Dear discussants and FIS colleagues, I much appreciate Bob's comments, as I also observe a strong mutual concordance. The absences theme, which I could not comment last day, was also present in ideas I developed years ago on cell "functional voids" (absences, needs) as a leit motif of cellular signaling. Actually I pointed out that the creation, exchange, elimination of signals may be inseparable of sets of absences wich are compressed or symbolized in a few related presences, then traded as communication items in intercellular "markets". Much of human communication is related to absences too, e.g., "needs".
Helas, a good theoretical scheme (info theory, mutual info, etc.) is a must, but something else is needed for the inclusion of meaning. In my opinion, the cell cycle, and the human life cycle --referring to these two particular info realms-- have to be entered as the global references to anticipate the meanings structure. I am not aware that a good solution to this problem has been contemplated yet (how can one treat the signal, the void, the cycle, the networking alterations?). In the human case, it is the action/perception cycle which serves as the universal susbtratum for organizing behaviors what tends the fabrication of meaning. How adaptation, time scales, open-ended computing, etc., may culminate in meaning extraction? How can one advance to properly situate human "knowledge" here? (I quite agree with Loet in the need of entering it). And further, how can one jump to establish the conditions for scientific and multidisciplinary meaningfulness? Besides, I bet that a reconsideration of logic should be involved (Joe, Karl....) In itself, this whole enterprise is a big, serious research project, highly interesting today in order to make sense of the widespread dissemination of knowledge of inter-, pluri-, multi-, trans-disciplinary nature. Let me remind Ted's insistence on the importance of a real problem meaningfully contemplated by FIS in a new way... Thus, the new Institute promoted by Dail & Mary Joe & Wolfgang might take this project of "approaching multidisciplinarity" under its wings. Finally, about Stan's protests of my succint point on science unification, his scholarship obligues one to recognize elegant points even in parties which may actually invite others to advance towards factual cul-de-sacs. Next week (this is my second weekly post) I will try to expand this. Science appears far more interesting when we do not idealize it, and when a limited, situated observer substitutes for God's view (and when disciplines are factically unable to bridge or "reduce" their epistemic gaps, etc. --so the real mess!) best wishes Pedro _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
