Dear Terry and FIS colleagues,
I think you make a good point. I was reminded on the problems my research group has found in the development of our "Sociotype project", cooperating with social science groups and psychologists. The lack of communication in between those closer to formal fields or just within natural sciences (our case) and the humanities and social science fields is amazing. From my point of view they strongly defend some form of "obscurity", in the sense that they do not accept but a total disciplinary autonomy often ideologically rooted. Perhaps I am exaggerating, as the intrinsic complexity of those matters is only amenable to "foundations" from discoursive approaches... Well, in any case a metaphorical idea about those principles of Information Science is that they can work as "posts" where new electric lines may be tended, so that they can bring new light to new pockets within those ultracomplex realms. The gap between sceince-humanities might be well crossed by info science. (Finally let me apologize for not having processed yet all the late messages, I have a slow digestion)

El 05/10/2017 a las 19:21, Terrence W. DEACON escribió:
Dear all,

I am in agreement with Joseph's suggestion that our discussions of the foundations of information could be understood as pre-science. Efforts such as the list of principles proposed by Pedro offer a useful focus of discussion for working toward a more solid "foundation" precisely because it helps elicits responses that exemplify the fault lines in our community. These are not merely points of disagreement but also theoretical boundaries that need to be clearly identified if we want to seriously map this still ambiguous conceptual territory. Claims that this issue has been settled or that there are irresolvable issues involved or that the whole conceptual territory is useless are unhelpful. We just need to get explicit about our differences and what motivates them.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Joseph Brenner < <>> wrote:

    Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,

    In the 2 weeks I have been away, an excellent discussion has
    self-organized as Pedro noted. Any preliminary comments and
    criticisms of Pedro’s 10 Principles I could make now can refer to
    this. I would have said first that Pedro is to be thanked for this
    construction. Preparing a list of principles involves defining not
    only the content but also the number, order and relation between
    the entries. Zou, Stan and Ted in particular have recognized the
    existence of the list as such and the work involved.

    My own view is that we are all currently involved in reworking the
    Foundations of Information Science. These Foundations are not
    themselves science, but they look forward to the increased
    understanding of Information Science as Terry suggests. I propose
    the term “Pre-Science” for this process activity, a pun on the
    word ‘prescience’ whose normal definition is foreknowledge or
    foresight. The people who tend to make mistakes in this effort
    will be those who claim that any simple concept or set of concepts
    can do the job itself, supported by claims to authorities such as
    Peirce. Sets of /principles/, on the other hand, are tools more
    difficult to use but they permit directed consideration of several
    perspectives at the same time.

    Principles are the basis for an interpretation of what is in the
    physical and biological processes that are the proper subjects for
    non-computational Information Science, without – yet – providing
    any explanations. Now this is a lot more philosophical that may
    have been expected when the discussion started. However, today,
    unlike when Pedro and his colleagues started out, we have the
    Philosophy of Information of Luciano Floridi and Wu Kun to work
    with, as well as my logic. I am surprised that no-one has yet
    referred to Floridi or Wu.

    Going back over the postings to-date, I have noted a few which
    seem constitutive of a ‘Pre-Science’ of Information: Emmanuel’s
    ‘duality’, Stan’s hierarchies; Michel Godron’s and John Torday’s
    bridges to biology, Pedro’s reworking of communication, /etc/. I
    will resist comments that the concepts of Pre-Science are to be
    thrown out as part of non-science or ‘just’ philosophy. As
    Koichiro clearly said on 20.09, information can, and in my view is
    already, bringing in something new empirically to questions of
    space and time. In the Pre-Science of Information, ideally, it
    should be possible to retain mechanism /and/ materialism or
    realism; computationalism /and /non- or natural computationalism;
    information as a physical /reality/ and a non-physical /appearance/.

    I look forward with great interest to the lines of development of
    this thread.

    Best wishes,


        ----- Original Message -----
        *From:* Pedro C. Marijuan <>
        *To:* 'fis' <>
        *Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 2:13 PM
        *Subject:* [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS

        Dear FIS Colleagues,

        As promised herewith the "10 principles of information
        science". A couple of previous comments may be in order.
        First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I
        was motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y
        Gasset, "The idea of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of
        deductive theory" (posthumously published in 1958). Our
        tentative information science seems to be very different from
        other sciences, rather multifarious in appearance and
        concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What
        could be the specific role of principles herein? Rather than
        opening homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these
        information principles would appear as a sort of "portals"
        that connect with essential topics of other disciplines in the
        different organization layers, but at the same time they
        should try to be consistent with each other and provide a
        coherent vision of the information world.
        And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I
        was too optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case,
        for having a first glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of
        philosophers would be very interesting. In order to warm up
        the discussion, may I ask John Collier, Joseph Brenner and
        Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments / criticisms?
        Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and
        Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a
        perspectival end to this info principles discussion (both
        attended the Madrid bygone FIS 1994 conference)...
        But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen
        states and the chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get
        ahead at his own, with the only customary limitation of two
        messages per week.

        Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro


        1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.

        2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns,
        messages, or flows.

3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed (either computationally or non-computationally).

        4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's
        self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing
        up with the accompanying energy flows.

        5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive
        life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological
        organizations at all scales.

        6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential
        communication exchanges of the human species--and constitutes
        the core of its "social nature."

        7. Human information may be systematically converted into
        efficient knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and
        further up by applying rigorous methodologies.

        8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are
        partially overcome via the social organization of "knowledge

        9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a
        continuous actualization that involves "creative destruction"
        of fields and disciplines: the intellectual /Ars Magna./

        10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the
        information and knowledge flows that support individual lives,
        with profound consequences for scientific-philosophical
        practice and for social governance.

-- -------------------------------------------------
        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 0
        50009 Zaragoza, Spain
        Tfno.+34 976 71 3526 <tel:+34%20976%2071%2035%2026>  (& 6818) <>

        _______________________________________________ Fis mailing
        list <>
    _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list <>
Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley

Fis mailing list

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 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to