Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA10507 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:52:44 GMT Message-Id: <200003041951.OAA00029@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:54:42 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: new line: what's the point? In-reply-to: <00030416310600.00924@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: new line: what's the point?
Date sent: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:20:10 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >There IS NO information in the absence of meaning
> >>
> >> You said that before, and I replied "Try telling that to a physicist", to which
> >> I did not see any response. I'm still interested.
> >>
> >And a physicist, Bob Logan, has responded to you.
>
> Unfortunately, the only directly relevant sentence in his message was "I'm a
> physicist and I agree with both statements." Not very helpful. In any case, I
> wanted your response, not someone else's.
>
> >Try reading
> >Shannon and Weaver also, and Fred Dretske and Norbert Weiner
> >and John Von Neumann (I know it's useless asking you to read
> >ANYthing, but I thought I'd try - again! - anyway).
>
> Never mind the reading lists. Discuss the issue, if you can.
>
How can you discuss issues you never read in?
>
>I recently
> posted a question on this to sci.physics, and was generally pleased with the
> response. I suggest you use deja.com to check it out -- the subject line is
> "Information in physics". And if you still say "there is no information in the
> absence of meaning" after doing that, perhaps you could drop a line to the list
> (and the newsgroup?) on the topic "Why the concept of information in the
> context of thermodynamics is invalid".
>
You mean the "concept of information in the context of
thermodynamics" has no meaning for you? You certainly have
words for IT. Also, that information to which you are referring
means something to whoever comes in contact with it, but you are
once again trying to divert attention from memetics proper, which
has to do with the transmission, reception, replication, mutation
and selection of memes, into the bare subjectless god's eye view
interactions of an unconscious and natural, not cultural, world. As
to the second law of thermodynamics: How does entropy evolve? It
doesn't; it DEvolves. Evolution requires open, rather than close,
systems, for the energy which fuels the increase in complexity
which is concomitant with evolution itself must come from outside
the limits of the system (in our case, it's called eating; in the
earth's, it's called sunlight).
>
> --
> 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 : Sat Mar 04 2000 - 19:52:48 GMT