Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11

2015-01-17 Thread Jeremy Sherman
It would be satisfying perhaps to think of our collective work as at the
forefront of the development of what will become A Grand Domain of Science,
but I would say the better trend in current science is toward careful
integration between domains rather than toward established grand divisions,
which seems a more a classical approach. Doesn't information play out in
the biological and the social domains? Isn't our most ambitious goal here
to explain scientifically the relationship between information and the
physical domain?

Whether modest or foolhardy as Terry suggests or of some other stature,
Terry's approach addresses the source of the great schism in all academic
and intellectual circles: Physical scientists are appropriately barred from
explaining behavior in terms of the value of information for some
end-directed self about, or representative of anything. But biological and
social scientists can't help but explain behavior in those terms. Focusing,
precisely on possible transitions from the physical domain to the living
and social domains is exactly what a scientific approach demands.

Lacking an explanation for the transition from mechanism to end-directed
behavior (which is inescapably teleological down to its roots in function
or adaptation--behaviors of value to a self about its environment), science
is stuck, siloed into isolated domains without a rationale.

To my mind, this makes the implications of meticulous work at the very
border between mechanism and end-directed behavior anything but modest in
its possible implications. In this I agree with Pedro. With what we now
know about self-organization-- how it is footing on the physical side for a
bridge from mechanism to end-directed behavior but does not itself provide
the bridge,  we are perfectly poised to build the bridge itself, through an
integrated science that explains the ontology of epistemology, providing
solid scientific ground over the absolutely huge gaping hole in the middle
of the broadest reaches of scientific and philosophical  endeavor.

Whether Terry's work or someone else's work bridges that gap, I predict
that, at long last, the gap can and will be finally filled, probably within
the next decade. As ambitious researchers this would be a lousy time for
any of us, Terry included, to stick to our guns in the face of substantial
critique revealing how a theory we embrace merely provides a new, more
clever way way to hide or smear over the gap pretending it isn't there,
which is why I would love to see this discussion refocus on the article's
detailed content. Though the implications of this research at the
borderline may be grand, the research, in the doing, is as Terry implies as
modest any careful scientific work.

Jeremy Sherman

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Moisés André Nisenbaum 
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br wrote:

 Hi, Pedro.
 I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science)
 Would you please send it again?

 Thank you.

 Moises

 2015-01-17 9:00 GMT-02:00 fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es:

 Send Fis mailing list submissions to
 fis@listas.unizar.es

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of Fis digest...

 Today's Topics:

1. Re: Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference 
   significance (Pedro C. Marijuan)


 -- Mensagem encaminhada --
 From: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 To: 'fis' fis@listas.unizar.es
 Cc:
 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:43:40 +0100
 Subject: Re: [Fis] Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference 
 significance
  Dear Terry and FIS colleagues---and pirates,

 Just a brief reflection on the below.

  (From Terry's last message)...
 So my goal in this case is quite modest, and yet perhaps also a bit
 foolhardy. I want to suggest a simplest possible model system to use
 as the basis for formalizing the link between physical processes and
 semiotic processes. Perhaps someday after considerably elaborating
 this analysis it could contribute to issues of the psychology of human
 interactions. I hope to recruit some interest into pursuing this goal.

 In my view, any research endeavor is also accompanied by some ultimate
 goals or ends that go beyond the quite explicit disciplinary ones. In this
 case, say, about the destiny of the constructs that would surround the
 information concept (or the possibility of framing an informational
 perspective, or a renewed information science, or whatever), wouldn't it be
 interesting discussing in extenso what could that ultimate vision?

 I mean, most of us may agree in quite many points related to the
 microphysical ( thermodynamic) 

Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11

2015-01-17 Thread Moisés André Nisenbaum
Hi, Pedro.
I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science)
Would you please send it again?

Thank you.

Moises

2015-01-17 9:00 GMT-02:00 fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es:

 Send Fis mailing list submissions to
 fis@listas.unizar.es

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of Fis digest...

 Today's Topics:

1. Re: Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference 
   significance (Pedro C. Marijuan)


 -- Mensagem encaminhada --
 From: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 To: 'fis' fis@listas.unizar.es
 Cc:
 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:43:40 +0100
 Subject: Re: [Fis] Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference 
 significance
  Dear Terry and FIS colleagues---and pirates,

 Just a brief reflection on the below.

  (From Terry's last message)...
 So my goal in this case is quite modest, and yet perhaps also a bit
 foolhardy. I want to suggest a simplest possible model system to use
 as the basis for formalizing the link between physical processes and
 semiotic processes. Perhaps someday after considerably elaborating
 this analysis it could contribute to issues of the psychology of human
 interactions. I hope to recruit some interest into pursuing this goal.

 In my view, any research endeavor is also accompanied by some ultimate
 goals or ends that go beyond the quite explicit disciplinary ones. In this
 case, say, about the destiny of the constructs that would surround the
 information concept (or the possibility of framing an informational
 perspective, or a renewed information science, or whatever), wouldn't it be
 interesting discussing in extenso what could that ultimate vision?

 I mean, most of us may agree in quite many points related to the
 microphysical ( thermodynamic) underpinning of information, as it
 transpires in the exchanges we are having--but where do we want to arrive
 finally with the construction activity? I tend to disagree with localist
 aims, even though at the time being they may look more prudent and
 parsimonious. Putting it in brief, too briefly!, and borrowing from
 Rosenbloom (P.S. 2013. On Computing: The Fourth Great Scientific Domain)
 the idea is that information science, properly developed and linked with
 computer science and mathematics, should constitute one of the Great
 Domains of contemporary science. The informational would go together with
 the physical, the biological, and the social: constituting the four great
 domains of science. See Figure below. Rather than attempting the
 construction of another average or standard discipline, information science
 is about the making out of one of the “great scientific domains” of
 contemporary knowledge.

 More cogent arguments could be elaborated on how to cover sceintifically
 the whole information world (human societies, behaving individuals, brain
 organization, cellular processes, biomolecules) and the problem of
 interlocking--crisscrossing a myriad of information flows at all levels.
 But the point is, ends, although unassailable, may be as much important
 as beginnings.

 Thanks in advance for the patience!

 ---Pedro





 *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the
 network of contemporary disciplines in the background;
 while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents the four great
 scientific domains.


 --
 -
 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)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -


 ___
 Fis mailing list
 Fis@listas.unizar.es
 http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis




-- 
Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Maracanã
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis