Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov]

Thank you, Pedro!

That's an excellent idea. It is a bit long document (~130 pages with the
reference),
but reading it should be easy for such a skilled auditorium as FIS.
Moreover, many
of the issues will sound familiar.

With my best wishes for a wonderful Christmas time and a very happy and
successful New Year 2012!

Plamen]


On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:

> **
> Thanks a lot, Plamen. That very document --the White Paper-- could be an
> excellent starting text for a next discussion session in the list, on
> biological information & computation, to be chaired by inbiosa parties.
> Does it look a good idea?  best wishes
>
> ---Pedro
>
> Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov escribió:
>
> Thank you, Bruno, John, Walter, Pedro, Gordana & FIS,
>
>  I could not agree more with the said above. My only addendum to John’s
> argument to think about computation as "only one mode of information i.e.
> information AS cognitive process” is that computation should not be limited
> only to cognitive processes, but start earlier in biological development to
> and go all the way up to consciousness along the autopoietic tradition as
> shown in:
>
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/PriMate_PaTagOn/francisco-varela-a-calculus-for-selfreference-1707403
>
>  Bruno’s approach is also very interesting.
>
>  We just finished our White Paper, the outcome of an almost one year
> joint effort within the INBIOSA project with contributions of Koichiro
> Matsuno, Stanly Salthe, Marcin Schroeder and other colleagues, and I wish
> to ask Pedro if it were appropriate to distribute this document within the
> FIS circle as a discussion base about information and computation in
> biological context.
>
>  Best wishes,
>
>  Plamen
>
>  ___ ___ ___
>
> Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
> landline:   +49.30.38.10.11.25
> fax/ums:   +49.30.48.49.88.26.4
> mobile: +44.12.23.96.85.69
> email: pla...@simeio.org
> URL:  www.simeio.org
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> Hi John, Hi Fis-people
>>
>>
>>  On 11 Dec 2011, at 13:49, john.holg...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>>  Thanks Walter,
>>
>> A useful snapshot of PC (Philosophy of Computing). It reminds me that the
>> origin of the word 'computing'   is com-putare = to consider together,
>> suppose together, imagine together. This is surely what Steve Jobs was all
>> about. To reduce computation to algorithmic calculation or even Turing
>> machines is as restrictive as limiting information to data and documents,
>> messages and codes. After thirty years of phronesis wrestling with data
>> documents and computers it would be nice to know what computation and
>> information mean.
>>
>>
>>  It might be restrictive at the epistemological level, but not
>> necessarily at the ontological level. All mathematical notions, like
>> infinities, sets, provability, definability, etc. can be diagonalized
>> again. They cannot have a universal representation. But computability and
>> computations are immune to diagonalization. This makes it the concept the
>> most explanatively closed we have ever found. I think. This gives a
>> conceptual deep argument in favor of Church thesis, and it leads also to
>> the notion of universal machines.
>>
>>  Those machines can not only compute the same class of all (partial or
>> total) computable functions, but can all simulate each other, computing
>> those functions in all possible different ways.
>> Actually, an interesting and vast class of universal machines (those who
>> knows, in some technical sense, that they are universal) can defeat any
>> theory concerning their own behavior (they can practice diagonalization),
>> making their epistemologies beyond any normative or effectively complete
>> theory. It makes computationalism (the doctrine that there exists a level
>> where we are Turing emulable) a vaccine against reductionist conception of
>> machine (and man).
>>
>>  I am Bruno Marchal, mathematician, and I met Pedro and Plamen in Paris
>> some month ago. Although I am agnostic on the truth of the computationalist
>> hypothesis in the cognitive science, I am interested to study the mind body
>> problem in that frame. With the computationalist hypothesis, computer
>> science and mathematical logic becomes handy tools for formulating deep
>> questions.
>>
>>  In fact I have a deductive argument that computationalism and weak
>> materialism (there exist an ontologically primary physical universe) are
>> incompatible. I have shown that computationalism reduces (in my french PhD
>> thesis in computer science) the mind body problem into a body appearance
>> (to universal numbers) problem in number theory.
>>
>>  Physics would not be the fundamental science, and we might have to
>> backtrack to Plato, or even Pythagorus' conception of reality. Physical
>> reality becomes somehow the border of a universal mind (the possible
>> universal machine dreams, or the effective set of all computations seen
>> from insid

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Thanks a lot, Plamen. That very document --the White Paper-- could be an 
excellent starting text for a next discussion session in the list, on 
biological information & computation, to be chaired by inbiosa parties. 
Does it look a good idea?  best wishes


---Pedro

Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov escribió:

Thank you, Bruno, John, Walter, Pedro, Gordana & FIS,

I could not agree more with the said above. My only addendum to John’s 
argument to think about computation as "only one mode of information 
i.e. information AS cognitive process” is that computation should not 
be limited only to cognitive processes, but start earlier in 
biological development to and go all the way up to consciousness along 
the autopoietic tradition as shown in:


http://www.slideshare.net/PriMate_PaTagOn/francisco-varela-a-calculus-for-selfreference-1707403

Bruno’s approach is also very interesting.

We just finished our White Paper, the outcome of an almost one year 
joint effort within the INBIOSA project with contributions of Koichiro 
Matsuno, Stanly Salthe, Marcin Schroeder and other colleagues, and I 
wish to ask Pedro if it were appropriate to distribute this document 
within the FIS circle as a discussion base about information and 
computation in biological context. 


Best wishes,

Plamen

___ ___ ___

Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
landline:   +49.30.38.10.11.25
fax/ums:   +49.30.48.49.88.26.4
mobile: +44.12.23.96.85.69
email: pla...@simeio.org 
URL:  www.simeio.org 

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote:


Hi John, Hi Fis-people


On 11 Dec 2011, at 13:49, john.holg...@ozemail.com.au
 wrote:


Thanks Walter,

A useful snapshot of PC (Philosophy of Computing). It reminds me
that the origin of the word 'computing'   is com-putare = to
consider together, suppose together, imagine together. This is
surely what Steve Jobs was all about. To reduce computation to
algorithmic calculation or even Turing machines is as restrictive
as limiting information to data and documents, messages and
codes. After thirty years of phronesis wrestling with data
documents and computers it would be nice to know what computation
and information mean.


