Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA17539 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:04:46 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: What are memes made of? Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:57:00 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <NCBBIBAJCLOABPFMCAIBCELCCAAA.sbennet@mail.dynsys.com> Message-Id: <00020518222604.00380@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Fri, 04 Feb 2000, Dynsys Outlook wrote:
>Bravo. Now, where does knowledge take the continuium?
>
> Alex Bennet
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
>Of William van den Heuvel
>
<snip>
>
>If you like to think in terms of "stances" then you could say
>information as matter is the "physical stance", and information as
>data is the "formal stance". But now I am tempted to suggest the
>introduction of an additional stance; information as meaning, which
>would be the "meaning stance".
The "meaning stance" is a great idea, but it's already been had: this is
effectively the same as Dennett's "intentional stance" -- see his book of that
name.
I think knowledge probably depends on the intentional stance, too.
-- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 08 2000 - 14:04:48 GMT