Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA00443 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:14:59 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: More on what memes are made of Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 08:21:11 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1000211093451@mac463.wehi.edu.au> Message-Id: <00021308373002.00320@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, John Wilkins wrote:
>
>I too have degrees in analytic philosophy, and indeed I'm still getting
>another one, but although I've read Frege, Dummett, Davidson, and
>Dretske, et al I still do not see how meaning qua representation escapes
>the constraints upon transmitted information sensu Shannon-Weaver or
>Kolmogorov-Chaitin, etc.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that meaning escapes any constraints.
>Peircean semiotics is taken very seriously by a number of people I
>respect, but they all recognise that information and content are two
>different aspects of any message and that they do not relate directly.
Depends on what's meant by "information", doesn't it? A common use of that
term is contrasted with "data", where information is the meaning carried by the
data, revealed by its interpretation.
My own view is that "information" not only tends to equivocate, but even when
used very carefully, is relative. So, not only can it mean either the carrier,
or the message decoded from that carrier, but where multiple levels of encoding
exist, and (say) we're using the data/information terminology, then what is
information at one level is data at another (the next higher).
Eg, ethernet bits are data and ascii bytes are information (there's probably
quite a few intermediate levels there, but never mind) and at a higher level,
ascii bytes are data, while the impression received by the reader is
information. Unless, of course (and this is equivocated case), you define all
that comms stuff as information, while the subjective impression is the content.
Unless you're willing tackle this degree of complexity, you might as well not
bother to talk about information at all. But if you do decide to face up to
it, then you cannot make dogmatic statements about information without being
very clear about the context, and exactly what *you* mean by it.
-- 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 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 11:15:01 GMT