start a work comparable to a dictionary of basic fuseki
(where the joseki are given by the factual bundles of potentially coexisting
cycles). Such a Lexicon of All Possible Occurrences would be intimately
cross-referenced and would include all possible words a finite automaton can
dream up. (Therefore, all sentences the automaton can say.)<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In short: use the
cycles’ properties to establish a counting system, that admittedly works only
within groups the members of which are consistent with each other (have a
liaison running among its members), but generates an untold number of
alternatives, continuities and limits, thresholds and ranges. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is not a big
deal. You ask your student and within a week you have a functioning tautomat.
Then you know how to shift a paradigm.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All the best:<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Karl<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="DE-AT">[1] <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.oeis.org/A242615__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WbIVI1muA-bUi2sgH-PQNJNVsNmMPNuD5KYiu88Bg8L3Hd7QUTl_gEoOmXRB7r5JyhkrMfVIXVDAv4subhcsC8gXSf4$">www.oeis.org/A242615</a><span></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE-AT" style="font-size:14pt;line-height:107%"> </span></p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Do., 19. Okt. 2023 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb Pedro C. Marijuán <<a href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Dear All,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As the themes fly so fast, I have mixed
some of the ideas previously circulated<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When Krassimir was asking about
definitions of intelligence, responded by several parties (Karl,
Yixin, Eric, Marcus...), I was reminded of a curious fact. Nobody
would dare speak about intelligence in the "inanimate" world.
Undoubtedly intelligence appears with life, with the biologic
system. Given that life is hardly definable, no wonder that
intelligence, one of its essential characteristics neither is. Of
course, we can produce many empirical notions approaching it...
Nevertheless, where exactly can be situated the emergence of
intelligence in the biologic? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A very recent contribution letter in
Nature was claiming with good and brief arguments that sentience
and cognition are absolutely related to the living cell, even the
simplest ones (our occasional FIS colleague Bill Miller was one of
the signatories--in Vol 620, p. 37, 3 August 2023). In a similar
direction I also very recently have published a contribution in
BioSystems journal (with Jorge Navarro --233, 2023, 105039)
attempting the intellective link from cells to nervous systems and
the human case, connecting with AI. In human intelligence, the
extraordinary role played by social emotions, we argue, should be
put in a new light (remember Kahneman about S1 and S2 utterly
different human responses to novelty), at least if we want to
contribute somehow to a better understanding of today's mounting
techno-troubles. Let me state that referring to human intentions,
purposes, values, etc., they do not quite make a cogent sense
except properly connected with the reality of our life courses or
"cycles"... In fact, these connections are frequently established
in a biased and tricky way by most commercial AI systems. But
there are positive hints there (see the field of "sentiment
analysis"), for the hope is that AI might open new windows to the
rather limited understanding of our whole intellection
(intelligence/emotions), and even evolve towards a new
understanding of AI itself, more properly intertwined with the
extended realms of, say, natural intelligence.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is in the above sense that I welcome
the call to a new paradigm, etc., as a possibility to provoke new
discussions. Although I disagree with the scientific-philosophical
validity of the term, and with some of the gross simplifications
about the characterization of physical paradigm. (Some of the most
magnificent syntheses of human history precisely were there: what
was the Newtonian theory but a fantastic synthesis of the
celestial motions and all the diverse motions on Earth? An
amazing, epochal integration). I also fail to make sense of
"wisdom"-- does it abide in common folks, in social networks, in
"experts", in committees, in governments, in entire societies or
cultures, in our civilization? Is it just a vague idealization out
from common sense? In any event, wisdom seems to be the most
scarce, depleted public resource today. In particular, I think a
well-arranged AI system for medical diagnosis could be far more
reliable and wiser than a facultative of primary care or a
specialist (I mean, becoming a great helping hand for the troubled
practitioners of our overwhelmed public health systems). And
thinking more in general, these days I was trying to compile a
list of our common intellectual limitations (maybe I will send
them to the list for advise later on), in this respect the mirror
that AI could offer on us could be scary...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To conclude, it looks as if a good
rhetoric instrumentation has been deployed by the presenters
(thanks!), which is important and interesting at the time being to
promote a general debate on the AI complex and somehow risky
enterprise, but in my opinion with some gaps yet. I will try to
advance more precisions in later exchanges.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>--Pedro<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>El 19/10/2023 a las 11:55, Eric Werner
escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Dear Yixin,</p>
<p>Can you be more specific what you mean by "change the paradigm
used in AI". It might help to give a specific example. </p>
<p>*At present AI systems certainly behave as if they are goal
directed. <br>
</p>
<p>*AI systems appear to have wisdom in that they can propose wise
courses of action</p>
<p>* What do you mean by "pure formalism"? It seems one of the
powers of formalism is to understand AI and human intelligence.