It might be restrictive at the epistemological level, but not
necessarily at the ontological level. All mathematical notions,
like infinities, sets, provability, definability, etc. can be
diagonalized again. They cannot have a universal representation.
But computability and computations are immune to diagonalization.
This makes it the concept the most explanatively closed we have
ever found. I think. This gives a conceptual deep argument in
favor of Church thesis, and it leads also to the notion of
universal machines.

Those machines can not only compute the same class of all (partial
or total) computable functions, but can all simulate each other,
computing those functions in all possible different ways.
Actually, an interesting and vast class of universal machines
(those who knows, in some technical sense, that they are
universal) can defeat any theory concerning their own behavior
(they can practice diagonalization), making their epistemologies
beyond any normative or effectively complete theory. It makes
computationalism (the doctrine that there exists a level where we
are Turing emulable) a vaccine against reductionist conception of
machine (and man).

I am Bruno Marchal, mathematician, and I met Pedro and Plamen in
Paris some month ago. Although I am agnostic on the truth of the
computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science, I am
interested to study the mind body problem in that frame. With the
computationalist hypothesis, computer science and mathematical
logic becomes handy tools for formulating deep questions.

In fact I have a deductive argument that computationalism and weak
materialism (there exist an ontologically primary physical
universe) are incompatible. I have shown that computationalism
reduces (in my french PhD thesis in computer science) the mind
body problem into a body appearance (to universal numbers) problem
in number theory. 


Physics would not be the fundamental science, and we might have to
backtrack to Plato, or even Pythagorus' conception of reality.
Physical reality becomes somehow the border of a universal mind
(the possible universal machine dreams, or the effective set of
all computations seen from inside. The "seen from inside" can be
defined from the modal logic of self-reference, which exploits
that immunity for diagonalization, and the fact that machines can
be "aware" of that fact. 


The following two papers sum up the main results and questions
needed to solve to proceed:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~mar

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov]

Thank you, Bruno, John, Walter, Pedro, Gordana & FIS,

I could not agree more with the said above. My only addendum to John’s
argument to think about computation as "only one mode of information i.e.
information AS cognitive process” is that computation should not be limited
only to cognitive processes, but start earlier in biological development to
and go all the way up to consciousness along the autopoietic tradition as
shown in:

http://www.slideshare.net/PriMate_PaTagOn/francisco-varela-a-calculus-for-selfreference-1707403

Bruno’s approach is also very interesting.

We just finished our White Paper, the outcome of an almost one year joint
effort within the INBIOSA project with contributions of Koichiro Matsuno,
Stanly Salthe, Marcin Schroeder and other colleagues, and I wish to ask
Pedro if it were appropriate to distribute this document within the FIS
circle as a discussion base about information and computation in biological
context.

Best wishes,

Plamen

___ ___ ___

Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
landline:   +49.30.38.10.11.25
fax/ums:   +49.30.48.49.88.26.4
mobile: +44.12.23.96.85.69
email: pla...@simeio.org
URL:  www.simeio.org

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hi John, Hi Fis-people
>
>
> On 11 Dec 2011, at 13:49, john.holg...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> Thanks Walter,
>
> A useful snapshot of PC (Philosophy of Computing). It reminds me that the
> origin of the word 'computing'   is com-putare = to consider together,
> suppose together, imagine together. This is surely what Steve Jobs was all
> about. To reduce computation to algorithmic calculation or even Turing
> machines is as restrictive as limiting information to data and documents,
> messages and codes. After thirty years of phronesis wrestling with data
> documents and computers it would be nice to know what computation and
> information mean.
>
>
> It might be restrictive at the epistemological level, but not necessarily
> at the ontological level. All mathematical notions, like infinities, sets,
> provability, definability, etc. can be diagonalized again. They cannot have
> a universal representation. But computability and computations are immune
> to diagonalization. This makes it the concept the most explanatively closed
> we have ever found. I think. This gives a conceptual deep argument in favor
> of Church thesis, and it leads also to the notion of universal machines.
>
> Those machines can not only compute the same class of all (partial or
> total) computable functions, but can all simulate each other, computing
> those functions in all possible different ways.
> Actually, an interesting and vast class of universal machines (those who
> knows, in some technical sense, that they are universal) can defeat any
> theory concerning their own behavior (they can practice diagonalization),
> making their epistemologies beyond any normative or effectively complete
> theory. It makes computationalism (the doctrine that there exists a level
> where we are Turing emulable) a vaccine against reductionist conception of
> machine (and man).
>
> I am Bruno Marchal, mathematician, and I met Pedro and Plamen in Paris
> some month ago. Although I am agnostic on the truth of the computationalist
> hypothesis in the cognitive science, I am interested to study the mind body
> problem in that frame. With the computationalist hypothesis, computer
> science and mathematical logic becomes handy tools for formulating deep
> questions.
>
> In fact I have a deductive argument that computationalism and weak
> materialism (there exist an ontologically primary physical universe) are
> incompatible. I have shown that computationalism reduces (in my french PhD
> thesis in computer science) the mind body problem into a body appearance
> (to universal numbers) problem in number theory.
>
> Physics would not be the fundamental science, and we might have to
> backtrack to Plato, or even Pythagorus' conception of reality. Physical
> reality becomes somehow the border of a universal mind (the possible
> universal machine dreams, or the effective set of all computations seen
> from inside. The "seen from inside" can be defined from the modal logic of
> self-reference, which exploits that immunity for diagonalization, and the
> fact that machines can be "aware" of that fact.
>
> The following two papers sum up the main results and questions needed to
> solve to proceed:
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf
>
> Unfortunately the longer version of those works are in french (they can be
> found from my URL below).
>
> This might perhaps put some light on the difficult question of what is
> information. Like infinite, and like almost all in-# notions, that notion
> might not have a definitive definition, especially *information* which
> walked from syntactic definitions (Shannon) to semantical one (knowledge).
>
>
>
> Computation is only 

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Igor Gurevich]

