<div dir="ltr">Current Information Science, particularly that purveyed by Fis, <div>is far too poverty stricken to tackle this problem Xueshan. </div><div><br></div><div>Metaphor is a rich purveyor of meaning utlised by human consciousness, </div><div>even in the earliest epics written by mankind, like the Valmiki Ramayana, </div><div>simply because human awareness adopts 'forms' as its mode of information </div><div>content, and not digits. </div><div><br></div><div>The way that forms are encoded in experience is now well understood. </div><div>A proof has even been given that 'ideas' and not 'digits' are the primary </div><div>content of human awareness. </div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes to all, </div><div><br></div><div>Alex Hankey </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 4 March 2018 at 06:47, Xueshan Yan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yxs@pku.edu.cn" target="_blank">yxs@pku.edu.cn</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="ZH-CN" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_3691528937811398762WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4.65pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4.65pt;text-indent:21.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I offer my responses as follows:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4.65pt;text-indent:21.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and source based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed given the answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I understand it right, we may have this conclusion from it: Information is the carrier of meaning. Since we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier of information, the task of our Information Science will immediately become something like an intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and Semantics (study of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. For a long time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science is so basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted of axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates on information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS information." <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4.65pt;text-indent:21.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science as well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to review your opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I don't know its content, same as I don't know what the content of Biosemiotics is, but my view is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this paradox.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4.65pt;text-indent:21.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." which are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will lose its value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't know how to answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an information for B, while it has no information value for A. The difference between the subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these claims are the classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is given by Mark Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a lot of information for a mathematics student but no information for a professional mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: One should firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information." I think this is effective and first step toward to construct a general theory about information, if possible.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4.65pt;text-indent:21.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree with it kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell accepts a sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic information from paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission has taken place, but is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be aware that meaning only is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be used in any other context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the key we dissolve the paradox. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4.65pt;text-indent:21.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so far.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4.65pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4.65pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Best wishes,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4.65pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Xueshan</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:等线;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Syed Ali [mailto:<a href="mailto:doctorsyedalimd@gmail.com" target="_blank">doctorsyedalimd@gmail.<wbr>com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM<br><b>To:</b> Sungchul Ji <<a href="mailto:sji@pharmacy.rutgers.edu" target="_blank">sji@pharmacy.rutgers.edu</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Terrence W. DEACON <<a href="mailto:deacon@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">deacon@berkeley.edu</a>>; Xueshan Yan <<a href="mailto:yxs@pku.edu.cn" target="_blank">yxs@pku.edu.cn</a>>; FIS Group <<a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Fis] A Paradox<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear All:<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If a non English speaking individual saw the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#222222;background:white">newspaper headline “<b>Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night</b>”: would that be "information?"</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#222222;background:white">My belief is - Yes. But he or she would have no idea what it was about- the meaning would be : Possibly "something " as opposed to the meaning an English speaking individual would draw.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#222222;background:white">In both situations there would be still be meaning - A for the non English speaking and B for the English speaking. </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#222222;background:white">Conclusion: Information is the container of meaning.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#222222;background:white">Please critique.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:#222222;background:white">Syed</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited</span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Sungchul Ji <<a href="mailto:sji@pharmacy.rutgers.edu" target="_blank">sji@pharmacy.rutgers.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Hi FISers,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I am not sure whether I am a Procrustes (<i>bed</i>) or a Peirce (<i>triadomaniac</i>), but I cannot help but seeing an ITR (irreducible Triadic Relation) among Text, Context and Meaning, as depicted in<b> Figure 1</b>.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><table class="m_3691528937811398762MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="background:#e7e6e6;border-collapse:collapse"><tbody><tr style="height:112.2pt"><td width="1503" valign="top" style="width:467.5pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:4.3pt 5.75pt 4.3pt 5.75pt;height:112.2pt"><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><br></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"> <wbr> f g</span></i><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> <wbr> <b>Context</b> --------> <b>Text </b> ---------> <b>Meaning</b></span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> <wbr> | ^</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> <wbr> | |<br> <wbr> | |</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> |_________________________|</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> <wbr> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">h</span></i><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span lang="EN-US">“<span style="color:red">The meaning of a text is irreducibly dependent on its context.</span>”<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-US"> “<span style="color:red">Text, context, and meaning are irreducibly triadic.</span>” The “TCM principle” (?) <u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></td></tr><tr><td width="1503" valign="top" style="width:467.5pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:4.3pt 5.75pt 4.3pt 5.75pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Figure 1.</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> The Procrustean bed, the Peircean triadomaniac, or both ?</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></td></tr><tr><td width="1503" valign="top" style="width:467.5pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:4.3pt 5.75pt 4.3pt 5.75pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">f</span></i><span lang="EN-US"> = Sign production; <i><span style="color:red">g </span><span style="color:black">= </span></i><span style="color:black">Sign interpretation; <i> </i></span><i><span style="color:red">h </span><span style="color:black">= </span></i><span style="color:black">Correlation or information flow.</span><u></u><u></u></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">According to this 'Peircean/Procrustesian' diagram, both what Terry said and what Xueshan said may be valid. Although their thinking must have been irreducibly triadic (<i>if Peirce is right</i>), Terry may have focused on (or prescinded) Steps <i>f</i> and <i>h</i>, while Xueshan prescinded Steps <i>g</i> and <i>h,</i> although he did indicate that his discussion was limited to the context of human information and human meaning (i.e., Step f). Or maybe there are many other interpretations possible, depending on the interpreter of the posts under discussion and the ITR diagram. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">There are an infinite number of examples of algebraic operations: 2+3 = 5, 3 - 1 = 2, 20 x 45 = 900, etc., etc.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">If I say "2 + 3 = 5", someone may say, but you missed "20 x 45 = 900". In other words, no matter what specific algebraic operation I may come up with, my opponent can always succeed in coming up with an example I missed. The only solution to such an end-less debate would be to discover the axioms of algebra, at which level, there cannot be any debate. When I took an abstract algebra course as an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, in 1962-5, I could not believe that underlying all the complicated algebraic calculations possible, there are only 5 axioms (<a href="https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-5-basic-axioms-of-algebra" id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959LPlnk244558" target="_blank">https://www.quora.com/What-<wbr>is-the-difference-between-the-<wbr>5-basic-axioms-of-algebra</a>). <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">So can it be that there are the axioms (either symbolic, diagrammatic, or both) of information science waiting to be discovered, which will end all the heated debates on information, meaning, data, etc. ?<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">All the best.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divtagdefaultwrapper"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Sung<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><hr size="3" width="98%" align="center"></span></div><div id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959divRplyFwdMsg"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Fis <<a href="mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es</a>> on behalf of Terrence W. DEACON <<a href="mailto:deacon@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">deacon@berkeley.edu</a>><br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 26, 2018 1:13 PM<br><b>To:</b> Xueshan Yan<br><b>Cc:</b> FIS Group<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Fis] A Paradox</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">It is so easy to get into a muddle mixing technical uses of a term with colloquial uses, and add a dash of philosophy and discipline-specific terminology and it becomes mental quicksand. Terms like 'information' and 'meaning" easily lead us into these sorts of confusions because they have so many context-sensitive and pardigm-specific uses. This is well exhibited in these FIS discusions, and is a common problem in many interdisciplinary discussions. I have regularly requested that contributors to FIS try to label which paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information' in these posts, but sometimes, like fish unaware that they are in water, one forgets that there can be alternative paradigms (such as the one Søren suggests).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">So to try and avoid overly technical usage can you be specific about what you intend to denote with these terms.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">E.g. for the term "information" are you referring to statisitica features intrinsic to the character string with respect to possible alternatives, or what an interpreter might infer that this English sentence refers to, or whether this reference carries use value or special significance for such an interpreter?<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">And e.g. for the term 'meaning' are you referring to what a semantician would consider its underlying lexical structure, or whether the sentence makes any sense, or refers to anything in the world, or how it might impact some reader?<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Depending how you specify your uses your paradox will become irresolvable or dissolve.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">— Terry<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Xueshan Yan <<a href="mailto:yxs@pku.edu.cn" id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959LPlnk861729" target="_blank">yxs@pku.edu.cn</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">Dear colleagues,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the following inference, I call it <b>Paradox of Meaning and Information</b> or <b>Armenia Paradox</b>. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and strictly limit our discussion within the human context.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline “<b>Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night</b>”:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">Q: What is the <b>MEANING</b> contained in this sentence?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">Q: What is the <b>INFORMATION</b> contained in this sentence?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">Thus we come to the conclusion that <b>MEANING is equal to INFORMATION</b>, or strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, the study of human information is called Human Informatics.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have the following corollary:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">A: <b>Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics</b>.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human Informatics, so we have another corollary:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">B: <b>Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics</b>.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt;text-indent:22.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a subject, but how should we understand this paradox?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">Best wishes,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_3691528937811398762m8786946763713409959xmsonormal" style="margin-top:3.6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif;color:black">Xueshan</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Fis mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959LPlnk192691" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cdafadeb387ea48d49e8308d57d44af49%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636552656347721416&sdata=9iZiY5RL9vuquc0n7Gr111RwX0AIk9dFuw0ow3HOGMA%3D&reserved=0" id="m_3691528937811398762m_8786946763713409959LPlnk271912" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><u></u></font></span></span></p></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">-- <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Professor Terrence W. Deacon<br>University of California, Berkeley<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Fis mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></font></span></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"> (M.I.T.)<br>Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,<br>
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle<br>
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India <br>Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"></span><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><div style="font-size:12.8px">____________________________________________________________</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy</a></span></div></span></div></div></div></div>
</div>