Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Destaque
Semelhante a Art+Science+BigData+(Part+three)
Semelhante a Art+Science+BigData+(Part+three) (20)
Art+Science+BigData+(Part+three)
- 1. 重庆交通大学马蒂亚斯国际设计学院 联系地址：重庆南岸区学府大道66号重庆交通大学马蒂亚斯国际设计学院 邮编：400074 办公室电话：62652494 邮箱：yssjzy@163.com 重庆交通大学马蒂亚斯国际设计学院由国际知名设计教育专家，重庆交 通大学特聘教授盖尔哈特·马蒂亚斯先生出任荣誉院长。马蒂亚斯先生是德 国卡塞尔大学终身教授，以弘扬其国际设计教育理念提高中国学生设计艺术 水平为己任，为中国设计教育事业无私奉献 25 年。 学院下设视觉传达、环境设计、产品设计、工业设计四个专业，在校本 科生 600 余人，拥有设计高中级专职教师 39 人。“巴渝海外引智计划”引 入德国奥芬巴赫造型艺术学院设计学院院长克劳斯·海瑟教授等多位专家， 通过开展大师课题组授课形式，推动创新人才孵化。学科体系建设融入国际 教育理念，着力提高学生设计创意能力和创新能力。 学院配置完整的艺术设计实验室及多个实训基地，是国家人力资源与劳 动保障部授权“箱包设计师、首饰设计师职业资格鉴定”认证机构。学院创 建全新育人实践平台——“交大设计·学生智造”时尚众创空间，高度契合 李克强总理提出的“大众创业，万众创新”——中国经济“新引擎”的创新 理念。学院专注于激发、扶持市内外高校在校、毕业生在时尚创意设计领域 的创意、创新、创业行为，汇集了一批以马蒂亚斯教授、海瑟教授等国际知 名设计师、企业家为代表的创业导师。 该空间坚持“政府引导、学校主导、市场运作”的发展模式，以主抓时 尚领域创意创新，孵化时尚行业的设计、创意人才为目标，坚持运用“互联 网 +”思维，通过“时尚资讯”、“3D 虚拟工厂”等互联网创新服务，按照 空间的“育苗—选育—孵化—产业化”四阶段培育流程，推行线上线下教育 联动，孵化成果多元化的营销助推方式，以培养“动手、创意、执行”为代 表的新时代学生智慧与能力，从而实现“创新推动创业、创业带动就业”的 创新发展，为“中国制造 2025”培育急需的各类人才。 ZHUANGSHI ZHUANGSHI 2016 2016 3 3 立足当代 关注本土 中文社会科学引文索引 CSSCI 来源期刊 中国装饰杂志社 地址：中国北京市海淀区清华园 清华大学美术学院A431室 邮编：100084 定价：30.00元 电话：010-62798878 / 62798189 传真：010-62798879 网址：www.izhsh.com.cn 出版时间：2016年3月15日 邮发代号：2-346 电邮：zhuangshi689@263.net 艺术设计月刊 1958 年创刊／总第 275 期 清华大学主办 清华大学美术学院承办 中 国 装 饰 杂 志 社 Design for Health SPECIAL FEATURE特别策划 构建健康的公共卫生文化——生态型公共厕所系统创新设计研究 Build a Healthy Culture of Public Hygiene: Research on Ecological Public Toilet System Innovation Design 构建基于患者体验的健康产品 - 环境 - 服务设计创新 Health Care Design Innovation on Product, Environment and Service: Towards Patient Experience “城中村”基本体育公共服务体系设计——基于体育权利贫困的思考 The System Design of Sports Public Service in "Village in the City": Thinking of the Sports Rights Poverty 健康趋势与科技创新助力运动装设计发展 Health Trend & Technology Innovation Promote the Development of Sportswear Design 健康设计
- 3. 005 008 010 011 012 019 022 026 030 036 040 052 058 067 News and Events Column Host: Zhang Ming Briefing, News Overseas Information New Design Recommended Reading Special Feature: Design for Health Column Host: Zhou Zhi Health Care Design Innovation on Product, Environment and Service: Towards Patient Experience Zhao Chao The System Design of Sports Public Service in "Village in the City": Thinking of the Sports Rights Poverty Cui Xuemei Qiu Jun HealthTrend &Technology Innovation Promote the Development of Sportswear Design Wang Lu Build a Healthy Culture of Public Hygiene: Research on Ecological Public Toilet System Innovation Design Liu Xin Zhu Lin Xia Nan Inclusive Design Strategy of Village’s Open Space under the Demand of Health Promotion: Take Shanghai Zhujiajiao Town Dianshan Lake No.1 Village as an Example Liu Chenshu Shape of Urban Road Network, Urban Transportation and Haze Governance Yi Wenqing Ru Shaofeng Exhibition on Paper Column Host: Liu Jingjing China Excellent Fashion Graduates Award 1995-2015 Written and Edited by Liu Jingjing, Wang Xingyu Provided by China Fashion Association Front Line Column Host: Xiao Feng Experience, Cooperation and Sharing: An Interview with Interior Designer, Shen Lei YuanYuan Teng Xiaobo International Scholars Column Host: Liu Jingjing Art / Science & Big Data (Part three) Gordon Knox Translated by WangYun View Column Host: Mo Xiao Ethical Analysis about Public Space Design Behind the“Dispute on Square Dance“ Zhu Li Zhang Nan 信息时空 栏目主持：张 明 短讯、要闻 域外传真 新设计 推荐阅读 特别策划：健康设计 栏目主持：周 志 构建基于患者体验的健康产品 - 环境 - 服务设计创新 赵 超 “城中村”基本体育公共服务体系设计 ——基于体育权利贫困的思考 崔雪梅 仇 军 健康趋势与科技创新助力运动装设计发展 王 露 构建健康的公共卫生文化 ——生态型公共厕所系统创新设计研究 刘 新 朱 琳 夏 南 健康增进需求下村落开放空间的包容性设计策略 ——以上海朱家角镇淀山湖一村为例 刘晨澍 城市路网形状与城市交通和雾霾治理 易雯晴 茹少峰 纸上展览 栏目主持：刘晶晶 桃李春风二十年——记中国时装设计“新人奖”（1995-2015） 撰文、编辑 ：刘晶晶、王星宇 资料提供 ：中国服装设计师协会 第一线 栏目主持：萧 冯 体验，合作与分享：室内设计师沈雷专访 袁 园 滕晓铂 海外动向 栏目主持：刘晶晶 艺术、科学与大数据 III [ 美 ] 戈登·诺克斯 翻译 ：汪 芸 观点 栏目主持：莫 筱 “广场舞之争”背后的公共空间设计伦理辨析 朱 力 张 楠 顾 问（以姓氏拼音为序）： 常沙娜 陈汉民 黄能馥 邵大箴 陶如让 王国伦 温练昌 奚静之 杨永善 余秉楠 袁杰英 袁运甫 张伯海 张道一 编 委（以姓氏拼音为序）： 包 林 方晓风 杭 间 何 洁 李当岐 李砚祖 柳冠中 鲁晓波 吕敬人 马 赛 尚 刚 宋建明 苏 丹 汪大伟 王明旨 赵 健 赵 萌 张 敢 张夫也 郑曙旸
- 4. 海外动向 International Scholars058 / 总第275期 / 2016 / 03 艺术、科学与大数据 III Art / Science & Big Data (Part three) [ 美 ] 戈登·诺克斯 翻译 ：汪 芸 Gordon Knox Translated by Wang Yun “Storytelling is not just important for the human mind, it is the human mind.” - O. E. Wilson PART THREE: science/art + BIG DATA Science/Art - How we KNOW the WORLD I start with the understanding that art and science are similar and closely related efforts, driven at the root by the inescapable human quest to understand and explain (or internalize) the world and learn how we are part of it. Science and art are our species’ response to the questions “where are we, why are we here and how does this place work?” Art and science are two complimentary and overlapping but not identical approaches to answering these questions. The Art/Science distinction might be understood as the difference between science’s pursuit of the ‘laws’ of nature and arts quest to make sensible the ‘meaning’ of things. The former appear to be certainties we can build complex structures upon and the later a cloud of