2011/12/9  :
> 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

 Dear Colleagues,

On the basis of papers [1-7] I designed course “Physical informatics”,
focused primarily on graduate students and masters.
The basic course content:
1. General provisions. Background information about the information
and informatics.
2. The subject of physical informatics.
3. Classes of physical systems and their characteristics.
4. Information characteristics of physical systems and methods for
their determination.
•Information entropy: the characteristic obserables and states of
quantum systems, a measure of complexity of systems.
•Information divergence: a heterogeneity measure.
•Joint information entropy: the characteristic of unitary transformations.
•The mutual information: the characteristic of interaction of the
linked (entanglement) systems.
•The Differential information capacity -  characteristic of volume of
information per unit mass.
5. The laws of informatics
•The law of simplicity of complex systems.
•The law of uncertainty (information) conservation.
•The law of finiteness of complex systems characteristics.
•The law of necessary variety by W. Ashby. 
•The theorem of K. Gödel.
•Other laws of informatics.
6. The physical laws as consequence of information laws (laws of informatics).
7. Methodology assessment and evaluation of information
characteristics of fundamental and elementary particles, atoms,
molecules, gases, liquids, solids, planets, stars, galaxies and the
universe as a whole.
8. Informational constraints on the formation, development and
interconversion of physical systems.
9. Information system for calculating the characteristics of physical systems.
10. Features of researches by information methods of chemical and
biological systems.
11. The forms of the organization of the researches.
12. The main objectives for further research.
13. Conclusion
14. The application.
A.1. The primary information needed from physics, chemistry, and biology.
A.2. The necessary information from information theory.
A.3.Test Questions and exercise.
Literature.
1. Gurevich I.M. The laws of informatics - the basis of research and
design of complex communications and control systems. Manual. TSOONTI
"Ecos". M. 1989. 60 p.
2. Gurevich I.M. "The laws of informatics - the basis of the structure
and knowledge of complex systems." - M. "Antiqua", 2003.
3. Gurevich I.M. "The laws of informatics - the basis of the structure
and knowledge of complex systems." Second edition refined and updated.
M. "Torus Press." 2007. 400 p.
4. Gurevich I.M. Assessment of the main characteristics of the
information universe. Information Technology. № 12. Application. 2008.
32.
5. Gurevich I.M. Information characteristics of physical systems. "The
11th FORMAT". Moscow. "Cypress". Sevastopol. 2009. 170 p.
6. Gurevich I.M. Information characteristics of physical systems.
Second edition refined and updated. "Cypress". Sevastopol. 2010. 260
p.
7. Gurevich I.M. Information as a universal heterogeneity. Information
Technology. № 4. M. 2010. Pp. 66-74.
8. Gurevich I.M. Basic information characteristics of physical,
chemical and biological systems. Modern Trends in Theoretical and
Applied Biophysics, Physics and Chemistry. BPPC - 2010.
Vol. 1. Common Questions of Physics and Chemistry: materials of VI
International s

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Karl Javorszky]

Hi All,

the talk here going about a possible curriculum, I have assembled one. This
is of course only an outline but should give a realistic idea about the
half-steps needed to grasp what we understand under "information". I'd look
forward working on this project. Asking for your kind tolerance, I present
the:

Curriculum (15 hrs) Additions

Requirements: able to program and manage data sets

Aim: understand ordering, reordering, spatial structures, consequences
(implications)


 Part I.: Tabulating

   1.

   We use a collection of additions: We use {1+1..16+16}, a≤b; Why 136
   2.

   Sorting and sequencing: (The meaning of the term ‘sequence’ in the
   sentence ‘The DNA is a sequence’); assignment of i (1≤i≤136); creating
   linear distances; partitioning 136; homogenizing sub-intervals; kinds of
   cuts
   3.

   Resorting from SQab into SQba and back: Terms place-space (a
seq.no1..136 is a place in a 1-dim space); place changes; moving
together
   (example in classroom, games); properties of chains (1,1 stays, 1,2 stays,
   1,3 travels: 18 steps); Table (=data set) T (T_άβ_γδ_i_j_placeάβ_placeγδ,
   where άβ from, γδ to, i-th chain, j-th step, this example T_ab_ba_3_1 3 4)
   4.

   Creating a plane by rectangular axes: example SQab, SQba as axes. Follow
   movement. Discuss terms string, loop, convoy, melody, tact, beat
   5.

   Additional aspects of a+b=c: central: u=b-a; two shadows: b-2a, a-2b;
   create 2b-3a, 2a-3b; (mention costs of commutativity), just for fun
   s=17-{a+b|c}
   6.

   Sorting on aspects a thru w: presently in this sequence, later play with
   changing sequence of first-level arguments; generate 72 SQs, assemble Table
   1 (81 cols, 136 rows)
   7.

   Identical sequences and clans: of a clan, the first we encounter is the
   chief, the others use his name as alias but give weight; Vector V:
   if(SQάβ=SQγδ, .t., .f.); if(V[άβ,γδ], member of a clan, reorder); fill up
   Table T
   8.

   Overview of resorts: Table S, S_άβ_γδ_i_J, where άβ from, γδ to, i-th
   chain, J no of steps, this example T_ab_ba_3_1 3 18); carry_a (=Σa); goods
   in transit
   9.

   Standard resorts: Properties; (6+11=17 as the quintessential magical
   incantation); names; weights (clans); three-somes
   10.

   Building space: Rectangular axes; planes;
   11.

   The concept of a point in space: two exact subspaces; one rough estimate
   of a space; (the loss of an accounting property); units of three-somes;
   Representation as a triangle, center of triangle: mass point in space;
   rotating the axes; volume included, spherical or rectangular
   representation; goods transited thru this segment
   12.

   Connection to other points: isolator and conductor (if(.exist.Δγδ
   (triangle) in chains connecting each of 3 points of Δάβ), conductor,
   isolator); not each of 3 points connected: too near .or. too far;
   telekratic effects

Part II.: Sequencing

   1.

   Permutating first-level arguments a…w: cause and effect within an
   interdependence; implicated orders; ties
   2.

   The idea of time: basic to sequencing, predecessor, successor;
   demonstrating effects of sequence changes; linguistics as mediator (Table
   V, number of .t., sequence of comparisons)

Part III. Giving names

   1.

