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

[Moisés André Nisenbaum]

I agree with Pedro.
That is the way I understand that the concept of "Domain" must be discussed
in Information Science.
About the "explosion" in number of disciplines, this is analized and called
"Knowledge Pathology (Patologia do Saber)" by Hilton Japiassu (a great
brazilian philosopher) and in his book (below) is the explanation on how
this phenomenon can leads to Interdisciplinarity.

Japiassu, Hilton. Interdisciplinaridade e patologia do saber. Imago
Editora, 1976.



2015-01-22 13:58 GMT-02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

>  Dear Moises, Guy, Stan---and colleagues,
>
> I would not agree with the "silo" interpretation of scientific domains, at
> least that's not the way Rosenbloom and many others (myself included)
> understand them. See the reference mentioned below by Moises and my own 
> (Scientomics:
> An emergent perspective in knowledge organization. Pedro C. Marijuán,
> Raquel del Moral and Jorge Navarro. *Knowledge organization* 2012, 39
> (3), 153-164.) About the subsumption hierarchy that Stan introduces, in
> what extent is it a relevant trait? Compositionally, the main objects of
> those big sciences conform to it, but the disciplines themselves? I doubt.
> Besides, along that view a new form of reductionism creeps in: "everything
> from bit". Hierarchy between domains? Just a look at the background map of
> the sciences in the figure below, empirically obtained from citations,
> shows an amazing dispersion and inter-penetration of disciplines between
> the four Great Domains. There appear hundreds of disciplines in the figure
> but the overall tallying may escalate to several thousands (between 5,000
> and 10,000 depending on the criteria).
>
> An interesting question: Why do we create such an astonishing  number of
> disciplines? Methodologically it is unclear that the creation, growth and
> stagnation of disciplines respond to single logic criteria. Rather, we have
> suggested a massive "social" communication between disciplines that
> conduces to "recombination phenomena" of knowledge bodies among them. For
> instance, influential bodies such as Euclidian geometry, Newtonian
> mechanics, differential equations, genetics, and so on (and a multitude of
> other minor modules), would have generated the history of sciences, not
> only “developmentally” inside their own fields, but even more
> “combinatorially”, propelling the multidisciplinary evolution and
> cross-fertilization among scientific disciplines.
>
> In the main track of the current discussion (It was nice hearing from
> Koichiro!) we are establishing the boundaries or interfaces between the
> nuclear information science and thermodynamics, but the relationship with
> physics is far more complex, as we must establish the interfaces with
> quantum information, physics of self-organization and emergence, and with
> cosmological information too. It is impossible to mix together all these
> discussions (as Terry remarked a few days ago concerning the relationships
> with quantum information). In the extent  to which  some of these
> particular discussions become particularly fertile, new fields will emerge
> within the overlap of physics and information domains.
>
> Some comments in Rosenbloom's book on the relationship between information
> and computing are quite interesting for this discussion and for
> interlocking with the main discussion track... but this message is becoming
> too long.
>
> All the best--Pedro
>
>
>
> Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote:
>
> Hi Guy.
> It seams that you sent your message only to me :-)
> I am forwarding now to FIS
> By the way, "Domain Analisys" as in Knowledge Organization (Hjørland,
> Birger. "Domain analysis in information science: eleven
> approaches–traditional as well as innovative." Journal of documentation
> 58.4 (2002): 422-462.) is also a good approach.
>  Best
>  Moises
>
>
> 2015-01-21 18:24 GMT-02:00 Guy A Hoelzer :
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>  “Domain” implies a kind of silo to me.  Information science is emerging
>> with intensive interaction among people in a relatively small community of
>> colleagues, which is indeed silo-like even though we generally see it as a
>> deep layer of scientific inquiry that can unite traditional domains.  In
>> other words, at least some of us would like to see information science
>> ultimately achieve recognition as an higher order scientific enterprise
>> within which (all?) scientific domains are embedded.  This hierarchical
>> view is nicely captured with Stan’s subsumptive hierarchy scheme:
>>
>>  {information science {physics {chemistry {biology {social sciences}
>>
>>  Of course, this view also suggests that the scientific disciplines
>> within information science are not, or should not be, domains, either.  As
>> an evolutionary biologist myself, that is exactly the way I think about
>> it.  I would not say that biology exists outside of chemistry or physics,
>> and I see the social sciences as specialized sub-disciplines of biology.
>> The ‘domains of science’