interpretations with which we might perceive order in emotions. While science attempts to make sense of the world with exact measurements and precise objective observations, the arts seek to “understand consciousness from the inside”; artists believe that “our truth must begin with us, what reality feels like.” [1] Art & Science are massive, ancient, complex, cumulative, collaborative projects that span all of history and are very much still under way. They are the most effective, sophisticated and enduring systems of knowledge production that our species has come up with. They share more than they differ and together they provide us with a systematic, on-going study and record of both the physical and social realms, and how these two hemispheres of reality interact and interdepend. Art and science together are really the only way the species actually ‘knows’ things. They are a pair and must be understood as that: two elements in the single compound of human knowledge. But they are not the same. Artists engage in symbolic, comprehensive, critical interpretations of the world. Science’s direct, verifiable bond with ‘reality’ provides extraordinary efficacy and the capacity for building things in the world and understanding the properties of the physical Art is the species’ ‘go-to’ system for examining the ungraspable. The arts emerged from the imprecise but profoundly ‘real’ world of ‘meaning’; art emerges from an accumulation of interpretation, innuendo, intuition, impression and systematic, rigorous analysis. Art is focused thinking, where thinking includes feelings; as a result the arts allow focused thinking to move beyond what things are known to be made of and “讲故事不仅仅对于人类思维而言是重 要的，它本身就是人类思维。” ——O·E·威尔逊 第三部分 ：艺术、科学与大数据 艺术 / 科学——我们如何了解世界 我从这样一种认识出发，即艺术与科学是 相似且紧密相关的努力与尝试，从根本上受到 人类对于理解并解释或是内化世界，以及了解 我们何以成为世界的一部分的无法逃避的探索 所驱使。科学与艺术是我们这个物种对于“我 们在哪里，我们为什么在这里以及这个地方是 如何运转的”这类问题的回应。在回答这些问 题的时候，艺术与科学是两种互补且相互重叠 但并不完全相同的方法。 我们可以将艺术与科学之间的区别理解为 科学对于自然“法则”的追求与艺术探寻事物 的“意义”之间的差别。前者似乎是我们可以 用来建构复杂的结构的确定的事实 ；而后者则 是一团云雾状的阐释，我们可以通过它洞察情 感的秩序。科学试图以精确的尺度与精准的客 观观察来理解世界，而艺术则寻求“从内部理 解意识”，艺术家相信“我们的真理必定从我 们开始，现实是什么样的一种感受”[1] 。 艺术与科学是庞大、古老、复杂的，由长 期积累形成的，且是协作性、正在进行中、贯 穿全部历史的项目，是人类物种提出的最为有 效、复杂、经久的知识生产系统。它们的相似 之处大于两者之间的区别，共同针对物理与社 科领域，以及这两个领域如何在现实中相互作 用与依赖，为我们提供了一种系统性的、正在 进行中的研究与记录。事实上，艺术与科学是 人类物种唯一真正“认识”事物的方式。它们 是一对，也必须作为一对来理解，即作为人类 知识单一化合物中的两种元素，但并不相同。 艺术家对世界进行象征性的、全面的、批 判性的阐释。而科学则与“现实”有着直接的、 可验证的关联，为建构世界和理解物质的属性 提供了非凡的效力与能力。 艺术是人类物种检验无法掌握的事物的 “核心”系统。艺术源于不精确但却是深刻的“真 实”世界的“意义”，由阐释、隐射、直觉、印象、 系统化且严格的分析累积而成。艺术是集中性 的思考，而这种思考包含了感受 ；结果是艺术 使集中性的思维超越了我们对于事物的形成及 其意义惯有的认识。艺术有能力建构多层次的 理解，其中包含直觉性的或是模糊的成分，这 使得艺术相较于科学，更适于从整体上理解庞 杂的问题。科学运作的范畴要更多一些确定性 而少一些模糊性，它所趋向的是专业化的准确 （接上期） (Continued from last issue)
- 5. 海外动向 International Scholars 059总第275期 / 2016 / 03 / 性。艺术则相当轻松地拥抱一系列复杂的行为 以及相互作用——这其中有一些是已经被了解 的，有一些还没有被了解——并为我们讲述关 于所有这一切的故事。 我们通过艺术与科学了解世界。艺术是一 个阐释与翻译的过程，它探索的是我们所看见、 了解甚至是想象中的世界，通过运用“意义” 与社会价值使事物变得清晰明了且易于理解。 艺术与直觉、想象、价值和意义合作，将我们 对于自然世界以及社会的认识集结在一起，并 藉此创造出新的现实。艺术对于世界的把握基 于它对人类意味着什么。从另一方面来看，科 学所努力呈现的是世界上“切实”存在的事物， 它期望描绘并理解一种超越人造文化复杂性的 现实，即便它所需要的正是运用这些文化结构 来组织科学发现。艺术是阐释性的，也因此没 有所谓的“科学真理”，它超越了实证的范畴， 因而不能呈现“现实”，或者说像科学那样操 控“现实”。艺术所呈现的真实对于阐释积极 其复杂的存在而言是开放的，它不能操控现实 的原因在于它本身不作为现实而存在。然而， 科学所宣称的是“真理”，因此有着强大的操 控性。科学向我们宣称什么是“真实的”，而 这种极权主义式的确定性可能是极度具有操控 性的。科学与艺术好像是对方的制动器——照 亮各自的盲区——两者在一起形成一种互动的 复合体，成为自己的核心能源，进一步向前推 进探索与认知。 人类的演进已经超越了单纯的物理现象， 我们悬浮在意义、象征、理念与认知的海洋中。 伴随数字化的发展，这个水世界会变得更深、 更宽，且更快地变动。正如领土定义了上一个 时代那样，信息定义了这个时代。 艺术与科学相结合，作为其平等且充满活 力的同事而并肩工作。艺术提供了社会所需要 的弹性与适应性以改变人们之间相处以及人类 对待地球的方式。艺术提供了人性化的理由与 意义，以综合的方式去激活科学与技术的解决 方案。这种方式又是快捷的，或许可以帮助我 们应对来势汹汹的危机。艺术与科学是人类知 识生产的两个连体的核心组件。艺术可以设定 价值，并改变我们的思维方式，以便我们运用 科学与技术去妥善应对全球性的挑战。艺术会 帮助我们决定是生存还是死亡，而科学会令其 中的任何一种可能性变成现实。 文化 / 自然——就是世界（需要了解什么） 觉悟既需要科学，也需要艺术。我们若要 了解这个世界，两者缺一不可。 究其原因，了解世界需要艺术与科学的理 由在于世界部分是由“自然”世界组成的。自 然界总是存在的，有着自身的规律、序列和进 程，部分由“文化”世界组成，这是我们在进 化的过程中创造出来的。事实上，在大部分的 on to what they mean. Art’s ability to construct multi-layered understandings that include components that are intuited or ambiguous, make it better suited to comprehend the totality of a massively complex problem than is science. Science operates with less ambiguity and more certainty and drives towards the precision of specialization. Art is quite comfortable wrapping its arms around a burly complex of actions and interactions – some understood, some not – and telling us the story of what it is holding. Art and Science, together, are how we KNOW the world. Art is a process of interpretation and translation; it explores the world we see and know and even imagine, and makes sense of it by using ‘meaning’ and social values to render things intelligible, understandable. Art creates new realities by working with intuition, imagination, values and meaning to assemble understandings of the natural and social world. The grasp art has on the world is based in what it means to be human. Science, on the other hand, strives to present what is ‘actually’ there in the world; it looks to describe and understand a reality beyond the human-made complexities of culture, even if it requires those very cultural constructs to