In some levels of abstraction, we are living information. 

This line of thought is confusing to many as they are pretty sure they are made of physical matter and not information.  

It all depends on how you look at the world.

People, made of the stuff of the universe, are self-conscious amalgamations of matter, as far as we know.  

Our minds are transcendentally emergent from complex physical systems, so we are made possible by the affordances of higher levels of complexity.

When we think of us, we use the information encountered about us and our circumstances for furthering knowledge of the experience.  

Since when we think of ourselves, we are thinking of information about ourselves, location of keys, relationship to friends, and the like. 

We can not escape being information to ourselves and others, we use it to think and communicate what we believe, and all considerations are in the end information.   

In this view, everything is information to a mind made of information.

That wasn’t compelling, so let us try something more persuasive.

We can test software in programs that act like machines.  A computer runs a program dedicated to working like another computer, and that second program runs the third application.   

In some views, it doesn’t matter that a program (a process of data) is acting as a physical machine by running another program.

Our brain invoking a mind that thinks of itself thinking of itself means the mind can refer back to itself as an object that informs.  

Self-referential informational intentionality experiences consciousness as information of itself.

Since you are always information to yourself and others, it isn’t too far off to think of yourself as information.


The Library News

I’ve rebooted, this time older and wiser. The original site had many pages of many RSS feeds from lots of library sites.
The coverage was awesome but the load times were bad, no fun. This time around the load times are much better and the site is sleeker.

I’ve decided to focus on Twitter pages of North American library associations instead of cool library blogs. I have a space in my heart for cool library blogs but library associations have consistent news while blogger post when they/we can.

The Library News site is a WordPress site hosted by DreamHost, unlike this blog which is hosted by which I have mixed feelings about, stuff for another post. Suffice it to say it is fulfilling when a side project works.

The Journey Begins

As a Ph.D. student in Information Science, I should, in theory, be able to give a reasonable description of the discipline.  The trouble is answering the question in a way that makes sense, at least to the to poor souls that asked me.  

There are official answers, Wikipedia offers the following quote.  

“Information science is that discipline that investigates the properties and behavior of information, the forces governing the flow of information, and the means of processing information for optimum accessibility and usability. It is concerned with that body of knowledge relating to the origination, collection, organization, storage, retrieval, interpretation, transmission, transformation, and utilization of information. This includes the investigation of information representations in both natural and artificial systems, the use of codes for efficient message transmission, and the study of information processing devices and techniques such as computers and their programming systems. It is an interdisciplinary science derived from and related to such fields as mathematics, logic, linguistics, psychology, computer technology, operations research, the graphic arts, communications, management, and other similar fields. It has both a pure science component, which inquires into the subject without regard to its application, and an applied science component, which develops services and products.” (Borko, 1968, p.3).

The description is comprehensive but gives the impression the matter is settled.  

Apparently, there is not a uniform concept of “information science”. The field seems to follow different approaches and traditions; for example, objective approaches vs cognitive approaches, the library tradition vs the documentation tradition vs the computation tradition, and so on. The concept has different meanings. Different meanings imply different knowledge domains. Different knowledge domains imply different fields. Nevertheless, all of them are represented by the same name, “information science”. No wonder that even scholars and practitioners are subject to confusion (Zins 2006).

In the article, Zins makes persuasive philosophical arguments that end in the conceptualization of “knowledge science,” a move from “information science” which is interesting, though doesn’t address my dilemma and embarrassment of explaining to people what “information science” is all about.

When asked to provide an example of information science I think of the applied side of things, specifically Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) user interface testing.  Most people have interfaced with a computer which must have an interface (even you command line ninjas), and the idea of making the interface as good as possible is relatable.  A bit reductive I grant you but we are talking conversation, and I’m aiming for a reasonable gist, not a comprehensive analysis.    

I suppose if forced to give a description of “information science” in conversation, HCI aside, I would say it applies the scientific method to information and how people use it.  That sounds convincing and even references the scientific method so you know its good.  🙂  

Borko, Harold. “Information science: what is it?.” American documentation 19, no. 1 (1968): 3-5.

Zins, Chaim. “Redefining information science: from “information science” to “knowledge science”.” Journal of documentation 62, no. 4 (2006): 447-461.