tripleC i(i): pp-pp, year ISSN 1726-670X http://www.triple-c.at

Four ways of thinking in information

Wolfgang Hofkirchner [email protected]

Abstract: There are four ways of thinking: reductionism, projectivism, disjunctivism, integrativism. The gap between the “hard” science perspective and the “soft” science perspective on information reflect these ways of thinking. The paper discusses how this gap might be bridged by applying the fourth way of thinking.

Keywords: Objectivism, subjectivism, subject-object-dialectics, materialism, idealism, emergentist materialism, externalism, internalism, perspectivism

There is not yet a Science of Information. control – a problem that was faced in war What we have is Information Science. experience. That which ought to be measured Information Science is commonly known as with his formalism was rapidly promoted to something that grew out of Library and signifying “information”. A (Unified) Theory of Documentation Science with the help of Information would have to deliberate about Computer Science, is concerned with whether to generalise a framework that problems in the context of the so-called declaredly focuses on syntactical aspects and storage and retrieval of information in social omits semantical ones when reaching out to organisations using different media and might fields in which to refer to semantics is a must. run under the label of Informatics as well. A This is exactly what a lot of criticisms have Science of Information would rather be a been addressing since, leading to alternative science about information processes in theoretical approaches without ever natural, social and technological systems and succeeding in being recognised by a majority thus have a broader scope. This is the way in of the scientific community as a more general which the term of Informaton Science is Theory of Information that would, actually, top understood by a community of academics Information Theory. from different fields of science, engineering, And there is not yet a unifying scientific humanities and arts that have been gathering information concept. We are accustomed to around a conference series, mailing list and living with a multiplicity of diverse, and even website with the abbreviation “FIS” contradictory, concepts of information used (Foundations of Information Science) for more throughout the whole edifice of natural, social than a decade. and human, and engineering sciences, not to There is not yet a (Unified) Theory of mention everyday thinking. Attempts to unify Information. There is Information Theory information concepts run the risk of getting which is a branch of mathematics and caught in reductionism or projectivism (which engineering science inaugurated by Claude E. is, so to say, a twin of reductionism). An Shannon’s paper “A Mathematical Theory of intruiging information concept would need to Communication” [1948] that dealt with the sidestep these traps. problem of keeping the signal–noise–ratio in communication transmission channels under

