Re: new line: what's the point?

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sun Mar 05 2000 - 08:02:55 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: new line: what's the point?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA11754 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 5 Mar 2000 08:01:01 GMT
    Message-Id: <200003050759.CAA04522@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 02:02:55 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: new line: what's the point?
    In-reply-to: <00030507010303.00357@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: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 06:37:18 +0000
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    > On Sat, 04 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?
    >
    > Sorry, I thought you'd done some reading on these issues. ;-)
    >
    I would NEVER think that about you! ;~)
    >
    > >>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.
    >
    > No, I mean that if there is no information in the absence of meaning (your
    > claim), then the concept of information in the context of thermodynamics is
    > invalid, so why don't you explain that to us (and, if you like, to the people
    > in sci.physics)?
    >
    If they think so, then they're wrong; obviously the presence or
    absence of information in such a context means something to
    them, and to then deny it has any meaning whatsoever while using
    a semantic (meaning-laden) language to indicate and differentiate
    exactly WHAT they would make such a claim about would embroil
    them in irretrievable self-contradiction, as it has you several times
    in the past.
    >
    > >Also, that information to which you are referring
    > >means something to whoever comes in contact with it...
    >
    > Physical information has no meaning, existing "for its own sake", being the form
    > or structure of physical things. In thermodynamic terms, it is inversely
    > proportional to entropy. This much is wholly uncontroversial. It can be
    > said to evolve in that there appears to be a trend towards greater complexity,
    > though whether that is the result of an intrinsic tendency is highly
    > contentious. Genes are clearly physical information. I argue that memes are
    > physical information too, even though they exist "at the level of meaning",
    > because all that means is that their encoding in the brain is not syntactically
    > consistent across brains, but the same meme encodes the same behaviour (by
    > definition, in fact). Perhaps we'd have a more productive discussion if you
    > tried to understand what I'm saying, rather than rejecting it all out of hand
    > for ideological reasons.
    >
    You are referring to pattern. Pattern is distinguishable from
    nonpattern or from a different pattern only because we are here to
    so differentiate them. You could say, well, that pattern was here
    before we were, but it did not exist AS PATTERN, which is a word
    with a meaning. The presence of a structure to atoms and
    molecules is not on the same wavelength as the communication if
    ideations between mental environments which share a common
    physical one. You will not ever be able to break down the concept
    of forbearance (an eminently replicable meme - see "Let It Be"), for
    instance, into constituent molecules; there are several layers of
    emergence in between, which add properties (at each level) that
    are not present in the isolated constituents. In fact, the very effort
    destroys pattern itself. OF COURSE the ideation is encoded in
    some neural synaptic pattern or other; but it is encoded as it is
    rather than other ways due to many factors, such as the genetics
    which permits the growth of a brain large and complex enough to
    develop the self-conscious awareness necessary to allow for the
    (complex) ideational representation of the meme, the other
    experiences and ideas there stored which shape in a gestalt
    referential fashion its encoding form (in other words, define its
    meaning relative to other meanings), the particular arbitrarily
    created rather than instinctually mandated human language in
    which it may be thought, expressed and apprehended, and so on.
    > --
    > 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 : Sun Mar 05 2000 - 08:01:06 GMT