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

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Moises, Guy, Stan---and colleagues,

I would not agree with the "silo" interpretation of scientific domains, 
at least that's not the way Rosenbloom and many others (myself included) 
understand them. See the reference mentioned below by Moises and my own 
(Scientomics: An emergent perspective in knowledge organization. Pedro 
C. Marijuán, Raquel del Moral and Jorge Navarro. /Knowledge 
organization/ 2012, 39 (3), 153-164.) About the subsumption hierarchy 
that Stan introduces, in what extent is it a relevant trait? 
Compositionally, the main objects of those big sciences conform to it, 
but the disciplines themselves? I doubt. Besides, along that view a new 
form of reductionism creeps in: "everything from bit". Hierarchy between 
domains? Just a look at the background map of the sciences in the figure 
below, empirically obtained from citations, shows an amazing dispersion 
and inter-penetration of disciplines between the four Great Domains. 
There appear hundreds of disciplines in the figure but the overall 
tallying may escalate to several thousands (between 5,000 and 10,000 
depending on the criteria).


An interesting question: Why do we create such an astonishing  number of 
disciplines? Methodologically it is unclear that the creation, growth 
and stagnation of disciplines respond to single logic criteria. Rather, 
we have suggested a massive "social" communication between disciplines 
that conduces to "recombination phenomena" of knowledge bodies among 
them. For instance, influential bodies such as Euclidian geometry, 
Newtonian mechanics, differential equations, genetics, and so on (and a 
multitude of other minor modules), would have generated the history of 
sciences, not only “developmentally” inside their own fields, but even 
more “combinatorially”, propelling the multidisciplinary evolution and 
cross-fertilization among scientific disciplines.


In the main track of the current discussion (It was nice hearing from 
Koichiro!) we are establishing the boundaries or interfaces between the 
nuclear information science and thermodynamics, but the relationship 
with physics is far more complex, as we must establish the interfaces 
with quantum information, physics of self-organization and emergence, 
and with cosmological information too. It is impossible to mix together 
all these discussions (as Terry remarked a few days ago concerning the 
relationships with quantum information). In the extent  to which  some 
of these particular discussions become particularly fertile, new fields 
will emerge within the overlap of physics and information domains.


Some comments in Rosenbloom's book on the relationship between 
information and computing are quite interesting for this discussion and 
for interlocking with the main discussion track... but this message is 
becoming too long.


All the best--Pedro


Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote:

Hi Guy.
It seams that you sent your message only to me :-)
I am forwarding now to FIS
By the way, "Domain Analisys" as in Knowledge Organization (Hjørland, 
Birger. "Domain analysis in information science: eleven 
approaches–traditional as well as innovative." Journal of 
documentation 58.4 (2002): 422-462.) is also a good approach.

Best
Moises


2015-01-21 18:24 GMT-02:00 Guy A Hoelzer >:


Hi All,

“Domain” implies a kind of silo to me.  Information science is
emerging with intensive interaction among people in a relatively
small community of colleagues, which is indeed silo-like even
though we generally see it as a deep layer of scientific inquiry
that can unite traditional domains.  In other words, at least some
of us would like to see information science ultimately achieve
recognition as an higher order scientific enterprise within which
(all?) scientific domains are embedded.  This hierarchical view is
nicely captured with Stan’s subsumptive hierarchy scheme:

{information science {physics {chemistry {biology {social
sciences}

Of course, this view also suggests that the scientific disciplines
within information science are not, or should not be, domains,
either.  As an evolutionary biologist myself, that is exactly the
way I think about it.  I would not say that biology exists outside
of chemistry or physics, and I see the social sciences as
specialized sub-disciplines of biology.  The ‘domains of science’
illustration reveals a degree of isolation between the traditional
disciplines, but I think those boundaries are breaking down over
time and information science could help to speed up the
integration among disciplines.  I, for one, think that would
represent scientific progress.

