After Thomas Sebeok’s global semiotics proposal in the 1970s, an attempt was made to move beyond anthroposemiotics to zoosemiotics and phytosemiotics under the umbrella of all-encompassing biosemiotics. Subsequently, semiotics became a candidate for a transdisciplinary base of science and humanities. However, the efforts of semioticians to explain the nature of living systems from the standpoint of sign-production/reproduction have demonstrated that a systemic, biological, cybernetic, and informational approach was needed for explaining the meaning-making process inside organisms. The integrative visions revealed similarities among various perspectives and complementarities among investigative domains. Accordingly, these variations identified at the very bottom of each approach resulted in a complex task of theoretical integration. In uncovering these commonalities, I will place my focus on communication processes that associate cybernetics with semiotics in a unified discipline of cybersemiotics while considering some aspects of biosemiotics, first and second-order cybernetics, Charles S. Peirce’s pragmaticist semiotics, and information theory. This paper aims to overcome the problem of defining the limits and boundaries of communication studies as an academic discipline by including physical, biological, and social phenomena into the research domains of cybersemiotics, a transdisciplinary theory of communication, signification, information, and cognition proposed by Søren Brier some decades ago.