CC: Creative Commons License, 2010. 2 Author First Name Last Name

1. Ways of thinking in the sense of diversity without unity. Let’s call it disjunctivism. The often bemoaned cleft What is a way of thinking? A way of between the so-called two cultures of hard thinking is the way how identity and difference science and soft science (humanities) is the are thought to relate to each other. Relating most striking example for this way of thinking. identity and difference may be presumed to In fact, this is a description of the state of the be the most basic function of thinking. It scientific adventure as a multiplicity of appears in praxiological, ontological and monodisciplinary approaches that are alien epistemological contexts. That is, practical and deaf towards each other. problems that come to thought, entities that And, finally, there is a fourth way of thinking are investigated, phenomena that have to be that is opposed to all of the others, to cognised, may be identical in certain respects reductionism, projectivism and disjunctivism but may differ from each other in other as well: integrativism. This is a way of thinking respects. that establishes identity as well as difference Regarding identity and difference, given favouring neither of the manifestations of complexity, that is, provided that what differs complexity; it establishes identity in line with is more complex than that from which it the difference; it integrates both sides of the differs, but, by the same token, instaurates an difference (yielding unity) and it differentiates integrated whole, the question arises as to identity (yielding diversity); it is a way of how the simple does relate to the complex, thinking that is based upon integration and that is, how less complex problems or objects differentiation; it is opposed to both or phenomena do relate to more complex dissociation and unification and yields unity ones. and diversity in one. It integrates “lower” and The first way of thinking, in terms of ideal “higher complexity” by establishing a types, establishes identity by eliminating the dialectical relationship between them. difference for the benefit of the less complex A dialectical relationship is said to exist, if side of the difference and at the cost of the the following criteria come true: firstly, both more complex side; it reduces “higher sides of the relation are opposed to each complexity” to “lower complexity”; this is other; secondly, they depend on each other; known as reductionism. Reductionism is still thirdly, they are asymmetrical in that neither the main stream of natural science. side can be replaced with the other without The counterpart of the reductive way of simultaneously replacing the mode of thinking is what might be called “projective”. relationship. Master-and-slave or mother-and- Projective thinking also establishes identity by daughter are examples for dialectical eliminating the difference, albeit for the benefit relationships. of the more complex side of the difference and at the cost of the less complex side; it 1.1. Reductionism takes the “higher” level of complexity as its point of departure and extrapolates or projects The relationship between practical from there to the “lower” level of complexity. It problems, entities and phenomena of different overestimates the role of the whole and complexity might be visualised using set- belittles the role of the parts. This is one trait theoretical considerations as follows: be A the of humanities. Both the reductive and the simple and B the complex. Then A is the basic projective way of thinking yield unity without set, B a subset (and B’ the complementary diversity. set). There is a third way opposed to both of the This means: B is differentiated, given the others in that it eliminates identity by basis A; B is different, it differs from all A that establishing the difference for the sake of is not B (which is B’); A represents the identity each manifestation of complexity in its own of both sides of the difference (B and B’). right; it abandons all relationships between all Reduction makes the border between B of them by treating them as disjunctive; it and B’ disappear such that B assumes to be dissociates one from the other, it A. Reductionism holds that every B is nothing dichotomises and yields dualism (or pluralism) but A.

CC: Creative Commons License, 2010. tripleC i(i): pp-pp, year 3

A praxic example: let A be the knowledge no connection whatever between natural facts about life in prehuman nature and B the and human values. values for human conduct. Then reductionism The ontic example: living nature would be would see the values as consequences of extrahuman. E.g., animals don’t have souls. how nature is behaving. So, for instance, the The epistemic example: biology and “struggle for life” in nature is seen as the sociology would in no way depend on one justification of the “struggle for life” in society. another. E.g., propositions about the social life An ontic example: let A be living nature and of living systems and propositions about B humans. Then reductionism conjures away humans in society use incompatible the difference humans make in living nature. languages and there can be no translation. So, for instance, ethology looks upon humans as naked apes. 1.4. Integrativism An epistemic example: let A be biology and Fourth, integration (with differentiation) B sociology. Then reductionism tries to draw sees B and B’ integrated into A and, at the social conclusions from biological premises. same time, A differentiated into B and B’. B is So, for instance, does so-called “sociobiology” result of a differentiation in A. that contends that biology is the discipline that comes first. The praxic example: human values of conduct, be it competition-oriented or cooperation-oriented, cannot be derived from 1.2. Projectivism nature, but nature provides biotic foundations Second, projection makes the border for either conduct. between B and B’ disappear such that A The ontic example: humans are a product assumes to be like B. Projectivism holds that of evolution of nature. In speciation they made every A is nothing but B. a difference to such an extent that the new The praxic example: according to features of mind, language and work began to projectivism, values of human conduct would outbalance the dynamics of biological hold for nature too. The “struggle for life”, evolution and even change their physiological originally found in society, is expanded to nature though humans never will be cut free cover prehuman nature too. from outer nature or their inner nature. The ontic example: according to The epistemic example: sociology projectivism, living nature does not differ from describes its part of reality with particular humans. Anthropomorphistic fallacies concepts and theories which relate to the extrapolate human traits to nonhuman species concepts/theories of biology in that the latter and organisms like the “mind”. describe spaces of possibilities for the The epistemic example: according to realisation of social subject matters. Insofar a projectivism, biological conclusions shall be common language can be sought for. derived from sociological premises. Ant Integrativism is itself a kind of dialectical colonies and bee hives are used to be likened sublation of unification and dissociation, of to human states with queens, workers etc. reductionism and projectivism and Suffice to mention that both reductionism disjunctivism. A dialectical sublation and projectivism arrive at the equation A = B eliminates the dominant role of the preceding but that in the first case it means A = A and in quality rather than the quality itself. This the second one B = B. quality is kept, that is, continued, but it is continued under the dominance of a new 1.3. Disjunctivism quality and is therefore – as Hegel liked to put it – lifted onto a next level. All of that holds for Third, disjunction conjures away the the integrativist thinking with regard to the common ground of B and B’. Disjunctivism fallacious ways of thinking. Reductionism, holds that A and B are disjunct. projectivism as well as disjunctivism are not The praxic example: the realm of behaviour totally negated but taken cum grano salis. in nature and the realm of human conduct Each of them has an aspect of would have nothing in common. E.g., there is overexaggeration that has to be abolished

