<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>About the principles : <br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:22.7pt 404.0pt"><span
style="color:black;
mso-themecolor:text1"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>La
philosophie,
seule, se trouve présenter ce double caractère[parce qu'elle
propose ] </span><span style="color:black;mso-themecolor:text1">une
cause de toute chose et un<u>
principe,</u> (...) Toutes les autres sciences sont donc plus
nécessaires
qu'elles, mais aucune ne l'emporte en excellence." (Métaphysique
A, 983
a).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:22.7pt 404.0pt"><br>
<span style="color:black;mso-themecolor:text1"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:22.7pt 404.0pt"><span
style="color:black;
mso-themecolor:text1">"Il est extrêmement difficile pour les
hommes
d'arriver aux connaissances universelles, car elles sont le plus
en dehors de
la portée des sens. Les sciences les plus exactes sont celles
qui sont le plus
sciences des principes (</span><span
style="font-family:Symbol;color:black;
mso-themecolor:text1">ta prwta</span><span
style="color:black;mso-themecolor:
text1">). Celles qui partent de principes plus simples sont plus
exactes que
celles qui partent de principes plus complexes, comme
l'arithmétique est plus
exacte que la géométrie. Mais une science est d'autant plus
propre à enseigner
qu'elle approfondit davantage les causes, car ceux-là enseignent
qui disent les
causes de chaque chose ... Le connaissable par excellence, ce
sont les
principes et les causes. La science la plus élevée, et qui est
supérieure à
tout science subordonnée, est celle qui connaît en vue de quelle
fin il faut
faire quelque chose. Et cette fin est le bien de chaque être et,
d'une manière
générale c'est le souverain Bien dans l'ensemble de la nature
... ce doit être
en effet la science théorétique des premiers principes et des
premières causes,
car le bien, c'est-à-dire la fin est l'une de ces causes.
(Métaphysique A, 982
a et b).</span></p>
Cordialement.
M. Godron
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
<br>
Le 22/09/2017 à 14:20, Pedro C. Marijuan a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:350dd9a6-d07d-e1d8-c1f5-419b053b272d@aragon.es">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear FISers,<br>
<p>Taking seriously the idea of information principles, quite
probably demands a specific discussion on principles. Why do
we need "principles" at all? Because of our cognitive
limitations. An infinite intellect would traverse all spans of
knowledge without any discontinuity--presumably. In our
collective scientific enterprise, however, we create special
disciplines in order to share understandable discourses
between the limited individuals of each thought-collective. As
knowledge accumulates and gets more and more complex,
particularly in the encounter with other discourses, the
growing epistemic distances fragment the original discipline,
and a new subdiscipline becomes necessary. It starts then a
fresh new discourse, with its own principles. In my brief
mention of Ortega, what he accuses Leibnitz is that being the
champion of principles in science, he becomes fragmentary and
asystematic in his meta-scientific/philosophical "mode of
thinking": the hypersystematic expresses himself fragmentarily
(Ortega dixit). It is curious that along the survey of
principles in Ortega's book, the most frequent interlocutor is
not Leibnitz, but Aristotle! Although Husserl, Heidegger,
Descartes, Pappus, Plato, Suarez, Spinoza... and some others
big names also appear, his main concern (to my taste) is
discussing Aristotle's view of specialized disciplines
starting from their respective principles,
empirically-sensuously obtained and "uncommunicated" in
between the different fields. It is very intriguing.</p>
<p>If the principles of different disciplines are factually
uncommunicated, the info science view of a new body of
knowledge running across all scales is caught into a difficult
"principled" position. Nevertheless, the three blocks I
distinguished (info per se, bioinfo, ecology of knowledge)
seem to allow some fertile conjugation inside/outside... but
the problem remains. I think it is solvable, as in our times
there is a central element that allows a whole new scientific
discourse on information. The dense relationship between life
and information has nowadays acquired a formidable empirical
background, leveraged by the most basic disciplines--physics,
chemistry, computer science, and biology itself.<br>
</p>
<p>More concretely, the notion of the "information flow" can
almost be sketched properly, both in its signaling textures
and in the fundamental relationship with the life cycle--and
not very differently along the evolutionary process.