assemble these scientific findings. Art is interpretive and so has no claims of ‘scientific truth’; it is beyond verification and thus cannot claim to present ‘reality’, or, as science often does, manipulate ‘reality’. Art presents a reality that is open to interpretation and exceedingly complex, it cannot manipulate reality because it does not present itself as reality. Science, however, claims truth and so can be powerfully manipulating; science claims to tell us what is ‘real’ and in that act of totalitarian certainty, can be profoundly manipulative. Science and art work as brakes on each other – illuminating each other’s blind spots – and together, as an interactive compound, they are their own core source of energy, driving explorations and understandings further forward. Humans have evolved beyond the physical alone; we are suspended in a sea of meaning, in symbols and ideas and understandings. With the development of the digital, this watery world has gotten thicker, wider and faster moving. Information defines this age the way territory defined the last one. In conjunction with the sciences, working as an equal and energetic colleague, the arts provide the resiliency and adaptability needed for societies to transform how they treat each other and the planet; the arts provide human-based reasons to and meaning for activating scientific and technological solutions in a way that is both comprehensive and fast enough to possibly meet the crises bearing down on us. Art and science are co-joined as the two core components of human knowledge production. Art can set values and change how we think about why we might choose to apply science and technology
- 6. 海外动向 International Scholars060 / 总第275期 / 2016 / 03 1. 拉斯科洞穴中的图像，法国，35,000 年前或后 to ameliorate global challenges. Art will help us decide to survive or not, science will make either happen. Culture/Nature - Is the WORLD (What there is TO KNOW) Consciousness requires both science and art; we will not understand this world with only one of the two. The reason knowing the world requires art and science together is because the world is partially made up of the ‘natural’ world – always there with its own laws, sequences and processes – and partially made up of the cultural world – invented by us as we go along. For most of human history art and science were in fact so perfectly overlaid that there was no discernable difference. Susan Sontag says “that the earliest experience of art must have been that it was incantatory, magical; art was an instrument of ritual.” [2] From the very beginning, ‘art’ and science were investigations into the world around us and into the meaning – or understandings - of the world around us. There was no separation between that which we imagined we understood, and those things that we have tested and tried and learned through observance to be true. These images from the Lascaux caves in southwestern France are at once expressive depictions of careful observations of patters and forms of flora and fauna of the region at the time, social / psychological explorations of ritualized gatherings - with hands imprinted on walls, and a pretty amazing grasp of organic chemistry – after 35,000 years these are still glorious rich colors. Science and art were one and the same at this point – how things work and what they mean were fully interconnected. (Fig.1) Culture and nature were not separated but, rather, so seamlessly aligned there was no distinction to be made between them. At different points in human history we can see the degree to which communities rely on mythical- magical explanations or on ‘meaning-based’ interpretations versus carefully accumulated, tested and re-tested observations of the physical world. But even in the hardest of the hard- core sciences, narrative and speculation play a central role in the formation of thoughts about the world. Just as art and narrative are embedded in the physical world, even as they weave stories about culture and belief, so the sciences depend on imagination and speculation. In discussing the recent affirmative breakthrough in particle astrophysics, confirming Einstein’s century old theoretical speculation of gravitational waves, Jon Butterworth, a High Energy physicist, reveals the interplay between science and imagination: “I’d like to draw an analogy with my own research at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. Before it was discovered in 2012, the Higgs boson was expected by the majority of particle physicists. Many theorists (including Peter Higgs) would have been astonished if it didn’t show up. But when it did, it still had a huge impact, both emotionally 人类历史中，艺术与科学的结合是如此完美， 以至于两者之间并不存在明显的差异。苏珊·桑 塔格说 ：“对艺术最早的体验一定是魔咒般 的、神奇的，艺术是仪式的工具。”[2] 从一开 始，艺术与科学就在探知我们周遭的世界及其 意义，或者说是我们对其的认知。在我们通过 想象所理解的事物，与通过我们检验、尝试与 学习并经过观察被证明是正确的事物之间，并 没有差异。法国西南部拉斯科洞穴中的这些图 像一度是对当时存在于该地区的动植物图案与 形式的观察所做出的富于表现力的描绘，也是 对仪式化聚会的社会性和精神性探索——将双 手印在墙面上是对有机化学的惊人领会—— 35,000 年之后，它们的色彩仍然鲜亮而丰富。 从这一点看来，科学与艺术是合一的——事物如 何运作以及它们的意义都是相互联系的。（图 1） 文化与自然并不是分离的，反之，它们是 如此紧密地相互联系，以至于难以在两者之间 作出区分。我们会在人类历史的不同时间段上 发现人类社会对“神话 - 神奇”的阐释或是以 “意义为基础”的阐释的依赖，与对物质世界 进行仔细计算、测试以及重新测试的观察的依 赖之间的比例。不过，即便是在核心科学中最 艰涩的部分里，叙事与推断仍然在我们形成对 世界的看法过程中起到了主导作用。即便是在 编织有关文化与信仰的故事的时候，艺术与叙 事也深植于物质世界。同样，科学也依赖于想 象与推断。在讨论粒子天体物理学近来取得的 轰动性突破，并以此确认了迄今为止有一个世 纪历史的爱因斯坦有关“引力波”的理论推测 的时候，高能物理学家乔恩·巴特沃思揭示了 科学与想象力之间的相互作用 ： “我想以自己在欧洲核子研究组织里运 用大型强子对撞机进行的研究来打个比方。 2012 年之前，也就是在希格斯玻色子被发 现之前，它就已经被大多数粒子物理学家预 测到了。如果它没有显现出来，（包括彼得·希 格斯在内的） 许多理论家都会为此而震惊。 然而，当它显现出来的时候，仍然在情感上 以及科学层面上引起了巨大的反响。了解与 猜测是不同的，意义区别于预测。以希格斯 为例，我们正在探索内部空间的高能量到 达，伴随对于质量起源的理解。以引力波为 例，我们现在可以用一种全新方式去观察宇 1