<br>
</p>
<p>* It seems AI systems exhibit human-like wisdom when they offer
advice or guide the actions of a virtual assistant or self
driving car. The react based on the circumstances and goals of
the other, at leas to an extent. <br>
</p>
<p>* Why can't a machine understand human goals and purposes if it
gains a model of those from human data? <br>
</p>
<p>* Why can't an AI system have intentions? <br>
</p>
<p>My overall problem is understanding your specific criticism of
the present AI paradigm? This notion seems to me to need clearer
definition. <br>
</p>
<p>How would you overcome the present AI paradigm and what
specifically is different when you want to "change the paradigm
used in AI"???</p>
<p>This is not a criticism it is a real question in trying to
understand you. At present I just don't see the difference
between the present AI paradigm and your new AI paradigm. <br>
</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Eric <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 10/19/23 8:48 AM, 钟义信 wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dear Krassimir, Dear
Eric, and Dear Colleagues,</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The discussion is
going on well thanks to all your efforts.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here is a few points
I would like to mention (or re-mention).</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(1) The purpose of
the "declaration on Paradigm Change in AI" is to make an
appeal for <u>change the paradigm used in AI.</u> </font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(2) There may have
different understanding on the concept of paradigm. However,
<u>the concept of paradigm for a scientific discipline has
been re-defined as the scientific world view and the
associated methodology</u> because the scientific
worldview and its methodology as a whole is the only factor
that can determine whether a scientific discipline needs a
"revolution" (Kuhn's language).</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(3) The major result
of "paradigm change in AI" is <u>to change the methodology
used in AI, including the principles of "pure formalism"
and "divide and conquer"</u>. This is because of the fact
that <u>the former principle leads to the ignoring the
meaning and value and thus leads to the loss of
understanding ability and explaining ability</u> while <u>the
latter one leads to the loss of the general theory for AI</u>.
Note that "no explaining ability" and "no general theory"
are the most typical and also most concerned problems for
current AI.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(4) There is <u>difference
between human intelligence and human wisdom</u>. One of
the functions of human wisdom is to find the to-be-solved
problem which must be meaningful for human purpose of
improving the living and developing. Yet, the function of
human intelligence is to solve the problem defined by human
wisdom. </font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(5) Human
intelligence can be simulated by machine. But human wisdom
cannot be simulated by machine because machine is non-living
beings that has no its own purpose and cannot understand
human purpose. No purpose means no wisdom.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I wonder if you agree
or not. Comments are welcome!</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Best regards,</font></div>
<div><u></u>
<div><font size="4" face="SimSun,STSong"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div style="overflow:hidden">
<div style="float:left;height:100px;margin:35px 10px 10px 0px;padding:0px 10px 0px 15px;border-right:1px solid rgb(222,222,222)">
<div style="max-height:150px;overflow:hidden;margin:35px 0px 0px;float:left"><br>
</div>
<div style="max-height:150px;overflow:hidden;margin:35px 0px 0px;float:left"><br>
</div>
<div style="max-height:150px;overflow:hidden;margin:35px 0px 0px;float:left"><img src="https://exmail.qq.com/cgi-bin/viewfile?type=logo&domain=bupt.edu.cn"></div>
</div>
<div style="float:left;padding-top:35px;line-height:22px;color:rgb(160,160,160);zoom:1">
<h4 style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;font-weight:bold;line-height:28px;color:rgb(0,0,0);zoom:1">Prof.
