The Transdisciplinary View of Information Theory from a Cybersemiotic Perspective

  • Søren Brier
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 34)


When looking at various information concepts, we discover that they have different theoretical foundations that are almost incommensurable, some in the exact sciences, some in the life sciences, some in the social sciences and some in the humanities. Especially those from the natural sciences attempt to be transdisciplinary and want to encompass the whole area in a sort of unified science without a concept of meaning. I argue that, in order to arrive at a transdisciplinary view of information, meaning, cognition and communication, it is necessary to go beyond the idea that the universe is a computer or even a quantum computer running on qubits. I argue that a pan-informational approach based on a pan-computational ontology, impedes a proper phenomenological theory of quale consciousness and meaningful interpretation. The opposite pole is that of the semiotic and hermenutical paradigms that are based on interpretation, signification and meaning, but with no concepts of objective information. One way of overcoming the incommensurability between paradigms and knowledge areas with different foundations is to produce transdisciplinary frameworks where interdisciplinary connections are made possible by a meta-reframing, where signs, meaning and interpretation are the foundational concepts within which information concepts have to function. I argue that C.S. Peirce’s phenomenological, pragmaticist, triadic, and evolutionary concept of semiosis creates a new paradigmatic transdisciplinary framework within which a redefined cybernetic information concept can fit as an important aspect. Cybersemiotics constructs a non-reductionist framework in order to integrate third person knowledge from the exact sciences and the life sciences with first person knowledge described as the qualities of feeling in humanities and second person intersubjective knowledge of the communicative interactions, partly linguistic, on which the social and cultural aspects of reality are based.


Turing Machine Information Concept Autopoietic System Psychic System Quantum Turing Machine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I would like to thank Paul Cobley for his thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript and the language improvements he made, Winfried Nöth for letting me discuss a draft of his insightful paper on Peirce’s information concept, which was very instrumental to the content and conclusion of this chapter, and, finally, the editors for improving the precision of my expression.