- 7. 海外动向 International Scholars 061总第275期 / 2016 / 03 / and scientifically. Knowing is different from guessing, measuring is different from predicting. In the case of the Higgs, we are now exploring the higher-energy reaches of inner space armed with an understanding of the origins of mass. In the case of gravitational waves, we can now begin to observe the universe in an entirely new way, and it is difficult to predict what we may learn from that.”[3] Our process of understanding the world requires speculation and verification even for the most concrete physical investigations. And the world is far from only physical, the majority of our daily reality is made up of cultural content, systems and processes that have been dreamed up and implemented by us for us and about us. When attempting to understand this huge component of reality, the cultural sphere, basic physical truths melt in the face of far more malleable and uncertain forces of ‘meaning’ and ‘values’. Big Data - an example of Culture/Nature (we made it up/always there) Big Data usually refers to “data sets with sizes beyond the ability of commonly used software tools to capture, curate, manage, and process data within a tolerable elapsed time; [4] ” Big Data is a general reference for the immense, complex and bewildering ocean of information we are now able to compile and examine about every imaginable aspect of the known universe. Not surprisingly, given human vanity, the vast bulk of Big Data is not only about us but is generated by us. The Internet, the Twitter-sphere, volumes of Facebook records, ‘mega-data’ on communications, phone and email records and every imaginable piece of medical, financial and locational data on most every human on the planet constitute the Big Data of human interaction. But there are also unconquerable seas of data, strings of “data lakes” [5] on geology, biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, astrophysics. The ‘Big’ in Big Data is the relevant agent [6] . The presence of information, complex or simple, is not the issue; the transformative component of Big Data is the scale and velocity of the information we face. Humans have created more data in the past two years than we have since the beginning of human activity. The world’s effective capacity to exchange information through telecommunication networks was 281 petabytes in 1986, 471 petabytes in 1993, 2.2 exabytes in 2000, 65 exabytes in 2007 and predictions put the amount of internet traffic at 667 exabytes annually by 2014. (“Data, data everywhere”. The Economist. 25 February 2010. Retrieved 9 December 2012.)According to one estimate, one third of the globally stored information is in the form of alphanumeric text and still image data,(Wikipedia: Big data. https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_data#cite_note-HilbertContent-51) which is the format most useful for most big data applications. This also shows the potential of yet 节（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petabyte）， 2000 年的数据是 2.2 艾字节，2007 年的数据 是 65 艾字节（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Exabyte），预计到 2014 年为止，互联网的 年度通信量将达到 667 艾字节。（"Data, data everywhere". The Economist. 25 February 2010. Retrieved 9 December 2012.）据估 计，全球所存储的信息有三分之一是以字母数 字文本和静止图像的形式存在。（Wikipedia: Big data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ data#cite_note-HilbertContent-51）就大数 据应用而言，这是最有用的格式，同样也显示 了尚未使用的数据的潜质（例如以视频与音频 格式存在的内容，图 2）。 宙，我们究竟能从中学到些什么是难以预期 的。”[3] 我们在认识世界的过程中需要推断与证 实，即便是在最具体的物理研究中，而世界也 远不止于自然界与物质。我们日常现实的主体 是由我们为自己构想并实现的关于自身文化性 内容、系统与过程所组成的。当我们试图了解 文化领域——这个庞大的现实组成部分的时 候，基本的物理学真相便融化在更加具有韧性 与可塑性，并充满了不确定性的“意义”与“价 值”的力量中了。 大数据——文化 / 自然的范例（我们构造了它） 大数据通常被称为“在可容忍的运行时间 内，所设定尺寸超过惯用捕捉、创建、管理以 及信息处理软件工具的数据”[4] 。大数据泛指 巨大、复杂且扑朔迷离的信息海洋，也是针对 已知世界任何一个可以想象到的方面我们目前 能够编辑并审查的信息。不足为奇的是，因为 人类的虚荣，海量的大数据不仅仅是有关于我 们的，同时也是由我们产生的。互联网、推特 空间、大量的 Facebook 记录，还有在沟通、 电话与电子邮件中的“元数据”，以及任何一 个可以想象到的关于地球上每个个体的医药、 金融与区位数据，组成了人类互动的大数据。 不过，不可控制的信息海洋也仍然存在于地质 学、生物学、化学、数学、物理学与天文物理 学的“数据湖”[5] 之中。 大数据中的“大”是一个相关的因素 [6] ， 呈现或复杂或简单的信息并不是问题的关键。 大数据具有变革能力的构成在于我们所面对的 信息的规模与速度。人类在过去两年中所创造 的数据要大于人类活动初始迄今的创造。1986 年，世界上通过电信网络交换信息的有效功 率是 281 拍字节（https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Petabyte），1993 年的数据是 471 拍字 2. 鲍达民 ：“重塑全球经济的五大趋势”(https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=E4-MyLj-LdE&app=desktop)，在 斯坦福商学研究生院的讲座，2013 年 5 月 28 日。 2