   Mass, space, density, electric-magnetic, gravity, temperature, chemical
   valence: always check with established authorities before assigning a name

- end curriculum --

2011/12/11 Bruno Marchal 

> Hi John, Hi Fis-people
>
>
> On 11 Dec 2011, at 13:49, john.holg...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> Thanks Walter,
>
> A useful snapshot of PC (Philosophy of Computing). It reminds me that the
> origin of the word 'computing'   is com-putare = to consider together,
> suppose together, imagine together. This is surely what Steve Jobs was all
> about. To reduce computation to algorithmic calculation or even Turing
> machines is as restrictive as limiting information to data and documents,
> messages and codes. After thirty years of phronesis wrestling with data
> documents and computers it would be nice to know what computation and
> information mean.
>
>
> It might be restrictive at the epistemological level, but not necessarily
> at the ontological level. All mathematical notions, like infinities, sets,
> provability, definability, etc. can be diagonalized again. They cannot have
> a universal representation. But computability and computations are immune
> to diagonalization. This makes it the concept the most explanatively closed
> we have ever found. I think. This gives a conceptual deep argument in favor
> of Church thesis, and it leads also to the notion of universal machines.
>
> Those machines can not only compute the same class of all (partial or
> total) computable functions, but can all simulate each other, computing
> those functions in all possible different ways.
> Actually, an interesting and vast class of universal machines (those who
> knows, in some technical sense, that 

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi John, Hi Fis-people


On 11 Dec 2011, at 13:49, john.holg...@ozemail.com.au wrote:


Thanks Walter,

A useful snapshot of PC (Philosophy of Computing). It reminds me  
that the origin of the word 'computing'   is com-putare = to  
consider together, suppose together, imagine together. This is  
surely what Steve Jobs was all about. To reduce computation to  
algorithmic calculation or even Turing machines is as restrictive as  
limiting information to data and documents, messages and codes.  
After thirty years of phronesis wrestling with data documents and  
computers it would be nice to know what computation and information  
mean.


It might be restrictive at the epistemological level, but not  
necessarily at the ontological level. All mathematical notions, like  
infinities, sets, provability, definability, etc. can be diagonalized  
again. They cannot have a universal representation. But computability  
and computations are immune to diagonalization. This makes it the  
concept the most explanatively closed we have ever found. I think.  
This gives a conceptual deep argument in favor of Church thesis, and  
it leads also to the notion of universal machines.


Those machines can not only compute the same class of all (partial or  
total) computable functions, but can all simulate each other,  
computing those functions in all possible different ways.
Actually, an interesting and vast class of universal machines (those  
who knows, in some technical sense, that they are universal) can  
defeat any theory concerning their own behavior (they can practice  
diagonalization), making their epistemologies beyond any normative or  
effectively complete theory. It makes computationalism (the doctrine  
that there exists a level where we are Turing emulable) a vaccine  
against reductionist conception of machine (and man).


I am Bruno Marchal, mathematician, and I met Pedro and Plamen in Paris  
some month ago. Although I am agnostic on the truth of the  
computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science, I am interested  
to study the mind body problem in that frame. With the  
computationalist hypothesis, computer science and mathematical logic  
becomes handy tools for formulating deep questions.


In fact I have a deductive argument that computationalism and weak  
materialism (there exist an ontologically primary physical universe)  
are incompatible. I have shown that computationalism reduces (in my  
french PhD thesis in computer science) the mind body problem into a  
body appearance (to universal numbers) problem in number theory.


Physics would not be the fundamental science, and we might have to  
backtrack to Plato, or even Pythagorus' conception of reality.  
Physical reality becomes somehow the border of a universal mind (the  
possible universal machine dreams, or the effective set of all  
computations seen from inside. The "seen from inside" can be defined  
from the modal logic of self-reference, which exploits that immunity  
for diagonalization, and the fact that machines can be "aware" of that  
fact.


The following two papers sum up the main results and questions needed  
to solve to proceed:


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

Unfortunately the longer version of those works are in french (they  
can be found from my URL below).


This might perhaps put some light on the difficult question of what is  
information. Like infinite, and like almost all in-# notions, that  
notion might not have a definitive definition, especially information  
which walked from syntactic definitions (Shannon) to semantical one  
(knowledge).





Computation is only one mode of information i.e. information AS  
cognitive process. Perhaps the only way out of our definitional  
impasse is to adopt the third option of the Capurro trilemma -  
plurivocity. If we can stop thinking linearly and start to think  
like a Dharma Wheel with all the different emergent modes of  
information arranged as spokes (having their expert spokespersons)  
each having equal validity with ignorance at the fulcrum, then we  
can move towards a viable transdisciplinary model for info which has  
hitherto evaded us. Nonlinear thinking has been the great driver of  
the computing and Internet industries.




I agree.

Best,

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




On Fri Dec 9 2:55 , walter.riof...@terra.com.pe sent:

Dear all,

It is possible find some useful ideas to build multi-inter-trans  
disciplinary approaches in last “closing statement” of Ubiquity  
Symposium: What is Computation?


What Have We Said About Computation?


If you are interested in all papers of this ACM Ubiquity Symposium:

http://ubiquity.acm.org/symposia.cfm


Sincerely,


Walter Riofrio




Walter Riofrio
Researcher; Complex Thought Institute Edgar Morin – University  
Ricardo Pa

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[john.holg...@ozemail.com.au]

Thanks Walter,

A useful snapshot of PC (Philosophy of Computing). It reminds me that the origin of the word 'computing'   is com-putare = to consider together, suppose together, imagine together. This is surely what Steve Jobs was all about. To reduce computation to algorithmic calculation or even Turing machines is as restrictive as limiting information to data and documents, messages and codes. After thirty years of phronesis wrestling with data documents and computers it would be nice to know what computation and information mean.

Computation is only one mode of information i.e. information AS cognitive process. Perhaps the only way out of our definitional impasse is to adopt the third option of the Capurro trilemma - plurivocity. If we can stop thinking linearly and start to think like a Dharma Wheel with all the different emergent modes of information arranged as spokes (having their expert spokespersons) each having equal validity with ignorance at the fulcrum, then we can move towards a viable transdisciplinary model for info which has hitherto evaded us. Nonlinear thinking has been the great driver of the computing and Internet industries.

Best

John
  



 

On Fri Dec  9  2:55 , walter.riof...@terra.com.pe sent:




Dear all,

 

It is possible find some useful ideas to build multi-inter-trans
disciplinary approaches in last “closing statement” of Ubiquity Symposium: What
is Computation?

 

What Have We Said About Computation?

