Professor Zong-Rong Li

Well, this treatment of emergency and evolutionary themes, which is –as well known– in the very core of many western contemporary visions on information, e.g., in Hofkirchner, Collier, Kirby, can also be clearly identified in a significant amount of original works of Chinese authors. For instance, if constitutes one of the core topics developed in the philosophy of Kun Wu since the 1980 (which was presented in several contributions, though it would be worth providing a better translation in order to achieve a proper receipt in the West), as well as in the “theoretical informatics” of Zong-Rong Li (compiled in a dense volume which English edition –just out of the presses– was kindly given as a present); in the work of Xin-Zheng Jin, and many other participants.

As it has been observed in other occasions, the homonymies pointing to different realities represent a difficult pitfall for a genuine inter- or trans-disciplinary approach unless the respective references are clarified. To this respect, it is for instance interesting to recall how the terms “intelligence” or “intentionality” were used throughout the conference without any circumspection, despite the obvious differences among different accounts which address to distinct realities (machines, unicellular organism, animals, humans, societies, etc).

In the same line, “subject” clearly represents different realities depending on the role that intentionality or the social group might play in its constitution. This obviously reflects in the meanings of the aforementioned subjective-objective gaps.

Concerning disciplinary terms, we observed, for example, a diverse use of “logic” including some accounts which –in the worst case- might hinder a fruitful contribution from professional logicians who would not feel identify with the purpose to be achieved whereas they might agree with the ontological background, e.g. the dynamic of “contrary” or “contradictory” realities (I mention “contrary” realities since the senses to which the dialectical vision more usually points to belong to this type rather than to contradictory realities). Giving an example, Joseph Brenner –on the one side–, and Kamiura or Gunji –on the other side– use “logic” in clearly different senses. Though all face problems of dynamic inference, the former considers logics in a metaphysical sense, whereas the others just as theory of deduction. As the work of Gunji shows, recurring to alternative logics –not in a metaphysical sense but as deductive theory or calculus– may render approaches of significant added value to the understanding of the dynamical reality underlying information processes. There are also good reasons to think that the “universal logics” proposed by Huacan He, the “logical dynamics” of van Benthem, or the “paraconsistent logics” of our colleagues José Méndez and Gemma Robles might achieve a relevant contribution to this respect.

With respect to consolidated or developing disciplines (e.g. “informatics” –Western vs Eastern-, or “unified theory of information” –Hofkirchner vs Hashimoto), they exhibited multifarious accounts, though in this case more or less explicit. But what is more embarrassing  to the purpose of furthering an international and transversal framework for the understanding of information, there was a clearly miscellaneous way to understand what multi- inter- and trans-disciplinary is –including the case of not distinguishing them at all. Once again, clarifying what is really understood by each of the methodological proposal means to unveil fundamental assumptions; and it would also represent bringing into stage the tools allowing an effective cooperative framework to achieve a more unified account on information in its very different manifestations.

In sum, the mentioned misunderstandings (and many others which can be found in the set of contributions) justify that the clarification of the diverse points of view aimed at promoting a participatory and cooperative scientific framework requires making clear what each other understand by the used terms and the problems we are intending to tackle. These are reasons definitively encouraging for furthering the development of both the glossarium BITri and the domusBITae initiative.

Jointly, the contributions to FIS2010 from BITrum members include methodological proposals and approaches in the fields of: philosophy, logic, mathematics, semantics, physics, biology, economy, ecology and sociology. The following list of contributions (including authors, titles and links to texts –in preliminary versions, which after review will be compiled in a special issue co-edited by Tony in TripleC) provides an idea of the richness of the viewpoints offered by BITrum colleagues to the understanding of the information phenomena:

One of the central objectives of the Congress was the foundation of a inter-disciplinary scientific union in information studies which unlike “information science” integrates not only social, humanistic and technical sciences but also natural, formal and philosophical. During several Months previous to the meeting in Beijin, its objectives, structure, functions, gatherings, etc. was discussed. Particularly, it is worth mentioning the active and admirable work of Professor Zong-Rong Li substantiated in several proposals for discussion, as well as the contributions from Wolfgang and Dail Doucette from the Science of Information Institute.