- 8. 海外动向 International Scholars062 / 总第275期 / 2016 / 03 unused data (i.e. in the form of video and audio content). (Fig.2) The challenge is how do we use this data? At first glance it appears that the vast majority of this mass of data is useless, while a small percentage is extraordinarily useful, but we have just begun to explore how we might approach these new oceans of information and render it powerful. In the early 2000’s, with the arrival of Twitter and the increasingly thick, globally active, real-time, searchable, geographically locatable data-cloud of tweets sent up by millions of people chirping about their day, creative thinkers at the United States Geological Survey realized that they could begin to ‘read’ the globe in a new way. The ‘twittersphere’ (this temporally and geographically precise cloud of Big Data generated by the millions of Twitter users) could be used to create a real-time mapping of the movement of the planet’s tectonic plates. If millions of people around the world are happy to inform the twitter-sphere that they are enjoying a latte at Starbucks or are in a traffic jam on one of Beijing’s ring roads, or any number of other trivial details, then they certainly will tweet an earthquake, a temblor or a seismic event of any sort. The USGD developed the TED (Tweet Earthquake Dispatch) program [7] . This program tracks, in every language, any time and place that a Twitter user tweets words such as ‘earth quake’, ‘temblor’, ‘earth shaking’, etc. By plotting these responses onto a three-dimensional map of the planet, the USGS team is able to track, in real time, the movements of the tectonic plates and their resulting effect on the land under our feet. By reading all the tweets in the Twittersphere, filtering for specific words or phrases, and visualizing the results on a model globe of the planet, the TED program is able to produce, for the first time in human history, a collectively generated, real time, humanly experienced, first-hand impression of the movement of the plates that constitute the surface of our planet. Who would have thought that the silliness of tweeting trivial tidbits of our lives would lead to a species-wide, direct experience of the changes in the skin of the Earth? But it did; and we have just begun to think about how to think about Big Data and what it can tell us. The evolving relationship between humans and microprocessors is introducing forms of awareness that radically alter our understanding of ‘reality’; ‘reality’ is now both larger and more inclusive than we thought. When once there was a sense that the human mind (your own mind) took in the glorious and awful world, both physical and cultural, and attempted to ‘make sense’ of it, or make sense of a tiny aspect of it to be joined by aspects made sense of by many other human minds, now, with the scale and speed of Big Data, we begin to see that the line of separation between us and non-us is growing dimmer and dimmer. Big Data is inclusive in that it compiles human and non-human data into a single massive 挑战在于我们如何运用这些数据。乍看起 来，这些大规模的数据中的绝大多数是没用的， 但其中一小部分非常有用。而我们则刚刚开始 探索应当如何着手处理这个信息的海洋，并使 其强大。21 世纪初，伴随推特的到来，以及 日益频繁的在全球范围内活跃的、实时的、可 检索的、由数百万用户发到推特上的信息—— 叽叽喳喳谈论他们的生活的信息——所组成的 地理定位数据云的形成，美国地质勘探局里具 有创造性的思想家们意识到他们可以开始用一 种新的方式“阅读”地球。“推特空间”（这个 由数百万推特用户制造出来的大数据云团）可 以用于创建实时的地球板块移动测绘。如果世 界各地数以百万计的人们都会兴高采烈地告知 推特空间 ：他们正在星巴克享受一杯拿铁，或 是遭遇了北京某条环路上的堵车，或者是任何 其他琐碎的小事，那他们一定会推送有关地震 的信息，包括一场地震或是任何由地震引起的 事件。美国地质勘探局发展出了 TED（推特 地震报道）程序 [7] 。在任何时间和地点，如果 有推特用户以任何一种语言推送了诸如“大地 震”“地震”和“地面颤动”之类的词汇，该 程序都能够进行追踪。通过将这些反映绘制成 地球的三维地图，美国地质勘探局的团队就能 实时追踪地壳构造板块的运动及其对我们脚下 的土地所产生的效果。通过阅读推特空间上的 所有信息，针对特殊词汇与短语进行过滤筛选， 并将结果通过地球的模型视觉化，推特地震报 道程序得以首次在人类历史上创造出实时的、 由集体产生的、与人的经验相关的、构成地球 表面板块运动的第一手经验。谁曾想到，傻里 傻气地推送生活琐事竟会引发整个物种对于地 球皮肤的变化的直接体验？但事实确实如此。 而我们只是刚刚开始思考如何看待大数据，以 及它会告诉我们些什么。 人类与微处理器之间不断发展的关系正在 引入的意识形式，彻底改变了我们对“现实” 的理解。现在，“现实”要比我们想象的更大 且更包罗万象。曾经存在着这样一种意识 ：人 类的大脑从物质与文化两个层面领会了这个既 美好又糟糕的世界，并试图“言之成理”，或 是试图理解世界的某个微小方面，而对于这个 微小方面的理解又需要加入许多其他人头脑里 产生出来的意识。现在，有了大数据的规模与 速度，我们开始发现在“我们”与“非我们” 之间的分界线变得越来越不清晰。大数据包罗 万象的原因在于它将人类与非人类的数据汇编 成为一个巨大的可处理的“信息”类别。当人 脑是已知宇宙中最大的，也是唯一的信息处理 单元的时候，不难理解我们是区别于自然界的， 或者说是位于自然界巅峰的，抑或是说我们绝 不仅仅只是自然界单纯的一部分。但是现在， 我们的个人信息有一半存储在笔记本电脑里， 而集体的知识则存储在图书馆或是有着新兴设
- 9. 海外动向 International Scholars 063总第275期 / 2016 / 03 / 3-1. 人脑的电子活动图 3-2. 互联网所形成的图像，2004 计的数据银行里。渐渐地，这样一种事实变得 日益清晰，即重要的或许不是人类，而是我们 集体积累收集并存储处理的信息。 直到 21 世纪，我们所知道的最复杂的东 西莫过于人脑——平均每个人的大脑大概有 10 亿个神经细胞，通过大约 1000 万亿个突 触连接相互沟通，大致相当于带有每秒 1 万亿 位处理器的计算机。[8] 然而，大约在 2004 年 的时候，包括所有的链路和节点在内的互联网 整体从数量上超过了人类大脑的等效部件。我 们已经共同创造出比自己的大脑更加复杂的事 物，而且据我们所知，这也是我们在宇宙中遇 到的最为复杂的事物。除此之外，根据摩尔定 律，互联网大约每 18 个月会增加一倍，2016 年的互联网已经比人脑复杂数倍。（图 3-1、 图 3-2） 信息节点连接构成互联网早已不是什么新 鲜事，比以前更好、更快、更小，而且每一个 环节都连接到每个人类用户非常复杂的大脑。 浩瀚的信息海洋广袤而没有中心。这里没有安 慰，网络没有中心，有的只是网络本身 ；没 有个体的自我意识，有的只是一个巨大的“我 们”[9] 。“林恩·马古利斯观察到‘是网络而不 是战争接管了地球’，描述了生命如何从原始 化学微处理器之前的信息交换演化而来”。[10] 人脑尺度的“缩小”与集体信息系统的壮大和 成长并非结构性的转变，而仅仅是相对尺度的 变化。原始生命形式之间的那种化学片段的信 息交流类似于推特空间里即时的嗡嗡声。这并 不是一个新的世界，我们只是处于连续统一体 的不同节点而已，这个统一体始于化学物质与 能量的原始泥沼，正向一个远远超过我们设想 的状态发展。 很显然，是信息而不是处理器才是宇宙真 正的中心。现在，我们有了此前无法想象的能 力去收集、检索、“阅读”，并探索海量的信息。 对我们而言，无论是这个领域还是我们在其中 穿梭的能力都是全新的，比任何一个独立的人 类个体都要强大。为了“了解”事物而付出的 长期的、集体性的努力的物质化结果才是这个 新世界的基础。那么，人类又如何在新的领域 中定位自己？如何穿梭于其中或是试图理解它 的呢？