Talk:Philosophy of information

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ego Floridis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hegel 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Computing and philosophy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Logic of information

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Maxwell Maltz]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does Information Require Sentient Intelligence? 

message: Final section of present lead: 
It includes:
# the critical investigation of the conceptual nature and basic principles of information, including its dynamics, utilisation and sciences
# the elaboration and application of information-theoretic and computational methodologies to philosophical problems.Luciano Floridi, "What is the Philosophy of Information?" , Metaphilosophy, 2002, (33), 1/2.
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)
thread_title:  Tapas bar of paint desiccants