Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0321699 = product of:
  0.1286796 = sum of:
    0.1286796 = weight(_text_:social in 2146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1286796 = score(doc=2146,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.69660133 = fieldWeight in 2146, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2146)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Vgl. Original unter: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627315005243: "Morais Tavares, R., A. Mendelsohn, Y.Grossman, C.H. Williams, M. Shapiro, Y. Trope u. D. Schiller: A Map for Social Navigation in the Human Brain" in. Neuron 87(2015) no.1, S,231-243. [Deciphering the neural mechanisms of social behavior has propelled the growth of social neuroscience. The exact computations of the social brain, however, remain elusive. Here we investigated how the human br ain tracks ongoing changes in social relationships using functional neuroimaging. Participants were lead characters in a role-playing game in which they were to find a new home and a job through interactions with virtual cartoon characters. We found that a two-dimensional geometric model of social relationships, a "social space" framed by power and affiliation, predicted hippocampal activity. Moreover, participants who reported better social skills showed stronger covariance between hippocampal activity and "movement" through "social space." The results suggest that the hippocampus is crucial for social cognition, and imply that beyond framing physical locations, the hippocampus computes a more general, inclusive, abstract, and multidimensional cognitive map consistent with its role in episodic memory.].

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=4473,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Overflowing inboxes, endlessly topped up by incoming emails. Constant alerts, notifications and text messages on your smartphone and computer. Infinitely scrolling streams of social-media posts. Access to all the music ever recorded, whenever you want it. And a deluge of high-quality television, with new series released every day on Netflix, Amazon Prime and elsewhere. The bounty of the internet is a marvellous thing, but the ever-expanding array of material can leave you feeling overwhelmed, constantly interrupted, unable to concentrate or worried that you are missing out or falling behind. No wonder some people are quitting social media, observing "digital sabbaths" when they unplug from the internet for a day, or buying old-fashioned mobile phones in an effort to avoid being swamped. This phenomenon may seem quintessentially modern, but it dates back centuries, as Ann Blair of Harvard University observes in "Too Much to Know", a history of information overload. Half a millennium ago, the printing press was to blame. "Is there anywhere on Earth exempt from these swarms of new books?" moaned Erasmus in 1525. New titles were appearing in such abundance, thousands every year. How could anyone figure out which ones were worth reading? Overwhelmed scholars across Europe worried that good ideas were being lost amid the deluge. Francisco Sanchez, a Spanish philosopher, complained in 1581 that 10m years was not long enough to read all the books in existence. The German polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz grumbled in 1680 of "that horrible mass of books which keeps on growing"."

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 5260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=5260,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 5260, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5260)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Es handelt sich hier um einen aus Krankheitsgründen nicht gehaltenen und erweiterten Beitrag zu einer Podiumsdiskussion auf der diesjährigen iConference in Sheffield (März 2018), die unter dem Titel "Curating the Infosphere" den Ansatz von Luciano Floridi zu einer umfassenden philosophisch-logischen Informationswissenschaft kritisch diskutierte. Während Floridi an seinem sehr weitreichenden Konzept der PI (Philosophy of Information) auf der Basis seiner GDI (General Definition of Information) arbeitet, ist außerhalb unseres Feldes die Social Epistemology der BibliothekswissenschaftlerInnen Margeret Egan und Jesse Shera wieder in den Blick der Erkenntnistheorie geraten. Ferner ist zu beobachten, dass sich andere Wissenschaften in großem Maße des Phänomens Information bemächtigen und es in ihr Wissenschaftsgebäude einbauen. Der vorliegende Text ist ein Plädoyer, genauer hinzuschauen, worum es der Informationswissenschaft ursprünglich ging und dafür, dass sie bei dem großen transdisziplinären Projekt mitwirken sollte, das andere Wissenschaften betreiben.

0.008632091 = product of:
  0.034528363 = sum of:
    0.034528363 = weight(_text_:social in 3380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034528363 = score(doc=3380,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.18691775 = fieldWeight in 3380, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3380)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In April 2010, Bill Gates gave a talk at MIT in which he asked: 'are the brightest minds working on the most important problems?' Gates meant improving the lives of the poorest; improving education, health, and nutrition. We could easily add improving peaceful interactions, human rights, environmental conditions, living standards and so on. Philosophy of Information (PI) proponents think that Gates has a point - but this doesn't mean we should all give up philosophy. Philosophy can be part of this project, because philosophy understood as conceptual design forges and refines the new ideas, theories, and perspectives that we need to understand and address these important problems that press us so urgently. Of course, this naturally invites us to wonder which ideas, theories, and perspectives philosophers should be designing now. In our global information society, many crucial challenges are linked to information and communication technologies: the constant search for novel solutions and improvements demands, in turn, changing conceptual resources to understand and cope with them. Rapid technological development now pervades communication, education, work, entertainment, industrial production and business, healthcare, social relations and armed conflicts. There is a rich mine of philosophical work to do on the new concepts created right here, right now.
Here, we introduce PI now. We cover core ideas, explaining how they relate both to traditional philosophy, and to the conceptual issues arising all over the place - such as in computer science, AI, natural and social sciences, as well as in popular culture. This is the first version, for 2013. Next year we'll tell you about PI 2014. We hope you love PI as much as we do! If so, let us have your feedback, and come back in 2014. Maybe some of you will ultimately join us as researchers. Either way, enjoy it. Yours, Patrick, Bert, Simon, Nir, Federico, Carson, Phyllis, Andrew, Eric, Giuseppe, Federica, Christoph, Mariarosaria, Matteo, Orlin, and Hector.

0.003138204 = product of:
  0.012552816 = sum of:
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)