CC: Creative Commons License, 2010. 4 Author First Name Last Name

but, by the same token, it has an aspect that domain – a premise which has long been is right once the onesidedness is removed. contested. Analogical reasoning does not Doing justice to these aspects is carried out meet them either, because there is no through the novel integrative view – in such a agreement on the primum analogatum, the way unity is established among the diverse standard of comparison. Nor does equivocity confligating views. meet them, because the babel of languages Hereby the principle of unity-through- which are not communicable would mean the diversity is established. Either you have unity end of scientific enterprise at all. without diversity (in the first and second case If we take a closer look, we can discover of reduction and projection) or you have the connection between the options given and diversity without unity (in the third case of scientific strands: disjunction). Integration as viewed here yields – synonymity is the option preferred by a unity in line with diversity, unity in diversity, “hard” science perspective; but also diversity in unity. Diversity is – analogy goes with the “soft” science considered a necessary condition of unity. perspective; and Thus it is called “unity-through-diversity”. – equivocity seals in each of those Diversity is (to be considered) a necessary, perspectives as a separate pillar though not sufficient, condition for unity and, according to the so-called two-cultures in turn, unity is (to be considered) a perspective. necessary, though not sufficient, condition for Each of the “hard” and “soft” science and diversity. two-cultures perspectives reflects one Diversity and unity condition each other. distinctive way of thinking, that is, Diversity can produce unity (then we speak of – the “hard” science perspective reflects unity-through-diversity), but need not to do it. reductionism, Unity can enable diversity (then we speak of – the “soft” science perspective reflects diversity-through-unity), but it can constrain projectivism, and diversity to uniformity (then there is no unity- – the two-cultures perspective reflects through-diversity). disjunctivism. To sum up, integrativism opposes What is missing so far, is integrativism. reductionism and projectivism as well as Integrativism will dissolve Capurro’s trilemma. disjunctivism but considers reduction, projection or disjunction as justified within 2.1. Information reductionism certain boundaries when taking into account the legitimate claims of each other. Reductionism reduces the meaning of information to one and the same meaning. Integrativism is one step on the way to a The reductionist way of thinking information Unified Theory of Information. approaches information as a “hard” fact that is given to whatever science (this holds for

2. Thinking in information everyday thinking too) as the one and only The review of the classifications of thing. information concepts/theories so far seems to Praxiologically, information is treated as support the assumption of a multitude of object of practical action of humans approaches that are diverse and irreconcilable whatsoever, i.e., in the context of social and do not offer the possibility of (cultural, political, economic) steering and consolidation. The attempt to construct order intervention, in environmental management, in from noise to turn the babel into polyphony the usage and the design of technology. It is a faces a situation which is known as “Capurro’s something that can be handled, in particular, Trilemma” between synonymity (unvocity), stored, retrieved, distributed, transmitted, analogy, and equivocity of the information received, processed. This is “objectivism”. concepts. No option, actually, meets demands Ontologically, this something is conceived for scientificity. Synonymity does not meet as an object of the real-world, be it in the them, because information in one domain realm of human society or in the wider would not differ from information in a different physical world, but it needs not necessarily to