In these discussions, BITrum offered two toeholds for the future international association: on the one hand, the initiative domusBITae as electronic-infrastructure to facilitate the articulation of the involved community (for communicating, sharing resources and results, cooperation, etc.); on the other hand, the glossary –extended to the participation of other communities- as a space for disambiguation and clarification of each other viewpoint.

Although before the congress specific aims, methods and organisation were not agreed, it seemed to be a tacit accord with respect to some essential elements, for instance, the general purpose of bringing together endeavours for constituting a wide disciplinary domain at the international level in which the multifaceted aspects of information (formal, physical, chemical, biological, cognitive, ethical, social, technological and philosophical) were integrated. But besides this tacit agreement, the following points –among others- hung in the air: (i) methodological aspects, e.g., if the approach among scientific domains was intended to be inter- or trans-disciplinary; (ii) if the new domain would recognize itself as “science of information” to evade confusion with the traditional field of “information science”, which academic weight has hindered in several occasions a more positive evaluation of  widely inter- or trans-disciplinary proposals, (iii) managing aspects related to the compositions of teams, functions, tenures, rotation or elective character of some roles; etc.

It is worth pointing out the amount of methodological proposals presented in the congress aimed at building a new science of information with the aforementioned features (about one-fourth of the contributions), which denotes the undoubtedly relevant interest for promoting a new scientific discipline for the study of information in its polyhedral reality.

Nevertheless, once the interested partakers were gathered after the last session of the first congress day, pitifully some particular objectives –not representing the general interest previously expressed in the preliminary discussions– were confronted instead of progressively adopting fundamental agreements –more easily reachable-. 

Fortunately, the existence of a wide interest for consolidating a discipline for the study of information including the aforementioned aspects offered a sufficient basis to enable that a committee (including Kang Ouyang and Yi-Xin Zhong as well as Wolfgang Hofkirchner and Pedro Marijuán) would decide the specific constitution of the international society. It was for instance agreed to call the new founded society as: “International Society for Information Studies”. Its acronym ISIS –as our colleague Rainer Zimmerman pointed out- corresponds to the name of the ancient Egyptian goddess who reconstructs her husband Osiris after he was cut up and disseminated by his jealous brother Seth. Allegorically, this represents an obvious correlate with the role of information. 

Concerning the potential role that BITrum might play: if the required support for developing the electronic infrastructure proposed by the initiative domusBITae is achieved, the new society would use it as a tool for communicating, disseminating, sharing resources, organizing and cooperating.

Regarding the objective of building a new scientific discipline, it can be concluded that some decisive steps were given in FIS2010: (i) two independently rich traditions were neared which joint baggage cannot but strengthen a embracing understanding of information; (ii) a first international scientific association was constituted convening naturalistic, social, humanistic, philosophical, formal and technical viewpoints on information; (iii) some methodological and theoretical alternative frameworks has been shown which would allow the constitution of several research programmes within the general objectives; (iv) unifying proposals has been offered which would allow a systematic articulation and mutual understanding between diverse theoretical frameworks; (v) once again, it has been observed that a conceptual, terminological and theoretical clarification constitutes a keystone for the erection of frameworks effectively being interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary.

With respect to these achievements we ought to be deeply thankful to all organizers, and particularly to our hosts: the Social Information Science Institute (chaired by Prof. Kang Ouyang) and the Chinese Association for Artificial Intelligence (chaired by Prof. Yi-Xin Zhong). Thank you, Wolfgang, for encouraging us all; to the Science of Information Institute for supporting BITrum's participation... Nonetheless, though these were decisive steps, we face now a long path to be walked with no less resolution so that the new science of information can in fact offer scientific and practical fruits.