Cheers,

Guy

Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nevada Reno

Phone:  775-784-4860 
Fax:  775-784-1302 
hoel...@unr.edu 


On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:56 AM, Moisés André N

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

[Moisés André Nisenbaum]

Hi Guy.
It seams that you sent your message only to me :-)
I am forwarding now to FIS
By the way, "Domain Analisys" as in Knowledge Organization (Hjørland,
Birger. "Domain analysis in information science: eleven
approaches–traditional as well as innovative." Journal of documentation
58.4 (2002): 422-462.) is also a good approach.
Best
Moises


2015-01-21 18:24 GMT-02:00 Guy A Hoelzer :

>  Hi All,
>
>  “Domain” implies a kind of silo to me.  Information science is emerging
> with intensive interaction among people in a relatively small community of
> colleagues, which is indeed silo-like even though we generally see it as a
> deep layer of scientific inquiry that can unite traditional domains.  In
> other words, at least some of us would like to see information science
> ultimately achieve recognition as an higher order scientific enterprise
> within which (all?) scientific domains are embedded.  This hierarchical
> view is nicely captured with Stan’s subsumptive hierarchy scheme:
>
>  {information science {physics {chemistry {biology {social sciences}
>
>  Of course, this view also suggests that the scientific disciplines
> within information science are not, or should not be, domains, either.  As
> an evolutionary biologist myself, that is exactly the way I think about
> it.  I would not say that biology exists outside of chemistry or physics,
> and I see the social sciences as specialized sub-disciplines of biology.
> The ‘domains of science’ illustration reveals a degree of isolation between
> the traditional disciplines, but I think those boundaries are breaking down
> over time and information science could help to speed up the integration
> among disciplines.  I, for one, think that would represent scientific
> progress.
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  Guy
>
> Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
> Department of Biology
> University of Nevada Reno
>
> Phone:  775-784-4860
> Fax:  775-784-1302
> hoel...@unr.edu
>
>  On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:56 AM, Moisés André Nisenbaum <
> moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br> wrote:
>
>  Pedro, this image is strongly related to my research.
> My graduation and master degree was in Physics. But now I am in IS world
> through PhD program of IBICT/UFRJ in Brazil.
> As you, Jorge and Raquel said (Navarro, Moral, Marijuan, 2013), IS is
> about to become one of four great scientific domains. Don't you think that
> one of the greatest reasons of it is the (big) interdisciplinar nature of
> IS? (Saracevic, 1995). Interdisciplinarity is in IS's "DNA" :-)
> I am investigating some aspects of interdisciplinarity between IS and
> Natural Sciences (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) (inspired by Capurros's
> work http://www.capurro.de/infoconcept.html).
> Some questions of this research are: 1) why (or how) a natural scientist
> enters in IS world? What are their motivations?; 2) how strong this
> interdisciplinarity is? (inspired by Loet's works on the theme - for
> example, Leydesdorff, Rafols (2011)); 4) How the physical concepts of
> information are present in IS articles.
> I believe that inside FIS I will find many answers to my questions. By
> observation of Scientific Communication and Bibliometrics and of course, if
> I have the opportunity, by interviewing the members of FIS :-)
> I can say that in only few weeks of FIS I already have learned a lot :-)
> Best,
> Moises.
>
>
>  Navarro, J.; Moral, R; Marijuan, P; Uprising of the Informational:
> Towards a New Way of Thinking In Information Science. Proceedings of the
> 1st International Conference on Philosophy of Information, Xi'an (2013)
> Saracevic, Tefko. "Interdisciplinary nature of information science."
> Ciência da informação 24.1 (1995): 36-41.
>  Leydesdorff, Loet, and Ismael Rafols. "Indicators of the
> interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations."
> Journal of Informetrics 5.1 (2011): 87-100.
>
>
> 2015-01-19 10:19 GMT-02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :
>
>>  Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the
>> image again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of
>> the philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference,
>> 2013). best ---Pedro
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0
>>
>>
>>
>> **
>>
>> *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the
>> network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen *et
>> al*., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents the
>> four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and
>> informational.
>>
>>
>>
>> Moisés André Nisenbaum 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
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> -
>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
>> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de A

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

[Moisés André Nisenbaum]

Pedro, this image is strongly related to my research.
My graduation and master degree was in Physics. But now I am in IS world
through PhD program of IBICT/UFRJ in Brazil.
As you, Jorge and Raquel said (Navarro, Moral, Marijuan, 2013), IS is about
to become one of four great scientific domains. Don't you think that one of
the greatest reasons of it is the (big) interdisciplinar nature of IS?
(Saracevic, 1995). Interdisciplinarity is in IS's "DNA" :-)
I am investigating some aspects of interdisciplinarity between IS and
Natural Sciences (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) (inspired by Capurros's
work http://www.capurro.de/infoconcept.html).
Some questions of this research are: 1) why (or how) a natural scientist
enters in IS world? What are their motivations?; 2) how strong this
interdisciplinarity is? (inspired by Loet's works on the theme - for
example, Leydesdorff, Rafols (2011)); 4) How the physical concepts of
information are present in IS articles.
I believe that inside FIS I will find many answers to my questions. By
observation of Scientific Communication and Bibliometrics and of course, if
I have the opportunity, by interviewing the members of FIS :-)
I can say that in only few weeks of FIS I already have learned a lot :-)
Best,
Moises.