 

 

If you are interested in all papers of this ACM Ubiquity Symposium:

 

http://ubiquity.acm.org/symposia.cfm

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Walter Riofrio

 

 

 



Walter
Riofrio 


Researcher; Complex Thought Institute Edgar Morin – University Ricardo Palma, Lima-Peru 


Chercheur Associé; Institut des Systèmes Complexes – Paris
Île-de-France (ISC-PIF)


Theoretical and Evolutionary Biology 


Email: walter.riof...@iscpif.fr   

---

 



  



On jue 08/12/11 06:25 , John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za sent:



Good to see that fis perspectives are used in teaching. I use information
ideas fundamentally in our second year Cognitive Science course, and also
in some postgrad courses I teach.




John







At 03:03 PM 2011/12/07, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:


Thanks a lot, Gordana. It is a
very good idea. Unfortunately I could not participate in the opening of
the session,  well, at least I can say now that I had the experience
of teaching for Engineering graduate students two neatly informational
("FIS") disciplines. One of them, Bioinformation:
informational analysis of living systems; and the other Science,
Technology and Society: an introduction to the informational history of
societies.  Both of them in Spanish. They were very successful,
particularly the latter. The FIS perspective is ideal not only for
breaking down on "impossible topics" (our familiar demons) but
also for promoting a new, highly original way of analysis --of knolweldge
recombination processes-- on topics of our time and of the most
contentious past. 




missing a lot the direct involvement in the discussions!




yours,




---Pedro




Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic escribió: 


Hi All,


 


One way of looking at the question of curriculum would be from the point
of view of what already exists


of education in the Foundations of Information.


 


Are there any courses which might be a part of such a curriculum?


 


To start with I can tell about the course I have, which does not cover
much of Science of information, but there are several connections.


As I work at the computer science department, my perspective is
computational.


For me computing is information processing and information is that which
is processed, and that which is a result of processing. 


Processing may be done by a machine or by an organism or anything else –
the whole of nature computes (processes information) in different
ways.


As info-computationalist, I believe that information is unthinkable
without computation.


So the course is on Computing and Philosophy but addresses Philosophy of
Information and Science of Information as well and topics on evolution of
life, intelligence (natural and artificial), consciousness, etc. 

http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil


 


I believe it would be good to have a course on the foundations of
information science for people in the computing.


Information and computation are completely entangled! And this gives also
an opportunity to introduce other fields into computing, to contribute to
building bridges and 


facilitating inter-disciplinary/ cross-disciplinary/
trans-disciplinary  learning.


 


This is not as ambitious as the original question, but can help
understanding where we are now and where we want to be.


 


Best wishes,


Gordana


 




http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/



 


 


From:

fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
[
mailto:fis-boun...@lis

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[mjs]

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] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[walter . riofrio]

  

Dear all, 
It is possible find some useful ideas to build multi-inter-trans
disciplinary approaches in last “closing statement” of Ubiquity
Symposium: What is Computation? 
What Have We Said About Computation? [1] 
If you are interested in all papers of this ACM Ubiquity Symposium: 
http://ubiquity.acm.org/symposia.cfm [2] 
Sincerely, 
Walter Riofrio 
 

Walter Riofrio 
 Researcher; Complex Thought Institute Edgar Morin – University
Ricardo Palma, Lima-Peru 
 Chercheur Associé; Institut des Systèmes Complexes – Paris
Île-de-France (ISC-PIF)
 Theoretical and Evolutionary Biology 
 Email: walter.riof...@iscpif.fr

--- 
 On jue 08/12/11 06:25 , John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za sent:
   Good to see that fis perspectives are used in teaching. I use
information ideas fundamentally in our second year Cognitive Science
course, and also in some postgrad courses I teach.
 John
 At 03:03 PM 2011/12/07, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
 Thanks a lot, Gordana. It is a very good idea. Unfortunately I could
not participate in the opening of the session,  well, at least I can
say now that I had the experience of teaching for Engineering graduate
students two neatly informational ("FIS") disciplines. One of them,
Bioinformation: informational analysis of living systems; and the
other Science, Technology and Society: an introduction to the
informational history of societies.  Both of them in Spanish. They
were very successful, particularly the latter. The FIS perspective is
ideal not only for breaking down on "impossible topics" (our familiar
demons) but also for promoting a new, highly original way of analysis
--of knolweldge recombination processes-- on topics of our time and of
the most contentious past. 
 missing a lot the direct involvement in the discussions!
 yours,
 ---Pedro
 Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic escribió: 
 Hi All,
 One way of looking at the question of curriculum would be from the
point of view of what already exists
 of education in the Foundations of Information.
 Are there any courses which might be a part of such a curriculum?
 To start with I can tell about the course I have, which does not
cover much of Science of information, but there are several
connections.
 As I work at the computer science department, my perspective is
computational.
 For me computing is information processing and information is that
which is processed, and that which is a result of processing. 
 Processing may be done by a machine or by an organism or anything
else – the whole of nature computes (processes information) in
different ways.
 As info-computationalist, I believe that information is unthinkable
without computation.
 So the course is on Computing and Philosophy but addresses Philosophy
of Information and Science of Information as well and topics on
evolution of life, intelligence (natural and artificial),
consciousness, etc.   http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil [3]
 I believe it would be good to have a course on the foundations of
information science for people in the computing.
 Information and computation are completely entangled! And this gives
also an opportunity to introduce other fields into computing, to
contribute to building bridges and 
 facilitating inter-disciplinary/ cross-disciplinary/
trans-disciplinary  learning.
 This is not as ambitious as the original question, but can help
understanding where we are now and where we want to be.
 Best wishes,
 Gordana
 http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ [4] 
 From:  fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [
mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
 Sent: den 5 december 2011 20:53
 To: fis
 Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education
 And it could feature in 'Science for Non-Majors' courses as well.
 STAN
 On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Guy A Hoelzer  wrote:
 Hi All,
 I agree with those who are suggesting that Information Science makes
sense
 as a widely useful way to think about different scientific
disciplines
 even if we don't have a strong consensus on how to define
'information'.
 I think there is enough coherence among views of 'information' to
underpin
 the unity and universality of the approach.  Perhaps Information
Science
 is less a discipline of its own and more of a common approach to
 understanding that can be applied across disciplines.  While I can
imagine
 good courses focusing on Information Science, it might be most
productive
 to include a common framework for information-based models/viewpoints
 across the curriculum.
 Guy Hoelzer
 ___
 fis mailing list
 fis@listas.unizar.es
  https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis [5]
 ___ fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es 
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis [6