这个……我想或许与第一次探索环绕着 自己的森林与山岗的方式是一致的 ：直觉、想 category of processable ‘information’. When the human brain was the largest single information processing unit in the know universe, it seemed to make sense that we were separate from, the pinnacle of, rather than a mere part of the natural world. But now, with half of what we personally know located in our hand-held, and most of what we know collectively stored in libraries or data-banks of a fresher design, it is becoming increasingly clear that it might not be humans that are so important but the information we collectively and cumulatively gather, store and process. (Fig.3) Up until the 21st century the most complex thing we knew was the human brain – the average human brain has approximately 100 of billion neurons communicating with each other via some 1,000 trillion synaptic connections; roughly comparable to a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor. [8] Around the year 2004, however, the totality of the internet, all its links and nodes, outnumbered the equivalent components of the human brain. We have, collectively, created something more complex than our brain, and, to the best of our current knowledge, more complex than anything else we have encountered in the universe. Add to that the fact that, according to Moore’s law, the internet has roughly doubled every 18 months, in 2016 the internet is now multiple times more complex than the human brain. The web of connections linking nodes of information that make up the internet are nothing new, just better, faster and smaller than before, and each link connects to the already immensely complex human brain of each user. It is a massive ocean of information, a vast expanse without a center. There is no ‘there, there’, no center to the web, there is just the web itself; no personal ego but instead a giant ‘us’ [9] . “ ‘Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking,’ Lynn Margulis observed, describing how life evolved from the exchange of information between primitive chemical microprocessors the first time around.” [10] The eclipsing of the size of the human brain with a collective information system larger and growing is not a structural transition but simply a change of scale. The chemical snippets of information exchanged between proto-life forms are homologous to the instantaneous buzz of the Twittersphere. It is not a new world, we are just at a different point of the continuum that started with the primordial muck of chemicals and energy and continues on to, well, whatever is far beyond our present moment, far beyond. It is clear that it is information, not the processor, which is the real center of the universe. We now have the ability to collect, examine, ‘read’ and explore massive oceans of information in ways never before imagined. Both the terrain and our ability to move through it are new to us and much, much larger than any single one of us. It is the materialization of our collective, cumulative 3-1 3-2
- 10. 海外动向 International Scholars064 / 总第275期 / 2016 / 03 efforts to ‘know’ things that is the basis of this new world. So how do we locate ourselves in this new territory? How do we move through it or make sense of it? Well … I suppose … the same way we did when we were first exploring the forests and the hills around us: intuition, imagination, stories and dreams pool with observations, counting and experimentation. To find meaning and know the world, we have always used every capacity of our being, our collective being. Culture and nature are in fact one and the same, art and science together are how we know what we know and do what we do. Big Data is a new component of a familiar universe. We created it by simply compiling a massive and growing pool of what we do and say and think. Big Data is present and around us, always has been, but is now visible and navigable. Like the rest of the world, it is both nature and culture; technologically constructed records of what we see, measure, think and do. Big Data is immense and growing fast; there is no real likelihood that humans will be able to explore and examine it with just the glorious, but now surpassed, human brain. The human brain, and with it consciousness, and with that the ability to make meaning out of experience, will continue to play central roles in the evolution of the species and of life on the planet, but it will not be our brain’s computational and pattern-seeking abilities that maps Big Data. Machine Learning will survey this new territory; but it will still be human consciousness that distills meaning from Big Data. As it has always been, art will seek meaning where science assembles facts. As early as 1959 Arthur Samuel defined ‘machine learning’ as a “field of study that gives computers the ability to learn without being explicitly programmed” [11] . Instead of repeatedly processing a stable set of instructions, systems based on machine learning rewrite themselves as they work. The algorithms embedded in technologies associated with machine learning, review information they process and modify themselves according to what they have reviewed; machine-learning algorithms are effectively programming themselves. · Machine Learning does not =‘meaning’ · Arts are needed to find meaning from experience · This new land is mostly fragments of human action and thought · Still art a core agent in learning the new territory of Big Data · Always has been, always will, until this paradigm changes completely Duchamp was not interested in what he called retinal art — art that was only visual — and sought other methods of expression. As an antidote to “retinal art” he began creating readymades at a time (1914) when the term was commonly used in the United States to describe manufactured items to distinguish them from handmade goods. (Fig.4) 4’33”The premiere of the three-movement 4’33” was 象力、故事与梦想混杂着观察、计算和试验。 为了寻找意义和了解世界，我们总是会运用自 己的能力以及集体的能力。事实上，文化与自 然是一致的，艺术与科学一起构成了我们的认 知以及对于自身行为的理解。 大数据是我们所熟悉的宇宙中的新元素。 仅仅通过编辑有关所做、所言、所思的巨大而 不断发展的信息库，人类就创造了它。大数据 是当下的，无时不在，也无处不在，只不过它 现在变得可以察觉并易于操控了。就如同世界 的其他部分那样，它既是自然又是文化，从技 术层面建构了我们所看见的、所测量到的、所 思考的，以及所做的记录。大数据浩瀚无边且 迅速发展着，运用人脑对其进行探索与检验的 可能性微乎其微。人类的大脑及其伴生物—— 人类意识和从经验中提取意义的能力，将继续 在物种及地球上生命演进过程中扮演重要的角 色，但并不是人脑的计算能力以及寻求模式的 能力描绘出了大数据。机器学习将会勘察这个 新领域，但仍然是人类的意识将“意义”从大 数据中提取出来。艺术将会一如既往地探寻“意 义”，而科学也将一如既往地收集“事实”。 早在 1959 年，亚瑟·塞缪尔（https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Samuel）就将“机 器学习”定义为“无需明确地编程而赋予电脑 学习的能力的学习领域”[11] 。基于机器学习的 系统并不会重复处理一套稳定的指令集，反之， 在工作的时候它们会重写自己。与机器学习相 关的技术所内置的计算法则会审查处理它们所 编辑的信息，并根据审查的结果进行自我修订， 机器学习计算法则会有效地进行自我编程。 ·机器学习并不等于“意义” ·艺术家需要从体验中发现意义 ·这块新的领域大多是人类行为与思考 的碎片 ·在学习大数据这个新领域的时候，艺 术仍然是核心因素 ·在这种模式彻底改变之前，事实一贯 如此，将来也会是这样 杜尚对于所谓的“视网膜艺术”——仅 仅停留在视觉层面上的艺术——并没有兴 趣，他探寻其他的表达方式。在某个时间 段（1914 年），他开始创作现成品艺术，以 4. 杜尚，1917 年4
- 11. 海外动向 International Scholars 065总第275期 / 2016 / 03 / 此作为“视网膜艺术”的解毒剂，“现成品” 这个概念在美国被普遍使用，用来描述工业 制造的物品，以区别于手工制品。（图 4） 作品《4 分 33 秒》的首演是由大卫·都 铎于 1952 年 8 月在美国纽约的伍德斯托克 音乐节上完成的三乐章，作为当代钢琴音乐 会的一部分。（图 5）社交礼仪的持续时间（沉 默）和音乐是由语境（形式）而不是内容决 定的。 伦巴第的《叙事结构》（1994-2000）在 研究过程中积累的数千张索引卡，在一开始 令他难以应对。他最初将它们整理为物理形 式，然后编入手写的表格，旨在以此作为工 具，为工作找到重心。但是，“很快决定这 种综合了某个领域的图文方式（可以按照你 的喜好称其为“绘画”、“图表”或是“流程 图”），就我而言，在处理其他问题的时候， 也很奏效。”（图 6） 作为对目前多领域研究的必要性的一种确 认，科学与计算机模型为人类理解全球性的变 化提供了独特的洞察力。不过，它们本身并不 能体现弹性政策，也不能直接指向以扑救为目 的，且涉及所有物种的全球性行为。挑战是双 面的 ：其一，要在非凡的复杂性所蕴含的不确 定性里，发展出指向前进道路的认知方式 ；其 二，要建构以社区为范畴的、能够指导并启发 集体行为的认知，以提升在应对全球性挑战时 的弹性。人文科学与艺术是模棱两可的“科 学”，它们运用可感知的、或是已知的，但仍 未经证实的、对于世界的理解进行工作。它们 是严格的戒律，系统化地审视并诠释因为过于 复杂而难以完全掌控的宇宙。因此，可以想象， 在人文学科与艺术中发展完善的调研模式，或 许能够辅助科学的方法去理解导致今天全球气 候变化的一系列复杂的过程及其后果。至于弹 性发展战略的第二部分，人文学科与艺术应对 这种挑战的原因在于它们探索、阐释并表达了 意义——作为人类行为的发动机。而所需要的， 正是以社区为基础的、对于科学知识所隐含意 义的阐释与内化，并遵照其展开行动。 正如我们所知，鉴于当前世界的复杂，尤 其面对以科学与技术为蓝本的现实，我们需要 一种前进的方式。通过这种方式，人类的社会 团体能够理解并设法解决一些问题。这是以科 学、人文与艺术所提供的真知灼见为基础共同 发展而来的。我们所建议的是一个场所、机会 given by David Tudor on August 29, 1952, at Woodstock, New York as part of a recital of contemporary piano music. (Fig.5) Social etiquette – duration (silence) and music defines by the context (the form) not the content. Lombardi’s Narrative Structures 1994 - 2000. The thousands of index cards that he accumulated in the course of this research began to overwhelm his ability to deal with them, and to cope, Mark began assembling them into physical outlines, and then into hand-written diagrams. These were intended to be a tool, to provide focus to his work, but he “...soon decided that this method of combining text and image in a single field (called a drawing, diagram or flow chart, whichever you prefer) really worked for me in other ways as well.”(Fig.6) Standing as a confirmation of the necessity of multi-disciplinary investigation today is the recognition that while scientific and computational models provide exceptional insights into aspects of global change in our Anthropocene era, by themselves they cannot indicate strategies of resilience nor can they lead directly to species wide, global actions required for remediation. The challenge is two-sided: the first is to develop ways of knowing leading to insights that indicate paths forwards despite inherent uncertainty in massive complexity, and the second is to establish community-wide perceptions of meaning that direct and inspire collective actions that advance resiliency in response to global challenges. The humanities and the arts are ‘sciences’ of the ambiguous, they work with perceived or known but unproven understandings of the world; they are rigorous disciplines that systematically examine and interpret a universe too complex to ever fully grasp. As such, it is conceivable that modalities of investigation well developed in the humanities and arts might assist scientific approaches to understand that complex class of processes and consequences driving global climate change today. With regards to the second part of developing strategies of resilience, the humanities and the arts address this challenge because they explore, interpret, and express meanings – the motor of human action. What is needed are community-based ways of interpreting, internalizing and then acting upon the implications of scientific knowledge. Given the complexity of the world as we know it today, as modeled by science and technology, we need a way forward that communities can make sense of and address and which is based on a collaborative development of insights provided by science, humanities and the arts. What we are proposing is a venue, opportunity, and process through which artists, scientists and humanists jointly examine elements in (or the entirety of) sustainability issues, and that they also develop ways to communicate meaning associated with their understandings so that broad community engagement is possible. We envision a series of collaborative research projects investigating an aspect or component of global change, settling 5.《4 分 33 秒》作曲者约翰·凯奇，1952 年 6. 伦巴第的索引卡，1994-2000 5 6
- 12. 海外动向 International Scholars066 / 总第275期 / 2016 / 03 戈登·诺克斯 美国亚利桑那州立大学艺术博物馆 汪 芸 中国美术学院 in on approaches advanced collaboratively or in parallel that combine scientific, interpretive and expressive methodologies and ways of knowing. This approach might include interpretations tested against rigorous scientific scrutiny, animated by innovative applications of new and ancient technologies, and presented and represented in such a way that perceived meaning serves to activate individual agency and collective actions in a value-based response to global challenges as they affect each local community. Art provides us with the ability to act without scientific certainty. Intuitive, directed action, immediate responsiveness. The absence of full scientific certainty should not inhibit action if otherwise severe damage could be caused. - R. Malina (The end) Notes: [1] For a complex study of the overlay of art and science, see Proust was a Neuroscientist, Jonathan Lehrer, 2007 Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, NYC. [2] Sontag, Susan. 1961. Against Interpretation and other Essays. Picador, New York. [3] Jon Butterworth is a physics professor at University College London. He is a member of the UCL High Energy Physics group and works on the Atlas experiment at Cern’sLarge Hadron Collider. His book Smashing Physics: The Inside Story of the Hunt for the Higgs was published in May 2014. Quote from the Guardian, 2/11/2016 [4] From Wikipedia [5] A data lake is a large storage repository and processing engine. They provide “massive storage for any kind of data, enormous processing power and the ability to handle virtually limitless concurrent tasks or jobs” see Wikipedia. [6] Interesting to note that Dominic Barton believes that the leading thinking on Big Data today is not in Silicon Valley but in Shenzhen, China ( 深圳 ). This is a direct response to the fact that largest e-commerce market in the world is China. [7] For more information on this project, please e-mail USGSted@usgs.gov or follow @USGSted on Twitter. Read more information about the USGS Earthquake Program. [8] http://www.human-memory.net/brain_neurons.html [9] More eloquently, this concept was concisely expressed in 1845, “The essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations.” Karl Marx, Lawrence and Wishart 1938 edition of The German Ideology. [10] Lynn Marguils and Dorion Sagan, Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Microbial Evolution (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), p15. Quoted in George B. Dyson, Darwin Among the Machines: The Evolution of Global Intelligence (New York: Basic Books, 1997). [11] Phil Simon (March 18, 2013). Too Big to Ignore: The Business Case for Big Data. Wiley. p89. ISBN 978-1-118- 63817-0 与过程，能保证艺术家、科学家和人文科学家 共同审视可持续发展问题中的元素（或是从整 体上审视可持续发展的问题）；同时他们还可 以创造出各种方式来表达自己的意思，这样就 有可能产生以社区为单位的广泛参与。我们设 想了一系列合作研究项目来探索全球性变化的 一个方面或其中的某种元素，在解决方式上协 同推进，或是结合科学的、具有阐释性且充满 表现性的方法与认知方式。这种方式可能会包 含针对科学的严谨而展开的推敲与测试的解 释，通过新老技术的创造性应用而被激活 ；同 时，它又以一种特定的方式得以呈现，以至于 所感知到的意义得以用于激活个体以及集体的 行为，在影响每一个当地社团的时候，针对全 球性的挑战给出基于价值的回应。 艺术为我们提供了无需科学定论的行动 能力。直觉、直接的行动，以及即时的响应。 充分的科学确定性的缺失不应该禁锢人类的 行为，否则将会造成严重的破坏。 ——罗杰·马利纳 （全文完） 注释 ： [1] 关于艺术与科学的叠加的复杂性研究，请见《普鲁斯特是 个神经学家》，乔纳森·莱勒，2007，霍顿·米夫林·哈考特， 纽约。 [2] 苏珊·桑塔格 ：《反对阐释》，皮卡多尔，纽约，1961 年。 [3] 乔恩·巴特沃思是伦敦大学学院的一名物理教授。他 是伦敦大学学院高能物理组的成员并在欧洲核子研究组 织运用大型强子对撞机工作。他的著作《粉碎物理学 ：寻 找 希 格 斯 的 内 幕 》 于 2014 年 5 月 出 版。 摘 自 2016 年 2 月 11 日《卫报》的网站（https://www.theguardian.com/ science/2016/feb/11/gravitational-waves-science-thrilled- by-discovery-ripples-in-space-time）。 [4] 来自维基百科（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_data） [5] 数据湖是一个大的存储库和处理引擎。它们对“任何 种类的数据提供海量存储，有着强大的处理能力以及应对 同时发生的几乎是无限的任务或工作的能力”，请见维基 百科（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_lake#cite_note- sas2015-1）。 [6] 有趣的是，鲍达民认为当下对于大数据的前沿思考并不在 硅谷，而是在中国的深圳。这是针对中国作为全球最大电子 商务市场这一现状的直接反应。 [7] 关于该项目的更多信息，请发送电子邮件至 USGSted@ usgs.gov 或是在推特上关注 @USGSted，更多详情请见“美 国地质勘探局地震程序”（http://earthquake.usgs.gov/）。 [8]http://www.human-memory.net/brain_neurons.html [9] 1845 年，这一观念被清晰雄辩地表达了出来，“人的本质 并不是以抽象的形式存在于每个个体之中。在现实中，它是 社会关系的总和。”卡尔·马克思，劳伦斯和威沙特出版社 1938 年版本的《德意志意识形态》。 [10] 林恩·马古利斯与多里昂·萨根 ：《微观世界 ：四十亿年 微生物进化》，西蒙和舒斯特出版公司，纽约，1986 年，第 15 页。引自乔治·B·戴森《达尔文与机器 ：全球智能演变》， 基础书籍出版社，纽约，1997 年。 [11] 菲尔·西蒙（2013 年 3 月 18 日），《大到无法忽略 ：大 数据的商业案例》，韦利出版社，第 89 页。ISBN 978-1- 118-63817-0 Gordon Knox Arizona State University Art Museum, USA