Navarro, J.; Moral, R; Marijuan, P; Uprising of the Informational: Towards
a New Way of Thinking In Information Science. Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Philosophy of Information, Xi'an (2013)
Saracevic, Tefko. "Interdisciplinary nature of information science."
Ciência da informação 24.1 (1995): 36-41.
Leydesdorff, Loet, and Ismael Rafols. "Indicators of the
interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations."
Journal of Informetrics 5.1 (2011): 87-100.


2015-01-19 10:19 GMT-02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

>  Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image
> again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the
> philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference,
> 2013). best ---Pedro
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0
>
>
>
>  *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the
> network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen *et
> al*., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents the
> four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and
> informational.
>
>
>
> Moisés André Nisenbaum 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
>
>
>
> --
> -
> 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/
> -
>
>


-- 
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

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

[Terrence W. DEACON]

... in 3-space perhaps a tetrahedron instead of a 4-leaf clover, such
that each of the 4 academic domains were more equidistant from one
another.

On 1/19/15, Terrence W. DEACON  wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> Thanks for sharing this beautiful and instructive image. I wonder if
> it should actually be more accurate as a higher dimensional graph or
> if rather than ambiguous overlap if there is some degree of
> containment in these relationships.
>
> — Terry
>
> On 1/19/15, Pedro C. Marijuan  wrote:
>> Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image
>> again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the
>> philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference,
>> 2013). best ---Pedro
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0
>>
>>
>>
>> **
>>
>> *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the
>> network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen
>> /et al/., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents
>> the four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and
>> informational.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Moisés André Nisenbaum 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -
>> 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.i...@aragon.es
>> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>> -
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
> University of California, Berkeley
>


-- 
Professor Terrence W. Deacon
University of California, Berkeley

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

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

[Terrence W. DEACON]

Hi Pedro,

Thanks for sharing this beautiful and instructive image. I wonder if
it should actually be more accurate as a higher dimensional graph or
if rather than ambiguous overlap if there is some degree of
containment in these relationships.

— Terry

On 1/19/15, Pedro C. Marijuan  wrote:
> Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image
> again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the
> philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference,
> 2013). best ---Pedro
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0
>
>
>
> **
>
> *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the
> network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen
> /et al/., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents
> the four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and
> informational.
>
>
>
>
> Moisés André Nisenbaum 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
>>
>
>
> --
> -
> 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.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
>


-- 
Professor Terrence W. Deacon
University of California, Berkeley

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

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

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image 
again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the 
philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference, 
2013). best ---Pedro


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0



**

*Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the 
network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen 
/et al/., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents 
the four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and 
informational.





Moisés André Nisenbaum 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




--
-
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.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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

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

[Stanley N Salthe]

Jeremy -- It is no longer so easy to declare that the physicochemical realm
has no end-rirectednes.  There is a burgeoning viewpoint -- the maximizing
entropy production principle (MEPP) -- that proposes an end for all actions
and activities whatever.

In my version, it is the constitutively poor energy efficiency of any work
that gives us the hint that all actions serve first to further the
thermodynamic equilibration of the Universe.

Finalisms can be parsed, using a subsumptive hierarchy, as follows:

 {entropy production {free energy utilization {work {projects

on the template:

   {physical realm (chemical realm (biological realm (social realm

The Second Law of thermodynamics establishes the finality here, carried
molecularly by the least action principle.  At the levels of biology and
society these are weak forces compared to the need to survive and the
urgency of social projects. But these latter come and go, while the urge to
do anything-at-all is always pulling, even at rest (where in biology
healing takes place as well as brain reorganization).

I send references to you at your e-mail address.

STAN

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Jeremy Sherman <
mindreadersdiction...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 :
>>
>>> 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 &
>>>   sig

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

[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 :
>
>> 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" 
>> To: "'fis'" 
>> 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 

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

[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 :

> 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" 
> To: "'fis'" 
> 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