  1. Ball, P. 2012. The unavoidable cost of computation revealed: Physicists have proved that forgetting is the undoing of Maxwell’s demon. Nature, News. Accessed 7 Mar 2012.
  2. Bar-Hillel, Y. 1964. Language and information. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Bar-Hillel, Y., and R. Carnap. 1953. Semantic information. In Communication theory, ed. W. Jackson, 503–512. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  4. Barrow, J.D., P.C.W. Davies, and C. Harper Jr. (eds.). 2004. Science and ultimate reality. Quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, G. 1973. Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Paladin.Google Scholar
  6. Bateson, G. 1980. Mind and nature: A necessary unit. Toronto: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, R.A. 1997/1975. A realist theory of science. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  8. Bhaskar, R.A. 1998/1979. The possibility of naturalism, 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Brier, S. 1992a. A philosophy of science perspective – on the idea of a unifying information science. In Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives, ed. P. Vakkari and B. Cronin, 97–108. London: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar
  10. Brier, S. 1992b. Information and consciousness: A critique of the mechanistic foundation of the concept of information. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 1(2/3): 71–94.Google Scholar
  11. Brier, S. 2007. Applying Luhmann’s system theory as part of a transdisciplinary frame for communication science. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 14(2–3): 29–65.Google Scholar
  12. Brier, S. 2008. Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough, Toronto studies in semiotics and communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brier, S. 2009a. Cybersemiotic pragmaticism and constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 5(1): 19–38.Google Scholar
  14. Brier, S. 2009b. Levels of cybersemiotics: Possible ontologies of signification. Cognitive Semiotics 4: 8–62.Google Scholar
  15. Brier, S. 2010a. Chapter 1: Cybersemiotics and the question of knowledge. In Information and computation, ed. G. Dodig-Crnkovic and M. Burgin. World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  16. Brier, S. 2010b. Cybersemiotics: An evolutionary world view going beyond entropy and information into the question of meaning. Entropy 12(8): 1902–1920. Accessed 2 July 2013.
  17. Brier, S. 2011. Cybersemiotics and the question of knowledge. In Information and computation, ed. G. Dodig-Crnkovic and M. Burgin, 1–36. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  18. Brier, S. 2013. Cybersemiotics: A new foundation for transdisciplinary theory of consciousness, cognition, meaning and communication. In Origins of mind, ed. L. Swan.: 97–126. Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Brier, S., and C. Joslyn. 2013a. Introduction to the special issue. Biosemiotics 6(1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brier, S., and C. Joslyn. 2013b. What does it take to produce interpretation? Informational, Peircean, and code-semiotic views on biosemiotics. Biosemiotics 6(1): 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chaitin, G. 2010. Mathematics as a biological process. In Information and computation, ed. G. Dodig-Crnkovic and M. Burgin, 79–88. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
  23. Cowley, Stephen J., Joäo C. Major, Sune V. Steffensen, and Alfredo Dinis. 2010. Signifying bodies, biosemiosis, interaction and health. Braga: The Faculty of Philosophy of Braga Portuguese Catholic University.Google Scholar
  24. Davies, P., and N.H. Gregersen (eds.). 2009. Information and the nature of reality: From physics to metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dennett, D. 1991. Consciousness explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  26. Dodig-Crnkovic, G. 2010. The cybersemiotics and info-computationalist research programmes as platforms for knowledge production in organisms and machines. Entropy 12(4): 878–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dodig-Crnkovic, G., and M. Burgin (eds.). 2010. Information and computation. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  28. Dretske, F.I. 1981. Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Emmeche, C. 1991. Modeling life: A note on the semiotics of emergence and computation in artificial and natural living systems. In The semiotic web 1991 (Approaches to semiotics), ed. Thomas A. Sebeok and Jean Umiker-Sebeok, 77–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. Emmeche, C. 2004. A-life, organism and body: the semiotics of emergent levels. In Workshop and tutorial proceedings. Ninth international conference on the simulation and synthesis of living systems (Alife IX), ed. M. Bedeau, P. Husbands, T. Hutton, S. Kumar, and Hi. Suzuki, 117–124. Boston, 12 Sept 2004.Google Scholar
  31. Fink, H. 2006. Three sorts of naturalism. European Journal of Philosophy 14(2): 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Floridi, L. 2004. Philosophy of computing and information. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Gadamer, H.-G. 2004. Truth and method, 2nd ed. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
  34. Habermas, J. 1987. Excursus on Luhmann’s appropriation of the philosophy of the subject through systems theory. In The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures, 368–385. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hofkirchner, W. (ed.). 1999. The quest for a unified theory of information: Proceedings of the second conference on the foundations of information science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Hofkirchner, W. 2010. Twenty questions about a unified theory of information: A short exploration into information from a complex systems view. Litchfield Park: Emergent Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Johansen, J.D. 1993. Dialogical semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kull, K., T. Deacon, C. Emmeche, J. Hoffemeyer, and F. Stjernfelt. 2009. Theses on biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a theoretical biology. Biological Theory 4(2): 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leydesdorff, L. 2007. Luhmann’s communication-theoretical specification of the ‘genomena’ of Husserl’s phenomenology. In Public space, power and communication, ed. E. Balsemão Pires, 233–243. Coimbra: Edições Afrontamento.Google Scholar
  40. Luhmann, N. 1990. Essays on self-reference. New York: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Luhmann, N. 1995. Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Machlup, F. 1983. Semantic quirks in studies of information. In The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages, ed. F. Machlup and U. Mansfield, 641–671. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. MacKay, D., and W. McCulloch. 1952. The limiting information capacity of a neuronal link. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 14: 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maturana, H.R. 1988a. Ontology of observing: The biological foundation of self consciousness and the physical domain of existence. In An in depth exploration of the thought of Humberto R. Maturana, William T. Powers, and Ernst von Glasersfeld. Felton: American Society of Cybernetics. 18–23 Oct 1988. A version of this paper, edited by Alfredo Ruiz, is available via WWW at:
  45. Maturana, H. 1988b. Reality: The search for objectivity, or the quest for a compelling argument. Irish Journal of Psychology 9(1): 25–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maturana, H., and F. Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. London: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maturana, H., and F. Varela. 1986. The tree of knowledge: Biological roots of human understanding. London: Shambhala Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. McCulloch, W.S., and W.H. Pitts. 1943. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 7: 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller, G.A. 1951. Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miller, G.A., and F.C. Frick. 1949. Statistical behavioristic and sequences of responses. Psychological Review 56: 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Monod, J. 1971. Chance and necessity: An essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  52. Nicolescu, B. 2002. Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. New York: State University of New York (SUNY) Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nöth, W. 2012. Charles S. Peirce’s theory of information: A theory of the growth of knowledge and of symbols. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 19(1–2): 137–161.Google Scholar
  54. Peirce, C.S. 1931–1958. The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [Intelex CD-ROM edition (1994), reproducing Vols. I–VI, C. Hartshorne, and P. Weiss, eds., 1931–1935; Vols. VII–VIII, A. W. Burks, ed., 1958.].Google Scholar
  55. Peirce, C.S. 1982–. Writings of C.S. Peirce: A chronological edition. Peirce edition project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Peirce, C.S. 1992. The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, (1867–1893), vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Peirce, C.S. 1998. The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (1893–1913), vol. 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Pickering, A. 2010. The cybernetic brain. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Popper, K.R. 1960. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  60. Popper, K.R. 1976. The myth of the framework. In The abduction of philosophy: Philosophy and the public good, 23–48. London: Open Court.Google Scholar
  61. Pusey, M.F., J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph. 2012. On the reality of the quantum state. Nature Physics 8: 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Qvortrup, L. 1993. The controversy over the concept of information: An overview and a selected bibliography. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 1(4): 3–26.Google Scholar
  63. Schrödinger, E. 1967. What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell and mind and matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Shannon, C., and W. Weaver. 1963/1948. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  65. Spencer-Brown, G. 1979. Laws of form. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  66. Teubner, G. 1997. Law as an autopoietic system. LSE Complexity Study Group, Meeting no 3. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  67. Thyssen, O. 2006. Epistemology as communication theory: A critique of Niklas Luhmann’s theory of the vanished world. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 13(2): 7–24.Google Scholar
  68. von Foerster, H. 1984. Observing systems, The systems inquiry series. Seaside: Intersystems Publications.Google Scholar
  69. Wheeler, J.A. 1994. At home in the universe. New York: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  70. Wheeler, J.A. 1998. Geons, black holes & quantum foam: A life in physics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  71. Wilson, E.O. 1999. Consilience. The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage Books, division of Random House, Inc.Google Scholar
  72. Wiener, N. 1965/1948. Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine, 2nd ed. New York: The MIT Press/Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International Business CommunicationCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations