Re: [Fis] about fis discussions (2)
Dear Colleagues: I think Pedro's initiative to redirect the discussion is excellent. With time, I started to get impression that because Information Science is so young, our discussions started to remind a puppy which from time to time is noticing its tail and comes back to the eternal chase. The tail is of course the meaning of information. I do not say that it is not an important question to ask. My last seven years was devoted to this question, and I have developed my own answer to it, which due to unfortunate circumstances I did not have opportunity to present in Paris two years ago, but which has been presented in the proceedings. Well, to be honest I do believe that my answer is better than those of others, but I am not so naive to expect that everyone has to share my conviction. Yes, I am little bit annoyed by repeated reference to the definitions which in my opinion have at least formal flaws (reduction of uncertainty,) or which are catchy phrases used or abused by those who read the glossary to Bateson's book, but did not bother to read the text (Bateson had much more to say than information is a difference that makes a difference, whether someone agrees with him or not; I don't.) But, while many of us labor on the meaning of information, it would be a very big mistake to focus attention only on the definition of information. Let's look at the example of the concept of culture, another fundamental concept which belongs to the core of anthropology and several other disciplines. Starting from Taylor in the nineteenth century there was a continuing discussion of its meaning. In the middle of the twentieth century Kroeber and Kluckhohn made a review and summary of more than 160 different definitions of culture, and then gave their own. After them the discussion continued (at some point I have made my own contribution) and the last major effort in this direction known to me consisted of a special issue of Current Anthropology from 1999 Culture - Second Chance? But Anthropology would have never developed into the mature discipline if anthropologists would focus exclusively on the meaning of the concept of culture. The discipline has to live its own life with occassional injection of new thoughts about the meaning of its basic concepts, and it is natural that there are different ways people conceptualize their disciplines. Thus, I believe we should consider the question as important, as a source of inspiration, but we have to do more about establishing the discipline of Information Science. It is definitely a non-trivial task, more difficult than in other domains. The problem starts from the name. There are at least two (other) disciplines to which the name Information Science applies. Here in Japan (but also in other parts of the world), Information Science is most commonly understood as another name for Computer Science. In Japan, even Information Theory is not considered part of Information Science, at least for the officials in the Ministry of Education. It is Computer Science, that's it. Information Science is also frequently understood as a new name for Library Science (try Google for Information Science; first five million entries are about Library Science.) So, if we want to build a discipline which would go way above these (valuable and important as they are) disciplines of inquiry in its generality, we have to propagate knowledge about information across the multitude of disciplines where it manifests. And the best way to propagate this broad meaning of Information Science is to establish its place in the undergraduate curriculum, especially of Liberal Arts type. I have presented this idea before, for instance in a paper archived on the d-list (dlist.sir.arizona.edu/712/) or at the panel discussion in Paris (at the time of this discussion I had very high fever about 40 degree Celsius, so I really do not remember much what I have said there, but I believe it was about education.) Thus, I will not elaborate on the issue why Information Science is a great chance for curriculum development. But I would like to reiterate, that the best way to develop and promote Information Science as it is understood by FIS-ers, is to work on developing teaching materials and syllabi for courses teaching it. Finally, my postulate is: Why don't we discuss the issue how can we present to a student, university administrator, or just a passanger sitting next to you on the plane what is Information Science. Next, why don't we join our efforts to develop several alternative syllabi for the course: Information Science 200? With kind regards, Marcin Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D. Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs Akita International University Akita, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education
Dear Colleagues: There are some questions which periodically return to FIS discussions without conclusive answers. For instance: What is information? However, the lack of consensus regarding central concept is not an obstacle in the development of Information Science. There is no commonly accepted answer to the question What is life? But, this does not threaten the identity of Biology. Information Science has not yet achieved a status of a commonly recognized discipline. It is frequently confused with Computer Science, because of the term Informatics which in Europe denotes what in the US is called Computing, or with Library Science and sometimes even with Philosophy of Information, as visible from the Handbook on the Philosophy of Information http://www.illc.uva.nl/HPI/ where philosophy and science interleave on many levels. Information Science will never receive recognition without an organized effort of research community to introduce its philosophy, goals, methods, and achievements to the general audience. Books and articles popularizing the theme of information as a subject of independent study do not have big enough circulation to be sufficient in establishing an identity of the discipline. The only effective way is to introduce Information Science as a subject of education at the college level for students who do not necessarily want to specialize in this direction. Certainly, introduction of a new subject to curriculum is not easy, but it is possible. After all, Information Science is a perfect tool for integration of curriculum, especially in the context of Liberal Arts education. Which other concept, if not information, can be applied in all possible contexts of education? Now, the question is whether we are ready to come out with a syllabus for such a course acceptable for all of us, those who are involved in the subject, and those who aren't, but participate in the development of curricula. Can we overcome differences between our views on the definition of information, on the relationship of information understood in a general way to its particular manifestations in other disciplines? Since the course (or courses) should present an identity of the discipline of Information Science, it is very important that we are convinced about the authentic existence of a large enough common ground. Can we develop a map of this territory? Can we pool resources to establish foundations for a standard, Information Science curriculum? Marcin and Gordana Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D. Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs Akita International University Akita, Japan m...@aiu.ac.jp Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Associate Professor Head of the Computer Science and Networks Department School of Innovation, Design and Engineering Mälardalen University Sweden http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ Organizer of the Symposium on Natural/Unconventional Computing, the Turing Centenary World Congress of AISB/IACAP https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012 ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education
Dear all, I teach every year (this fall fourth time) a general education course Information Science for freshmen and sophomores which has as its main objective to present not an existing discipline, but a potential unified approach to study complex issues related to globalization. Globalization is a leitmotif of the curriculum at our university. I am trying to show that the concept of information, although not very clearly defined yet, can be useful in dealing with several fundamental problems for the future of humanity. I am giving short and very general expositions of topics such as, language and other forms of communication, telecommunication, cryptography, genetics, life and organism, computation. Then we are trying to identify what makes the mechanisms involved similar, and the expected answer is information. I am referring to the five great metaphors in the history of Western Thought, which were used to model reality: Human organism (as microcosm to explain functioning of macrocosm in medieval interpretations of neoplatonism), mechanical clock, steam machine, telecommunication, computer. In each case, I am showing the presence of the intuitive concept of information. Finally, I am presenting analysis of global warming, pandemics, and other threats to humanity from the unified perspective of information. The biggest problem for me is to find materials for students which are not exceedingly detailed and difficult, but also not trivial. Do you have any suggestions? Regards, Marcin ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] FIS Season Greetings
Dear Pedro, Dear FIS Friends, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Marcin ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fw: [Fwd: SV: SV: The Travellers]
I am trying again to submit my message to the list. Marcin From: MARCIN Schroeder Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:22 AM To: Pedro C. Marijuan Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: SV: The Travellers] Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues, I do not contribute much to FIS discussions, but always read them with interest. I found recent contributions from Soeren very disturbing. Actually, I feel insulted by them. I understand that the rules adopted by FIS require academic code of conduct. Personal atacks, or even argumenta ad personam directed at any member of the list are degrading discussion to the level beneath dignity of the academic discourse. I would like to propose that we stick to the old academic rule to ignore all contributions which are directed not against some views, opinions, statements or works, but against the person associated with them. Regards, Marcin Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D. Professor Akita International University Akita, Japan m...@aiu.ac.jp From: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:54:53 +0900 To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: SV: The Travellers] (Herewith Soeren's response, again the server has stopped it (?) From my part, only saying that we are in polar opposites, so the difficulty --and interest-- of the exchanges. Anyone can interpret sentences in his own, but my intention was far from offending: knowledge exchanges are fun in themselves and should always be fun. OK, I suggest a future fis discussion session inviting some interesting semiotician --outside our circle-- so that a lively discussion might be maintained. best --Pedro) Original Messagenbs p; Subject: SV: SV: [Fis] The Travellers Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:38:24 +0100 From: Søren Brier sb@cbs.dk To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis@listas.unizar.es fis@listas.unizar.es References: 207c3aeedf3347258b028dd5f67f0...@hcc-mbx-2.local.ukzn.ac.za 201410270613.s9r6dbm7004...@ortiz.unizar.es CAEvKwyRr06Wg=fzkk+5Dq1Hf3z9=zrgb86dt06pr-43tv2t...@mail.gmail.com ca+nf4cx-m2aul891wg-qrm568tvnrjznneqk+pbcq+pbrry...@mail.gmail.com 5450ef85.2060...@aragon.es d98697a7796aed4589385cf99329a76c05c66be...@exchange01.hhk.dk 54523d16.4060...@aragon.es Dear Pedro Thank you for your answer. Reading it, I nbsp;am surprised that you are unable to see that you are the one starting this discussion with an arrogant tone. I certainly felt offended by your mail. Though I am originally a biologist I have come to teach philosophy of science interdisciplinary and do research in many different paradigms and learned to consciously reflect on paradigms and methodology and has had to live with the neglect of these aspect from people within classical educations and research traditions. But in Denmark it is now obligatory for all students to have ;a course in philosophy or theory of science. What I read out of you answer is, that you are so entranced in the received view of science (which I was originally educated in) that you do not consider yourself to be in any kind of paradigm or metaphysics and therefore do not have to make a conscious reflection and a comparison with the work in other paradigms, which is of cause an insult to us who have worked with these things for 30 years and who's work you seem to neglect. Neglecting is a muc h more powerful weapon than critique in nbsp;the world of science - actually the ultimate one -and then you can top it off by suggesting to leave those paradigms that has not had your interest anyway and you therefore do not have the proper knowledge of. I wonder what the non-insulting meaning of your sentence: Semiotics could be OK for the previous generation--something attuned to our scientific times is needed now. is for a biologist like me who has worked with semiotics for 25 years and being part of creating the association of biosemiotic studies, which now h as it yearly conference, a journal and a book series with Springer?? A status that FIS has not achieved yet. I have known you for a long time and in that period you have shown no interest in semiotics or commented on any papers and books in biosemiotics or on the relation between information and what so ever. My own book Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough is now out in paperback and Kindle and as a Google book . It has taken me more than 20 years to get a reasonable understanding of nbsp;Peirce's semiotic philosophy and why and how I think it offers a more comprehensive framework for transdisciplinary view of the natural, life, social and human sciences that is much more fruitful than info-computationalism. So I am a little impatient with people who discharge Peirce without having studying him properly. The same goes for Luhmann's systems theory. It is not unusual to see
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Information is a linguistic description of structures]--T...
Dear Howard:
I am afraid one of your examples is not really accurate historically:
"the most amazing metaphor of relationality available to us is not math,
it's not mechanism, and it's not reduction to "elements," it's
language. by using the metaphor of a form of language called "code,"
watson and crick were able to understand what a strand of dna does and
how. without language as metaphor, we'd still be in the dark about the
genome."
The idea how to pack huge amount of information in something as small as
chromosome came not from language, but from Schroedinger's concept of
aperiodic crystal in his book "What is Life?". Crick switched from his
candidacy in physics to biology after reading this book. He knew very
well what he was looking for together with Watson. And crystals,
periodic or not, do not have much common with language.
Regards,
Marcin
On 9/29/2015 2:39 PM, howlbl...@aol.com wrote:
re: it is likely to be problematic to use language as the paradigm
model for all communication--Terrence Deacon
Terry makes interesting points, but I think on this one, he may be
wrong. Guenther Witzany is on to something. our previous approaches
to information have been what Barbara Ehrenreich, in her introduction
to the upcoming paperback of my book The God Problem: How a Godless
Cosmos Creates, calls "a kind of unacknowledged necrophilia."
we've been using dead things to understand living things. aristotle
put us on that path when he told us that if we could break things down
to their "elements" and understand what he called the "laws" of those
elements, we'd understand everything. Newton took us farther down
that path when he said we could understand everything using the
metaphor of the "contrivance," the machine--the metaphor of
"mechanics" and of "mechanism."
Aristotle and Newton were wrong. Their ideas have had centuries to
pan out, and they've led to astonishing insights, but they've left us
blind to the relational aspect of things. utterly blind.
the most amazing metaphor of relationality available to us is not
math, it's not mechanism, and it's not reduction to "elements," it's
language. by using the metaphor of a form of language called "code,"
watson and crick were able to understand what a strand of dna does and
how. without language as metaphor, we'd still be in the dark about
the genome.
i'm convinced that by learning the relational secrets of the body of
work of a Shakespeare or a Goethe we could crack some of the secrets
we've been utterly unable to comprehend, from what makes the social
clots we call a galaxy's spiral arms (a phenomenon that astronomer
Greg Matloff, a Fellow of the British interplanetary Society, says
defies the laws of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics) to what makes
the difference between life and death.
in other words, it's time we confess in science just how little we
know about language, that we explore language's mysteries, and that we
use our discoveries as a crowbar to pry open the secrets of this
highly contextual, deeply relational, profoundly communicational cosmos.
with thanks for tolerating my opinions.
howard
Howard Bloom
Author of: /The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the
Forces of History/ ("mesmerizing"-/The Washington Post/),
/Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the
21st Century/ ("reassuring and sobering"-/The New Yorker)/,
/The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism/ ("A
tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent,
/The Atlantic/),
/The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates/ ("Bloom's argument
will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich),
/How I Accidentally Started the Sixties/ ("Wow! Whew! Wild!
Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and
/The Mohammed Code/ ("A terrifying book…the best book I've read on
Islam." David Swindle,/PJ Media/).
www.howardbloom.net
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University.
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space
Development Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad;
Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board
Member, The Darwin Project; Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab;
member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of
Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International
Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat
Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space Philosophy; Board
member and member of Board of Governors, National Space Society.
In a message dated 9/28/2015 11:47:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:
From Terry...
Original Message
Subject:Re: [Fis] Information is a linguistic description of
structures
Date: Sun,