CC: Creative Commons License, 2010. tripleC i(i): pp-pp, year 5

be a substance in its own right like matter is disjunctivist way of thinking information said to be in order to qualify for a materialistic reserves a distinct category for the subjective ontology. It is sufficient to look upon it as a (human) action of information, praxiologically, derivative of matter, that is, as a property of in the context of a social discourse made up matter like structure is usually conceived of humans only; ontologically, as a human which holds for signal transmission as well. phenomenon only; and, epistemologically, as So it’s considered a material object. This is subject to subjective interpretation only. “materialism”. It’s worth noting that the nature of information in this context is perceived as 2.4. Information integrativism rather fixed and static than fluid or dynamic. We found an objective view with Epistemologically, this material object is the reductionism that treats information as object object of inquiry by empirical and formal- with an exclusive focus on the structural scientific methods all of which are carried out aspect and a subjective view with projectivism in the so-called third-person perspective and disjunctivism that regard information as which means, from the point of view of an an agent’s subjective action or activity with an outside observer. Formalisms are developed exclusive focus on the process aspect. for measuring the structure of matter or Integrativism reveals information as a signals. This is “externalism”. subjective process that is constrained and enabled by information as an objective 2.2. Information projectivism structure that is produced by information as a Projectivism projects a particular meaning subjective process. Processes process of information to all the other meanings. The structures and structures structure processes. projectivistic way of thinking information is to That way the processual and the structural approach it as a “soft” phenomenon. That is, views are prompted to run together as much in analogy to that subjective human action as the subjectivistic and objectivistic, idealistic that is carried out by human actors and and materalistic, internalistic and externalistic esteemed an information process, subjective views are mediated and the two cultures of activity of the same kind is postulated to be the “soft” and the “hard” sciences are made carried out by any agents that are said to for bridging. populate the world. This is, praxiologically, a projection of 2.4.1. Beyond objectivism and human subjectivity in information processes subjectivism onto processes with nonhuman entities the Instead of objectivism or subjectivism, a degree of subjectivity of which might be put kind of subject-object-dialectics is promoted. into question – “subjectivism”. Objects and subjects are defined by (1) This is, ontologically, a projection of a mutual exclusion as opposites (2) depending presumed intentional nature of human on each other (3) in an asymmetrical relation. information processes onto the nature of The subject-object dialectics can be processes caused by nonhuman entities the visualised by a cycle by which the subject intendedness of which is questionable – couples up to the object. On the one hand, the “idealism”. Hence the fluidity and dynamicity object bears significance to the subject in so of all information in an idealistic view. far as its objective properties are able to suit This is, epistemologically, a projection of subjective functions. On the other, the subject subjective methods of gaining insight into the designates the object for serving it one way or phenomenon of information in humans onto another because it needs to reach out for that the study of nonhuman information processes which it makes into an object and it needs to – “internalism”. approach the object in a subjective way. It is in this very relationship that we find the 2.3. Information disjunctivism origins of information: we have subjective Disjunctivism disjoins every meaning from signification relating to objective significance. any other meaning of information. The