Thereafter, recombination appears as one of the fundamental
emergences in the growing complexity of the evolving
information dynamics around life cycles and information/energy
flows. The recombination phenomenon happens for the
knowledge-stocks of cells, nervous systems, enterprises,
sciences-technologies-cultures... It accumulates amazing
combinatoric, topological, dynamic, and closure properties in
the different realms, flowing up and down among scales,
multidimensionally, and maintaining afloa the whole game of
adaptive existences.</p>
<p>Our disciplines may apparently work by themselves,
autonomously, but actually they do not. Rather than "on top",
they work "on tap". They endlessly recombine in the ecology of
knowledge, differently for each problem and for each occasion,
creating new theoretical and applied subdisciplines in the
thousands. Information science has to shed light on that
fundamental factor of contemporary societies. And more
"psychologically" this discipline has to put LIFE, both
individual life and social life, at the very center of the
sharing of meaning. A new way of thinking starting from
specific information principles will liberate our limited
intellects to more creative endeavors. It is time to quote
Whitehead: "Civilization advances by extending the number of
important operations which we can perform without thinking
about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in
a battle —they are strictly limited in number, they require
fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.<span
class="st">"</span><br>
</p>
Best wishes--Pedro<br>
<br>
<br>
El 20/09/2017 a las 17:46, Michel Godron escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7c7fd99f-d422-8c9b-c262-109d8bcfd537@wanadoo.fr"
type="cite">
<p>My remarks are written in red <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Bien reçu votre message. MERCI.
Cordialement. M. Godron</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 20/09/2017 à 13:54, Pedro C.
Marijuan a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:903f473c-ce98-9425-3b3e-cf357bae89cc@aragon.es">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear FISers,<br>
<br>
Many thanks for all the comments and criticisms. Beyond
concrete agreements/disagreements the discussion is lively,
and that is the main point. It is complicate pointing at
some fundamental, ultimate reality based on disciplinary
claims. Putting it differently, the hierarchies between
scientific disciplines were fashionable particularly in the
reductionism times; but now fortunately those decades (70s,
80s) are far away. Actually, the new views taking shape are
not far from the term "knowledge recombination" that appears
in some of the principles discussed. Modern research could
be typified by being: curiosity-led, technologically driven,
multi-scaled, interdisciplinary, and integrative
(paraphrasing Cuthill et al., 2017). Contemporary
philosophers like John Dupré have dealt with some soft
"perspectivism" but they do not deal with the disciplinary
recombination rigorously. I think this is one of the main
concerns of our nascent info-science.<br>
Rafael in his message enters into some undergrounds of the
idea of Principles/Methods/Explanations in the way Ortega
discusses it for Leibnitz. That book is particularly dense,
and I am not aware of interesting synthesis about it. One of
its early claims is that Principles have to be evident
(intuitive for Husserl), useful for verification and for the
construction of logical proofs, and further they have to
open "new ways of thinking" ("modos de pensar" for Ortega).I
fully agree. For Leibnitz, according to Ortega, "thinking
is proving" so the classical emphasis was on the logical
power of principles. Leibniz has built une "combinatoire"
calculable .But their capability to support an inspiring new
way of thinking was ignored or just left implicit. Leibniz
has largely developed new ways of thinking, mainly in his <i>Théodicée</i><i>.</i>
! And this is a big problem not only in our field but in
many multidisciplinary endeavors: excellent research ideas
are accompanied by really vulgar "metaphysics" (or better,
metadisciplinary views). See for instance the Big Data
research on so-called "social physics". Or the excellent
book on "Scale" recently published (great at climbing from
atoms to cells, organisms, enterprises, and cities; but
really poor in the multifarious information/communication
underlying worlds). The book <i>Ecologie et évolution du
monde vivant </i>showed how Brillouin's information
helps to understand Life at all scales by
self-organization. Would you like that I send two or three
pages explaining that in my poor english ? <br>
Anyhow, these are superficial comments inspired by the many
excellent messages exchanged. There is a self-organization
of the discussion taking place, and it is nice that we are
concentrating discussion on the 3 first principles, somehow
devoted to information per se. Once we smash these topics,
we may go for the biologically related (principles 4-6),
later on for the recombination and ecology of knowledge
(principles 7-9), and finally for the ethical goals of our
new science efforts, as Joseph has commented (principle 10).<br>
<br>
Best whishes to all<br>
--Pedro <br>
<br>
<br>
The El 19/09/2017 a las 11:30, Pedro C. Marijuan escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1f5928c8-80f7-2a18-361f-e3de6089136b@aragon.es"
type="cite">
<p>-------- Mensaje reenviado --------</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<table class="moz-email-headers-table">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap">Asunto: </th>
<td>Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap">Fecha: </th>
<td>Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:21:51 +0200</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap">De: </th>
<td>Rafael Capurro <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:rafael@capurro.de"
moz-do-not-send="true"><rafael@capurro.de></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap">Responder a: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:rafael@capurro.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">rafael@capurro.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap">Para: </th>
<td>Pedro C. Marijuan <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es"
moz-do-not-send="true"><pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Pedro,<br>
<br>
a short comment to your intro to the 10 principles: I
very much agree with your views (following Ortega) that
information science can be conceived as a multifaceted
or "multifarious" network of concepts and theories
dealing phenomena partly related partly not (yet)
related with each other for which we need different
languages/concepts and 'translations' and kinds of
calculations also with regard to their goals and