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[John Collier]

Good to see that fis perspectives are used in teaching. I use information
ideas fundamentally in our second year Cognitive Science course, and also
in some postgrad courses I teach.
John

At 03:03 PM 2011/12/07, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
Thanks a lot, Gordana. It is a
very good idea. Unfortunately I could not participate in the opening of
the session,  well, at least I can say now that I had the experience
of teaching for Engineering graduate students two neatly informational
("FIS") disciplines. One of them, Bioinformation:
informational analysis of living systems; and the other Science,
Technology and Society: an introduction to the informational history of
societies.  Both of them in Spanish. They were very successful,
particularly the latter. The FIS perspective is ideal not only for
breaking down on "impossible topics" (our familiar demons) but
also for promoting a new, highly original way of analysis --of knolweldge
recombination processes-- on topics of our time and of the most
contentious past. 
missing a lot the direct involvement in the discussions!
yours,
---Pedro
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic escribió: 
Hi All,
 
One way of looking at the question of curriculum would be from the point
of view of what already exists
of education in the Foundations of Information.
 
Are there any courses which might be a part of such a curriculum?
 
To start with I can tell about the course I have, which does not cover
much of Science of information, but there are several connections.
As I work at the computer science department, my perspective is
computational.
For me computing is information processing and information is that which
is processed, and that which is a result of processing. 
Processing may be done by a machine or by an organism or anything else –
the whole of nature computes (processes information) in different
ways.
As info-computationalist, I believe that information is unthinkable
without computation.
So the course is on Computing and Philosophy but addresses Philosophy of
Information and Science of Information as well and topics on evolution of
life, intelligence (natural and artificial), consciousness, etc. 

http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil
 
I believe it would be good to have a course on the foundations of
information science for people in the computing.
Information and computation are completely entangled! And this gives also
an opportunity to introduce other fields into computing, to contribute to
building bridges and 
facilitating inter-disciplinary/ cross-disciplinary/
trans-disciplinary  learning.
 
This is not as ambitious as the original question, but can help
understanding where we are now and where we want to be.
 
Best wishes,
Gordana
 
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

 
 
From:

fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
[
mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N
Salthe
Sent: den 5 december 2011 20:53
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science
Education
 
And it could feature in 'Science for Non-Majors' courses as well.
 
STAN
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Guy A Hoelzer
 wrote:
Hi All,
I agree with those who are suggesting that Information Science makes
sense
as a widely useful way to think about different scientific
disciplines
even if we don't have a strong consensus on how to define
'information'.
I think there is enough coherence among views of 'information' to
underpin
the unity and universality of the approach.  Perhaps Information
Science
is less a discipline of its own and more of a common approach to
understanding that can be applied across disciplines.  While I can
imagine
good courses focusing on Information Science, it might be most
productive
to include a common framework for information-based
models/viewpoints
across the curriculum.
Guy Hoelzer

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es

https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
 



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es

https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
 

-- 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es

https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis





Professor John
Collier
colli...@ukzn.ac.za
Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South
Africa
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292   F:
+27 (31) 260 3031



___
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

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Colleagues,

A few short comments on contributions by Pedro, Wolfgang and Karl

Dear Pedro:
Your courses
Bioinformation: informational analysis of living systems; and
Science, Technology and Society: an introduction to the informational history 
of societies
sound very interesting.
Do you possibly have any links to web pages or any information (even in 
Spanish) that may give us a hint about the content?


Dear Wolfgang:
Thank you very much for this detailed information.
We need more of similar inputs in order to get a feeling about the state of the 
art.
Any links to course web pages would be greatly appreciated.
I am happy to see Computing and Philosophy as a compulsory course.
To start with I see several possibilities to include elements of your courses 
in my Computing and Philosophy.

For the next year I will prepare a new basic-level course in Swedish titled:  
Information-Knowledge-Science
where I can include what I learn from your and Pedro's courses and hopefully 
from coming contributions to this discussion as well.
This is a slow progress, but some progress anyway.


Dear Karl,

You point to the important aspect of the problem: who are the audience for the 
course/curriculum we want to develop?



"Next Step

Let us do the test of checking the intended audience for this FIS production. 
Whatever we call it, if we do generate (create, dream up, catalogise, package, 
edit, etc.) something worth to be taught, then it needs an audience.

Towards whom do we want to direct our efforts of coming up with something new?"

It also seems to me that we are building bridges (Wolfgang addresses this issue 
in his text 
http://www.hofkirchner.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/forIASCYSchengdu2010.pdf
 ) and we start from different fields. Mine is computing.
Some other people have chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. as a starting 
point.

So the courses cannot be identical for everybody, but there might be many 
common themes. For example I think self-organization in Wolfgang's courses is 
something people within computing should know more about, and should be 
included in courses addressing our present-day scientific knowledge.

All the best,
Gordana



Dr Dr 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







From: Wolfgang Hofkirchner [mailto:wolfgang.hofkirch...@tuwien.ac.at]
Sent: den 7 december 2011 17:48
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science 
Education

dear gordana,

maybe the following is of interest to the topic. first, the description of the 
module i am responsible of in the curriculum of master students of technical 
informatics and media informatics from this year on (see below). and second, a 
link to download a background information from my website referring the field 
i'm teaching in (and taught in salzburg) including a description of my courses 
that i had called years ago foundations of information science 
(http://www.hofkirchner.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/forIASCYSchengdu2010.pdf).

