A very first reaction of mine

I do not like at all the so called "kickoff" BECAUSE it is applied to
what I assume should be a constructive interaction.

Football is only an image of the warfare that characterizes the
prevailing civilization where each contender keeps fighting though
claiming that it is playing, till the end of the event, in order to
be recognized as the winner after being defeated and necessarily
humiliated the loser

Anyhow as I hope it is only an incidental assumption, I dare to argue
that the INFORMATION in every mind can be no more than a partial
interpretation of some aspects of the reality that will be always
"infected", "poluted", "deviated", misinterpreted, etc. by the
prejudices generated in each brain under the influence of knowledge
(that will be always incomplete) and experiences acquired (that will
be always individually limited)

Therefore assuming that each one of us accepts to recognize as true
and valid some of the statements expressed by Adam Smith, Darwin,
Ramon y Cajal,... it will remain always as a continuous challenge to
continue building the bridge. However, it seems evident that many of
us from time to time believes that the bridge has been completed for
making possible to cogitate a certain theoretical speculation or
lucubration or for reaching a practical purpose while learning to
survive one day after another.

I dare to argue that in my view (which is biased by the cultural
values that I managed to assimilate, and certainly not always
properly) the best approach about "bridges" between practice and
theory is in the domain of Perspectivism proposed by Ludwig von
Bertalanffy

"...the validity of knowledge depends on the perspective from which
that knowledge is perceived. It represents a world rich with the
truth of many perspectives. It helps to comprehend the fallacy of
absolutism. This Perspectivism approves in fact the Socrates' maxim
that the learned person is someone who is aware of his or her
ignorance. It is indeed necessary, for any human to maintain
continuously open his mind to valuable new ideas, those that are
generated by other minds trying also to comprehend the reality, each
one through a particular discipline. The multidisciplinary views of
any aspect of the whole reality make possible always its
interdisciplinary assessment which may lead consequently to its
transdisciplinary comprehension."

��������������������������������������

>Dear Koichiro,
>
>Thanks a lot for the very elegant 'primer'. For my taste, in a couple of
>paragraphs (below), you have encapsulated the whole fis mission. My
>question (unfortunately have had no time to read carefully John's and
>Andrei's yet, what I promise to do this weekend) is about the extent to
>which, in your opinion, we are advancing towards the collective synthesis.
>Ted was openly optimistic weeks ago... Personally I think that in between
>'Darwin' and 'Adam Smith' principles (fitness and utility) we are still
>missing a central arch for the theoretical info bridge. Curiously Ram�n y
>Cajal attempted a principle of 'brain bookeeping economy' 100 years ago,
>but has received little attention). Your posting strongly reminds me on
>that missing arch... (it reminds Leyton's neurodynamics and
>neurosymmetries too)
>
>>bookkeeping between supplier and consumer is the sole means for tailoring
>>such an exquisite and unbelievable invisible hand. Adam Smith must have
>>anticipated what the 21st century would be going to accomplish in the name
>>of information.
>
> >Information at the turn of the 21st century seems to be a thread
>>connecting physics, chemistry, biology and even economics. A common
>>denominator is serious negotiation between supplier and consumer.
>
>best
>
>Pedro C. Mariju�n

Pedro,

Your remark touches upon the relationship between Charles Darwin and the
economists of his time. In school, I learned that Darwin got his economics
from Malthus as a champion of the dismal science, instead of from Adam
Smith. Could it simply be a historical accident? If Darwin had consulted
Smith, the course since then would have been much more different than what
we see today.

    Cheers,
    Koichiro

      Koichiro Matsuno

-- 
elohimjl