'utility'. <br>
<br>
If this makes sense, then we should try to develop some
kind of 'principles' or 'archai' in the Greek sense,
i.e., of 'initial forces' that give rise to
possibilities of 'un-concealing' different kinds of
phenomena that we could not see when disregarding other
paths or by not entering through other 'portals' each
portal announcing different kinds of what makes sense or
not when entering the path. <br>
<br>
Sometimes it makes sense to go up and see the landscapes
from the top, knowing that this view(s) from the top
also conceal a lot of things on the bottom. It is
easiear to understand these 'principles' if we have
experience with walking in the mountains (but also in
other natural and artificial environments like a forest,
a desert, cities etc.). Maybe we could learn from such
experiences which kind of 'principles' are to be
conssidered in the 'methods' (hodos = path) of
scientific research. <br>
<br>
So, my suggestion is to invite our FIS colleagues to
describe phenomenologically their walking experiences
and 'principles' in different enviroments (mountains
etc.) and try to 'translate' (trans-late) them into the
field of information science.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Rafael<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:24f7e2aa-a275-0ede-d401-550a3a8aa5fc@aragon.es"
type="cite"> Dear FIS Colleagues,<br>
<br>
As promised herewith the "10 principles of information
science". A couple of previous comments may be in order.
<br>
First, what is in general the role of principles in
science? I was motivated by the unfinished work of
philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea of principle in
Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory"
(posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative
information science seems to be very different from
other sciences, rather multifarious in appearance and
concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale.
What could be the specific role of principles herein?
Rather than opening homogeneous realms for conceptual
development, these information principles would appear
as a sort of "portals" that connect with essential
topics of other disciplines in the different
organization layers, but at the same time they should
try to be consistent with each other and provide a
coherent vision of the information world.<br>
And second, about organizing the present discussion, I
bet I was too optimistic with the commentators scheme.
In any case, for having a first glance on the whole
scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very
interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I
ask John Collier, Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to
send some initial comments / criticisms? Later on, if
the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and
Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to
put a perspectival end to this info principles
discussion (both attended the Madrid bygone FIS 1994
conference)... <br>
But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the
frozen states and the chaotic states! So, everybody is
invited to get ahead at his own, with the only customary
limitation of two messages per week.<br>
<br>
Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro<br>
<br>
<p><b>10 </b><b>PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE</b></p>
<p>1. Information is information, neither matter nor
energy.</p>
<p>2. Information is comprehended into structures,
patterns, messages, or flows.</p>
<p>3. Information can be recognized, can be measured,
and can be processed (either computationally or
non-computationally).</p>
<p>4. Information flows are essential organizers of
life's self-production processes--anticipating,
shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy
flows.</p>
<p>5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive
life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological
organizations at all scales.</p>
<p>6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential
communication exchanges of the human species--and
constitutes the core of its "social nature." </p>
<p>7. Human information may be systematically converted
into efficient knowledge, by following the "knowledge
instinct" and further up by applying rigorous
methodologies.</p>
<p>8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge
accumulation are partially overcome via the social
organization of "knowledge ecologies." <br>
</p>
<p>9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a
continuous actualization that involves "creative
destruction" of fields and disciplines: the
intellectual <i>Ars Magna.</i> <br>
</p>
<p>10. Information science proposes a new, radical
vision on the information and knowledge flows that
support individual lives, with profound consequences
for scientific-philosophical practice and for social
governance. <br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es" moz-do-not-send="true">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</a>
------------------------------------------------- </pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" moz-do-not-send="true">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" moz-do-not-send="true">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany
Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org</a>)
Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for Information Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Chair, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://icie.zkm.de" moz-do-not-send="true">http://icie.zkm.de</a>)
Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.i-r-i-e.net" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.i-r-i-e.net</a>)
Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
E-Mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rafael@capurro.de" moz-do-not-send="true">rafael@capurro.de</a>
Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
Homepage: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.capurro.de" moz-do-not-send="true">www.capurro.de</a>
</pre>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" moz-do-not-send="true">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" moz-do-not-send="true">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es" moz-do-not-send="true">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</a>
------------------------------------------------- </pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" moz-do-not-send="true">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" moz-do-not-send="true">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es" moz-do-not-send="true">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</a>
------------------------------------------------- </pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>