CC: Creative Commons License, 2010. 6 Author First Name Last Name

Praxis is the ongoing process of subjecting sign. The appearance of the sign (signans) objects to humans while factoring in inertia. turns the subject into a signmaker (signator); However, more often than not this inertia turns the signification process (significatio) into a out to be due not to the inert nature of the designation process (designatio) which means objects but to the level of subjectivity they that the signification process is sign-mediated; inhere according to their nature as kind of and the object into a something (to be) subjects. In that respect, humans have to signified (signandum/signatum) that bears a come to acknowledge that they interfere with significance for the subject (significantia). quasi- and proto-subjects and that it is up to When the signator relates to the humans, as fully-fledged subjects, to minimise signandum, the signator generates the the frictions occurring in the course of signans – this is an information process by interaction between different kinds of subjects which an information structure emerges; when in order to be able to better pursue their own the signans has emerged, the signator relates interests. to the signatum only by utilising the signans – an information process in which the 2.4.2. Beyond materialism and idealism information structure exerts some dominance. Thus we have an oscillation between Instead of materialism or idealism which is information process and information structure. monism and instead of dualism a dialectical Information is a relation, not a material answer is favoured. entity, nor an ideational event. It is a mediated Dialectics recognises identity and relation, not a direct relation between difference of matter and information at the something – a subject – and another thing – same time: it recognises identity, given the an object. It is mediated by a third thing, which difference, for this identity enables these gives the whole relationship its unique nature. different sides to interact; and it recognises the difference, given identity, for this makes it 2.4.3. Beyond externalism and internalism possible to differentiate matter and information as different specifications of an Instead of externalism or internalism, a identical, common, genus. This common perspective-shifting methodology is needed. ground must be one of the two sides, since Humanities are inclined to approach human otherwise the intention of integrativism is subjects and thus human information by flawed. And it should be that one of the two means of a first-person method. But there is sides that evidences giving rise to the other, social sciences like behavioural sciences or though in a non-derivative way. communication studies or cultural studies and Emergent(ist) materialism is known as there is psychology and cognitive sciences philosophy of mind that fulfils that criterion. that approach human subjects and human Matter is the common ground but leaves room information processes and structures in a for emergent properties and events as mind is third-person manner. Human subjects seem regarded which is conceived to be of a to be researchable from within and from different materiality compared with the simple, without. And there are nonhuman subjects, pure, materiality that occurs in the non- quasi- and protosubjects. They seem open to emergent state of matter. The notion of inquiry only from without. But if we suggest a emergentist materialism shall here be taken in genealogical lineage from proto- to quasi- to a wider sense to overarch all manifestations fully-fledged subjects and thus a deep of information and not only mind. connection between all kinds of subjects, why Recalling the subject-object dialectical should an investigation of the predecessors of cycle, we have to take into consideration that human subjects from within be impossible? a subject never relates directly to an object. We just would have to accept that empathy Its relation to the object is always mediated. It comes stepwise and homo sapiens which construes the means of mediation. In the disposes of the most sophisticated empathic course of the subject’s acting upon the object capabilities can try to apply these capabilities the subject gives rise to something new by in grades. We can conclude: subjects and which it mediates itself with the object – the their information processes and structures

CC: Creative Commons License, 2010. tripleC i(i): pp-pp, year 7

might be studied from an external and internal the process is frozen down into “bound” perspective as well. Objects turn out to be information again, but finds itself in another subjects that can be studied as objects and as structure, in a new structure generated by this subjects as well. Objects and subjects are two very subject (which, in turn, might as new sides of the coin. “potential” information become a starting point Processes and structures of information are for another information process). So one shift transmuting into one another. In order to do of perspective is preparing the ground for the justice to the different mutations of information next shift. shifts in the perspective taken are appropriate here too. One shift is from viewing fluid 3. Outlook: information as complex information (as a process) to viewing frozen systems concept information (as a structure). Since this structure seems to represent something that Having discussed the four ways of thinking might enter an information process anew, and how information conceptualisations may another shift is from grasping the freeze to reflect these four ways of tinking, the ground grasping the leaking of melted and liquified may have been prepared for a next step that information. This would help understand the applies these philosophy of information reaching out of the “potential”, “bound” considerations to cross-disciplinary thinking information (which is the structure) just by like complex systems thinking. The author virtue of its showing up (as “free” information) tries to do so in his forthcoming book to whatever is out there. A next step – the (Hofkirchner, 2010). “actualisation” of the “potential” information by a subject – could be seen as a step in which

References

Hofkirchner, W. (2010). Emergent information. An Outline Unified Theory of Information Framework. New York: World Scientific.

About the Author

Wolfgang Hofkirchner Associate Professor for Technology Assesment, Vienna University of Technology. Tries to promote a new science of information that comprises studies in information, information society and information technology.

CC: Creative Commons License, 2010.