Designing Technosocial Systems
Regelarbeitsaufwand: 6Ects
Bildungsziele:

Fachliche und methodische Kenntnisse:

Students acquire, for tayloring their methodolo- gies of designing socially 
embedded systems, theoretical knowledge in the fields of
* Information Ethics * Information concepts * Philosophy of Science * 
Science-Technology-Society with special focus on ICTs

Kognitive und praktische Fertigkeiten:

Students develop skills * to reflect different perspectives of computer science 
* to get aware of impacts of technology design on society * to understand 
multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary needs * to discriminate between 
mathematical, empirical and engineering approaches * to choose and tailor the 
appropriate methodology
* to better master complexity

Soziale Kompetenzen, Innovationskompetenz und Kreativität:

Students are capacitated * to feel comfortable with teams going beyond 
disciplines * to respond to the requirement to take social responsibility * to 
balance formal and informal requirements

Inhalt: Theoretical foundations:

Philosophy of Information (Computing and Philosophy) and 
Science-Technology-Society with special focus on ICTs (Information and Society):
Computing and Philosophy issues: Location of informatics in the classification 
of disci- plines; ways of thinking (reduction, projection, dichotomisation, 
integration); transdisci- plinarity in science and engineering; information 
processing and information generation; system theoretical concepts; computers 
and information ethics.

Infor

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear FIS,



Let me systematise the requirements and conditions raised so far and then
discuss a proposal:



Recapitulation:

(maybe there will be a possibility to attach attachments to the postings.
The following should be an attachment, where I recapitulate the points
previous speakers have raised):



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)



Many universities have special schools for library and information science
(LIS).This is different from our discussions at this list about
"information theory". Nevertheless, there is a problem with reinventing a
wheel

(Loet)



Thus, the objective should not be a common, monolithic paradigm that
"everyone will accept", but commitment to a reasoned, fallible process of
selection and commitment, with the goal of enabling something new to emerge.

(Joseph)



What needs to be applied across all disciplines is Applied Category theory.

(Gavin)



What we have to do is to agree that:

1. The variety is not bad but very stimulating for reasoning, and

2. Independence is absolutely needed for growing our knowledge and
developing the science.

(Krassimir)



If we (FIS = Foundations of Information Science) are something different
from what is called “Information Science” and funded, supported by
40journals etc. we must be able to show definitely the distinction and why
this is important.

(Gordana)

End recapitulation.



Proposal:

Build Information Science (as understood in FIS) from scratch.



Negative Arguments:

· Such has never been done before, we would be outsiders, aside the
mainstream;

· No one has allowed us to do so;

· We do not know how to think and act independently;

· Will it be worth the effort;

· The strict thinking behind accounting is not my taste;

· I do not look for work, I look for fame and importance and
influence.

Positive Arguments:

· I seem to be open-minded, seeing that I am a part of an
open-minded discussion forum;

· I am quite capable of understanding the discussion here, so the
stuff is communicable;

· The audacity of the very thought is somehow fascinating;

· There is a point behind saying that 2+4 is not quite exactly 1+5;

· This FIS goes all about breaking taboos;

· Here we have something easily communicable;

· I could try to say to a friend “We work on a new understanding of
additions and what that all implies. Did you know that additions were
invented very long ago and since then never ever changed?” and see what he
says;

· I could explain that it needs computers to figure out the
accounting behind what distinguishes 3+4 to 2+5, this is why it has not
been done yet by Gauss or Euler or Shannon;

· I could say that I was a part of the group that translated pure
and abstract logic (some deep voodoos of accounting and number theory
together with epistemology) into workday concepts of Physics and Chemistry,
and of course, Psychology.



Next Step

Let us do the test of checking the intended audience for this FIS
production. Whatever we call it, if we do generate (create, dream up,
catalogise, package, edit, etc.) something worth to be taught, then it
needs an audience. Towards whom do we want to direct our efforts of coming
up with something new?

Let us do a field test and see, what the intended (targeted) audience says.
We come up with a good idea and translate it into widgets for the applied
people. (Relative to a number theorist, everyone is an applied one, but
theologians maybe.)



We could call this e.g. Reorder Theory, Rend Theory, Disciplined Thinking
Course, Finding Names For Facts Course or anything glitzy and fizzy.



Looking forward:

Karl
___
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

[Wolfgang Hofkirchner]

dear gordana,

maybe the following is of interest to the topic. first, the description of the 
module i am responsible of in the curriculum of master students of technical 
informatics and media informatics from this year on (see below). and second, a 
link to download a background information from my website referring the field 
i'm teaching in (and taught in salzburg) including a description of my courses 
that i had called years ago foundations of information science 
(http://www.hofkirchner.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/forIASCYSchengdu2010.pdf).

Designing Technosocial Systems
Regelarbeitsaufwand: 6Ects
Bildungsziele:
Fachliche und methodische Kenntnisse: Students acquire, for tayloring their 
methodolo- gies of designing socially embedded systems, theoretical knowledge 
in the fields of
• Information Ethics • Information concepts • Philosophy of Science • 
Science–Technology–Society with special focus on ICTs
Kognitive und praktische Fertigkeiten: Students develop skills • to reflect 
different perspectives of computer science • to get aware of impacts of 
technology design on society • to understand multi-, inter- and 
transdisciplinary needs • to discriminate between mathematical, empirical and 
engineering approaches • to choose and tailor the appropriate methodology
• to better master complexity
Soziale Kompetenzen, Innovationskompetenz und Kreativität: Students are 
capacitated • to feel comfortable with teams going beyond disciplines • to 
respond to the requirement to take social responsibility • to balance formal 
and informal requirements
Inhalt: Theoretical foundations: Philosophy of Information (Computing and 
Philosophy) and Science-Technology–Society with special focus on ICTs 
(Information and Society):
Computing and Philosophy issues: Location of informatics in the classification 
of disci- plines; ways of thinking (reduction, projection, dichotomisation, 
integration); transdisci- plinarity in science and engineering; information 
processing and information generation; system theoretical concepts; computers 
and information ethics. Information and Society issues: Information society 
theory and empirical studies; global challenges; technological systems as 
social systems; the quest for automation and impacts on society (desaster 
analysis); design requirements for socially embedded systems; law aspects: 
liabilities, certification.
20Erwartete Vorkenntisse:
Fachliche und methodische Kenntnisse: Bachelor-level knowledge of computer 
systems and information processing in cyber-physical systems.
Kognitive und praktische Fertigkeiten: Bachelor-level Reading and writing 
skills.
Soziale Kompetenzen, Innovationskompetenz und Kreativität: Interest in inter- 
and transdisciplinary issues in information sciences and technology.
Diese Voraussetzungen werden in folgenden Modulen vermittelt:
Verpflichtende Voraussetzungen: Keine.
Angewandte Lehr- und Lernformen und geeignete Leistungsbeurteilung: Lectures 
with accompanying practicals in which the students make use of the new 
knowledge when applying the different skills and capabilities they have been 
trained in on the Bachelor- level. Working in groups is permitted. The students 
give presentations of the results, author written reports and perform tests.
Lehrveranstaltungen des Moduls: The course on Computing and Philosophy is 
obligatory. Of the other two, one has to be selected.
3.0/2.5 VU Computing and Philosophy 3.0/2.5 VU Information and Society 3.0/2.0 
SE Neue Technologien und sozialer Wandel

cheers,

wolfgang

+43 1 58801 18730 (no box)

http://hofkirchner.uti.at/

Am 06.12.2011 um 16:01 schrieb Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic:

