[Fis] Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference & significance

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20150116/b0d5e301/attachment.html>