Yixin ZHONG</h4>
<div>AI School, BUPT</div>
<div>Beijing 100876, China</div>
<p style="margin:0px"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin:0px;line-height:22px;color:rgb(160,160,160)"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<u></u></div>
<div> </div>
<div><u></u>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div style="font-size:12px;font-family:"Arial Narrow";padding:2px 0px">------------------ Original ------------------</div>
<div style="font-size:12px;background:rgb(239,239,239);padding:8px">
<div id="m_-9188411091358084838menu_sender"><b>From: </b> "Krassimir Markov"<a href="mailto:itheaiss@gmail.com" target="_blank"><itheaiss@gmail.com></a>;</div>
<div><b>Date: </b> Thu, Oct 19, 2023 03:32 AM</div>
<div><b>To: </b> "fis"<a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank"><fis@listas.unizar.es></a>;
</div>
<div><b>Subject: </b> Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 105,
Issue 12</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Yixin, Eric and FIS colleagues,
<div>Let me present some thoughts about </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"" align="center"><b>The “Intelligence” Paradigm</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">For
those who are not familiar with the concepts of
"paradigm" and "paradigm shift", I would
recommend texts from Wikipedia that explain it
clearly enough.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">I
myself maintain a neutral position in the
dispute between Popper and Kuhn regarding the
development of science. Both theses have their
grounds, but at different levels and stages. In
fact, in this case, the law of quantitative
accumulation, which leads to qualitative
changes, applies. Obviously, in a number of
cases the paradigm shift happens in leaps and
bounds, while in others it happens smoothly and
barely perceptibly.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">For
example, the accumulation of sufficient
observations and evidences regarding the shape
of the earth required a shift to a new paradigm:
from the "Earth is flat" paradigm to the "Earth
is not flat" paradigm.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">Sometimes
opposing paradigms can coexist, not negating
each other, but complementing each other. For
example, this is the case with Euclid's fifth
postulate (the parallel postulate).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">The
postulate has long been considered self-evident
or inevitable, but no evidence has been found.
Eventually, it was discovered that reversing the
postulate gave valid, albeit different,
geometries. A geometry where the parallelism
postulate does not hold is known as
non-Euclidean geometry.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">With
regard to the paradigm of "intelligence" we have
a similar situation. We have at least two
opposing paradigms based on two opposing
postulates.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">The
first, let's call it the "flat intelligence
postulate", was well articulated by Yixin in his
post:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">"Intelligence
is the ability to solve problems, but not the
ability to detect and define problems, the
latter of which is one of the faculties of
wisdom."</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">The
second, let's call it the "non-flat intelligence
postulate", will sound unifying: "Intelligence
is both the ability to solve problems and the
ability to detect and define problems" (Eric),
but in different directions in the hierarchy of
intelligences (KM)". This is how we arrive at
the idea of cybernetic systems, where there is a
controller and a controlled, but the controller
is connected to the environment from which it
receives controlling influences and is, in
practice, both "controller" and "controlled",
but in different aspects of the system.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif""><span style="line-height:115%"> </span></p>
<img src="cid:18b4d7a54baef322dfc1" alt="image.png" width="472" height="359"><br>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif""><span style="line-height:115%"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"" align="center"><span style="line-height:115%" lang="BG"></span><span style="line-height:115%" lang="BG"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:center;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"" align="center"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">To
be continued ...</p>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<u></u></div>
</blockquote>
<pre>----------
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="m_-9188411091358084838DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br><table style="border-top:1px solid rgb(211,212,222)"><tbody><tr><td style="width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XRs1aHCeukEbh8_ycn8OWx-LVxoN0CAv7jFRZZ_WStbmS11a36Z1dHCDJH-xi4P9iqcrHp3wBiFnmw5An8mmT3xuij-z$" target="_blank"><img src="https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"></a></td><td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:rgb(65,66,78);font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Libre de virus.<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XRs1aHCeukEbh8_ycn8OWx-LVxoN0CAv7jFRZZ_WStbmS11a36Z1dHCDJH-xi4P9iqcrHp3wBiFnmw5An8mmT3xuij-z$" style="color:rgb(68,83,234)" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></td></tr></tbody></table><a href="#m_-9188411091358084838_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></div>
_______________________________________________<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>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
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.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div>