Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA03849 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:09:02 GMT Message-Id: <200002150009.TAA03815@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:11:17 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: More on what memes are made of In-reply-to: <00021308373002.00320@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: More on what memes are made of
Date sent: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 08:21:11 +0000
Send 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.
>
The elements are (1) the (intending) sender, (2) the (intended)
receiver, (3) the transmission carrier (airwaves, light, etc.), (4) the
code (or language), (5) the encoded message (or meaning), and (6)
the messaged about (the referent). The code may be further
subdivided semiotically into (a) syntax (sign-sign relations), (b)
semantics (sign-signified relations) and (c) pragmatics (sign-
signifier relations).
> --
> 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 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 00:09:04 GMT