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
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.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Moisés André Nisenbaum
I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science)
Would you please send it again?
2015-01-17 9:00 GMT-02:00 fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es:
Send Fis mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than Re: Contents of Fis digest...
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' email@example.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:43:40 +0100
Subject: Re: [Fis] Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference
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)