> Hi All,
>  
> One way of looking at the question of curriculum would be from the point of 
> view of what already exists
> of education in the Foundations of Information.
>  
> Are there any courses which might be a part of such a curriculum?
>  
> To start with I can tell about the course I have, which does not cover much 
> of Science of information, but there are several connections.
> As I work at the computer science department, my perspective is computational.
> For me computing is information processing and information is that which is 
> processed, and that which is a result of processing.
> Processing may be done by a machine or by an organism or anything else – the 
> whole of nature computes (processes information) in different ways.
> As info-computationalist, I believe that information is unthinkable without 
> computation.
> So the course is on Computing and Philosophy but addresses Philosophy of 
> Information and Science of Information as well and topics on evolution of 
> life, intelligence (natural and artificial), consciousness, etc.  
> http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil
>  
> I believe it would be good to have a course on the foundations of information 
> science for people in the computing.
> Information and computation are completely entangled! And this gives also an 
> opportunity to i

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Thanks a lot, Gordana. It is a very good idea. Unfortunately I could not 
participate in the opening of the session,  well, at least I can say now 
that I had the experience of teaching for Engineering graduate students 
two neatly informational ("FIS") disciplines. One of them, 
_Bioinformation: informational analysis of living systems_; and the 
other _Science, Technology and Society: an introduction to the 
informational history of societies_.  Both of them in Spanish. They were 
very successful, particularly the latter. The FIS perspective is ideal 
not only for breaking down on "impossible topics" (our familiar demons) 
but also for promoting a new, highly original way of analysis --of 
knolweldge recombination processes-- on topics of our time and of the 
most contentious past.


missing a lot the direct involvement in the discussions!

yours,

---Pedro

Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic escribió:


Hi All,

 

One way of looking at the question of curriculum would be from the 
point of view of what already exists


of education in the Foundations of Information.

 


Are there any courses which might be a part of such a curriculum?

 

To start with I can tell about the course I have, which does not cover 
much of Science of information, but there are several connections.


As I work at the computer science department, my perspective is 
computational.


For me computing is information processing and information is that 
which is processed, and that which is a result of processing.


Processing may be done by a machine or by an organism or anything else 
-- the whole of nature computes (processes information) in different ways.


As info-computationalist, I believe that information is unthinkable 
without computation.


So the course is on Computing and Philosophy but addresses Philosophy 
of Information and Science of Information as well and topics on 
evolution of life, intelligence (natural and artificial), 
consciousness, etc.  http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil


 

I believe it would be good to have a course on the foundations of 
information science for people in the computing.


Information and computation are completely entangled! And this gives 
also an opportunity to introduce other fields into computing, to 
contribute to building bridges and
facilitating inter-disciplinary/ cross-disciplinary/ 
trans-disciplinary  learning.


 

This is not as ambitious as the original question, but can help 
understanding where we are now and where we want to be.


 


Best wishes,

Gordana

 



http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ 

 

 

*From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley N Salthe

*Sent:* den 5 december 2011 20:53
*To:* fis
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education

 


And it could feature in 'Science for Non-Majors' courses as well.

 


STAN

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Guy A Hoelzer > wrote:


Hi All,

I agree with those who are suggesting that Information Science makes sense
as a widely useful way to think about different scientific disciplines
even if we don't have a strong consensus on how to define 'information'.
I think there is enough coherence among views of 'information' to underpin
the unity and universality of the approach.  Perhaps Information Science
is less a discipline of its own and more of a common approach to
understanding that can be applied across disciplines.  While I can imagine
good courses focusing on Information Science, it might be most productive
to include a common framework for information-based models/viewpoints
across the curriculum.

Guy Hoelzer


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es 
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

 




___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
  


--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Hi All,

One way of looking at the question of curriculum would be from the point of 
view of what already exists
of education in the Foundations of Information.

Are there any courses which might be a part of such a curriculum?

To start with I can tell about the course I have, which does not cover much of 
Science of information, but there are several connections.
As I work at the computer science department, my perspective is computational.
For me computing is information processing and information is that which is 
processed, and that which is a result of processing.
Processing may be done by a machine or by an organism or anything else - the 
whole of nature computes (processes information) in different ways.
As info-computationalist, I believe that information is unthinkable without 
computation.
So the course is on Computing and Philosophy but addresses Philosophy of 
Information and Science of Information as well and topics on evolution of life, 
intelligence (natural and artificial), consciousness, etc.  
http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil

I believe it would be good to have a course on the foundations of information 
science for people in the computing.
Information and computation are completely entangled! And this gives also an 
opportunity to introduce other fields into computing, to contribute to building 
bridges and
facilitating inter-disciplinary/ cross-disciplinary/ trans-disciplinary  
learning.

This is not as ambitious as the original question, but can help understanding 
where we are now and where we want to be.

Best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: den 5 december 2011 20:53
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education

And it could feature in 'Science for Non-Majors' courses as well.

STAN
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Guy A Hoelzer 
mailto:hoel...@unr.edu>> wrote:
Hi All,

I agree with those who are suggesting that Information Science makes sense
as a widely useful way to think about different scientific disciplines
even if we don't have a strong consensus on how to define 'information'.
I think there is enough coherence among views of 'information' to underpin
the unity and universality of the approach.  Perhaps Information Science
is less a discipline of its own and more of a common approach to
understanding that can be applied across disciplines.  While I can imagine
good courses focusing on Information Science, it might be most productive
to include a common framework for information-based models/viewpoints
across the curriculum.

Guy Hoelzer


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis