Following upon Søren: Meaning is derived for a system by way of Interpretation. The transmitted information has no meaning without interpretation.
STAN On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier <sbr....@cbs.dk> wrote: > Dear Xueshan > > > > The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass > information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such > a paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory > with it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here: > > https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b51 > 3bfbe2.pdf > > > > Cordially yours > > > > Søren Brier > > > > Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 > (2VO25), 2000 Frederiksberg > > Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc , cybersemiotics.com. > > > > > > > > *Fra:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *På vegne af *Xueshan Yan > *Sendt:* 26. februar 2018 10:47 > *Til:* FIS Group <firstname.lastname@example.org> > *Emne:* [Fis] A Paradox > > > > Dear colleagues, > > In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the > following inference, I call it *Paradox of Meaning and Information* or > *Armenia > Paradox*. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below > and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. > > > > Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main > media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two > students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper > headline “*Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night*”: > > Q: What is the *MEANING* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Q: What is the *INFORMATION* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Thus we come to the conclusion that *MEANING is equal to INFORMATION*, or > strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In > Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In > Information Science, the study of human information is called Human > Informatics. > > Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of > human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or > Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human > language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions > here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. > > Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its > main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one > of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with > the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, > thus we have the following corollary: > > A: *Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics*. > > According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle > for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human > Informatics, so we have another corollary: > > B: *Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics*. > > Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a > paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement > about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a > subject, but how should we understand this paradox? > > > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis