Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA02312 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:58:18 GMT Message-Id: <200002020256.VAA22907@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:59:45 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #119 In-reply-to: <00020116013700.00319@faichney> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Reborn Technology
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #119
Date sent: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:53:34 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2000, VANWYHE@aol.com wrote:
> >List members- there is some strange cross-fertilization here about how to
> >define information. We won't come to complete agreement on this, but I think
> >we should clarify this a bit.
> >"Information" tends to refer to *difference*- that is relevant difference to
> >something else. Here the bit concept could be invoked.
>
> Could you explain how "information" tends to refer to "difference"? I don't
> see either thermodynamic (structural) or communication theoretic information as
> characterisable this way. (Though I'm aware of Bateson's slogan "the
> difference that makes a difference", which may be useful on a personal,
> intuitive level, but seems formally meaningless.)
>
> >Since we are concerned with information in h sapien brains- we must be
> >referring, however crudely, to relevant alterations in brains which make a
> >difference to its functions.
>
> We are not necessarily, or at least not exclusively, concerned with information
> in human brains. If you think we should be, then it is up to you to convince
> us of that.
>
> >I think it is a waste of time to endlessly debate genes vs memes. I don't
> >give a toss about memes- the idea strikes me as totally presumptuous.
>
> How much reading on it have you done?
>
This strikes me as a strange question, Robin, especially coming
from you. Your problem is reductionism; you are trying to reduce
semantics (the relations between the sign and the signified - the
things), pragmatics (the relations between the sign and the signifier
- us), and syntactics (the relations between signs in a sign
system), the three divisions of semiotics (the realm of meaning) to
physics and chemistry (the realm of being), and when you atomize
things, you lose the emergent qualities which arise form complex
and dynamic interrelation. People really need to check out
semiotics in connection with this whole structural derivation thing,
for memetics is essentially a diachronic (blurry but directionally
flowing) functionalism (which is why it is able to speck of such
things as evolution, selection, mutation, infection, etc.), which
naturally complements the synchronic (clear sharp
snapshot) structuralism of semiotics.
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
>
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 02 2000 - 02:58:20 GMT