Talk:Philosophy of information

Where should software freedom go?

What is the section on Free Software doing in this article? It doesn't seem to connect to the rest of the topic. --Eugene Girard 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is where the people on the philosophy portal told me to add it[1]. I agree that it looks out of place. Free software is a philosophical concept, and it happens to have a technical implementation. Currently, Wikipedia treats it as a technical topic almost exclusively. Do you know of a smoother way to mention this fairly-new field of philosophy among Wikipedia's philosophy space? Gronky 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Free software is a good thing, but while the opinion that software should be free may be called "a philosophy" (in the sense that it is an opinion) and software is a kind of information, an opnion about software has no relation whatsoever to the philosophy of information--an academic field that studies the nature of information, not an opinion or set of opinions. Richard Stallman has a lot of opinions, which could be called "philosophies", but he is a programmer and political activist, not a philosopher--someone whose job it is to study the field of philosophy. Thus, a discussion of free software has no place in this article.

However, since free software is a politcal issue, opinions about free software may be considered an application of political philosophy or ethics. Even if someone in the philosophy portal who "hadn't even heard of the philosophy or information"[2] told you this is the right place, it's not--if you would like to relate philosophy articles to free software, the best thing to do would be to mention it in the "ethics of intellectual property" section of business ethics (a kind of applied ethics).

I am moving the "Sofware Freedom" section to this talk page for the time being; see below.

Software freedom philosophy

Main article: Free software movement

A movement known as the free software movement has argued since the early 80s that computer users should be free to run, modify, and redistribute any software which they have. The movement's leader, Richard Stallman, argues these are fundamental human rights which are necessary for a society where people can help themselves and each other.

Stallman argues that software is a new field compared to labour and journalism and thus lacks a discussion of what rights should be inalienable and present for all members of society. The first document of this philosophy was the GNU Manifesto. The best known document is the Free Software Definition.

Modern information definitions

In 2004, 2006, Deng Yu et al use standard logic 'Genus add the inter-species difference ' definition mode (or calls connotation definition). This definition mode manifests by following formula:

Is defined a item = neighbor genus + the inter-species difference.

they changed the original negative Shannon and Wiener information into a positive definition.

Advance of Wiener information definition: contrary

The information is the information, the information is the material, the energy, the information and the attribute indication----Wiener information definition opposite.

Shannon information definition affirmation turn over

Reverse Shannon information definition: The information is certainty increase. (information is a measure of one's freedom of choice when one selects a message)

Corresponding formula

Ir=-logPi+1

or

Ir‘=log((N-ni)/N) ＝log(nq/N) ＝logPq

Shannon information from the form of negative entropy -- Uncertainty, transforms the positive entropy formally to make up --the determine degrees. See the original negative of the Shannon definition of information formula

I=-logPi =-log((ni)/N) =-(logni-logN)=logN-log ni =-log((N-nq)/N) =1-1- logPi =1-(1+ logPi) =(1- logPi) –1

Deng's information definition

In 2002, 2004, The information is the thing phenomenon and the attribute marking (indication) set.

Ego Floridis

This article, which was apparently created by Professor Floridi himself, creates the impression that he is the only thinker who has produced anything in this field. Although he may well have coined the term "philosophy of information", and other thinkers (from Gregory Bateson to Albert Borgmann) may not have used this precise term, I think this impression is misleading. --RichardVeryard 16:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly does the "philosophy of information" differ from the "study of language and information", as studied in the CSLI at Stanford, founded by John Perry and Jon Barwise? --RichardVeryard 16:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

the rule of wikipedia is that if you don't like it, fix it. there is no room for the comments above unless you are willing to make the changes that you think are necessary.Buridan 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to make changes. But to introduce breadth and balance into an article isn't something that can or should be done quickly. I can't see a problem in discussing the issue in the talk page first. --RichardVeryard 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the impression of an overflowing Ego, it was not meant (I suppose this is the trouble with the Ego), and I appreciated the modifications/improvments in the article. Apologies. Glad the first version provided a platform for further discussions. Cheers, Floridi 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hegel

I am removing the following mention of Hegel. "How can one avoid blurring all differences among systems, thus transforming pancomputationalism into a night in which all cows are black, to paraphrase Hegel." I don't think the metaphor helps explain the concept of pancomputationalism, I don't think name-dropping Hegel helps explain the metaphor, and I cannot find any support for this reference in Dr Floridi's papers. --RichardVeryard 02:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Computing and philosophy

The current edit of this page reads: "According to L. Floridi one can think of three main ways for applying computational methods towards philosophical matters." I can only see two ways listed here. Is there an error here, or am I missing something? --RichardVeryard 02:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, you are missing the point. if there is an error, fix it, don't criticize, just do. if it is an improper edit, let the other editors return and fix it:) --Buridan 10:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Floridi edited the page himself, perhaps he should resolve the issue.1Z 11:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

that would imply ownership, and that is precisely what we do not assume. if you see something that you think needs fixed, you should fix it. floridi's edits are his, but he has no rights to them nor the article in wikipedia norms. --Buridan 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question begins "According to L. Floridi...". He is obviously the best authority on what he thinks. 1Z 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, the obvious candidate for the missing idea would be computationalism. 1Z 16:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia policy:No original research, this article presumably needs to do two things. Firstly reference some published source for the number of ways for applying computational methods towards philosophical matters. Secondly present a summary that is consistent with this published source. This is not an article about Dr Floridi's opinions, but about verifiable knowledge. --RichardVeryard 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Floridi is one of the few specialists in the area, I think he counts as notable. (Try googling "philosophy of information"). Knowledge is generally verified by reference to notable authorities. If you know of alternative authorities, please cite them. 1Z 15:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If Dr Floridi is the only person who has written about the topic (at least under this specific name), then this might be interpreted not as evidence for Floridi's notability but as evidence against the notability of the topic. --RichardVeryard 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

People who reference their own research on pages are often non-notable cranks, but not always. The guidelines allow that notable individuals can write self-verifying pages. 1Z 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This section seems to belong in the Philosophy of computer science rather than here, so I shall move it. Cat4567nip (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Logic of information

This part should probably be completely revised. The reference to Peirce is marginal to say the least. See for example the recent issue of Logique & Analyse on the logic of information. Ditto for the entry on information logic. And please do not tell me to change it straightaway, I know. I'm here suggesting it should be changed, to see what other contributors think before actually modifying the text. Maria Vargas 07:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Peirce and Bateson are more important philosophers of information than Shannon. What are your criteria of marginality, and to what extent are these criteria based on the published writings of Dr Floridi or some other authority? --RichardVeryard 07:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maxwell Maltz

I have removed a reference to this person, who appears to have invented something called Psycho-Cybernetics, but not generally regarded as a significant contributor to Cybernetics. --RichardVeryard 17:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Does Information Require Sentient Intelligence?

Perhaps someone should add a section about whether or not meaningful information can exist exclusively of sentient intelligence or not. Can true information exist by random, unguided processes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.133.206.2 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Tapas bar of paint desiccants

Final section of present lead:

It includes:

1. the critical investigation of the conceptual nature and basic principles of information, including its dynamics, utilisation and sciences
2. the elaboration and application of information-theoretic and computational methodologies to philosophical problems.

References

I've watched many videos on procrastination (mostly oriented to curing of such) and somehow not one of these offers the golden rule: avoid at all cost any textbook or reference material that sounds like the above.

These dense hairballs of vapid abstraction quietly and effectively drain your will to live. Not a concrete action word nor blood-filled noun in the entire salad. — MaxEnt 11:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)