Before I get much further along in discussions of the various topics and issues in this field, perhaps a short definition and some background information would be in order. I will try not to get too esoteric and technical with philosophical jargon in my writings on PI, since I want to keep you as readers. However, I have to do justice to the topic and to you as thinkers and educated, literate professionals by at least dealing with the basics of the discipline in the somewhat complex vernacular required.

As early as the 1950’s there was speculation about computers and intelligence as mathematician Alan Turing developed his “Turing Test”. He said, “I propose to consider the question “Can machines think?” This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms “machine” and “think.”

The advent of the computer has forced philosophers and computer scientists to consider new theoretical positions about the mind, cognition, consciousness, metaphysics, language, and much more.

Until a few decades ago, professional philosophers have avoided the topics of PI and left them to other disciplines. The interdisciplinary nature of the issues in PI made it so that no particular specialty perceived these issues to be their own.

Luciano Floridi, Associate Professor of Logic and Epistemology at Oxford, was incremental in defining the Philosophy of Information and has written extensively on various topics in the field. In his essay titled “What is the Philosophy of Information” he defines it thusly:

Philosophy of information (PI) is the philosophical field concerned with
a) the critical investigation of the conceptual nature and basic principles of information, including its dynamics, utilization, and sciences, and
b) the elaboration and application of information-theoretical and computational methodologies to philosophical problems.

The dynamics of information could refer to such things as “information life cycles” (the various stages in form and functional activity through which information can pass), the constitution and modeling of information environments (one of which could be the library), or computation. Floridi says PI is prescriptive about what may count as information, and how information should be adequately created, processed, managed, and used.

He goes on to state that that PI can be discussed through the perspectives of the ancient, classical, and modern authors such as Descartes, Plato, and Nietzsche, who wrote well before the current information age.

I know that this is pretty dense subject matter, but I hope you can see why an informed discussion of PI is relevant to Library and Information Science. Floridi makes its importance clear as he concludes this essay with this paragraph:

PI, understood as a foundational philosophy of information modeling and design, can explain and guide the purposeful construction of our intellectual environment, and provide the systematic treatment of the conceptual foundations of contemporary society.

It enables humanity to make sense of the world and construct it responsibly, reaching a new stage in the semanticization of being. If what has been suggested here is correct, the current development of PI may be delayed but remains inevitable, and it will affect the overall way in which we address both new and old philosophical problems, bringing about a substantial innovation of the philosophical system. This will represent the information turn in philosophy. Clearly, PI promises to be one of the most exciting and fruitful areas of philosophical research of our time.