Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA13452 (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 22:04:58 GMT Message-Id: <200003052205.RAA02561@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 16:06:58 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: new line: what's the point? In-reply-to: <00030508480302.00439@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 08:26:00 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >> 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...
>
> That is precisely the point. Your claim about information amounts to saying
> "this is the only way the word may be used", and it is fatuous. Moreover,
> physicists are not stupid, having very good reasons for using "information" in
> this way. In particular, there are connections between Shannon/Weaver
> information theory and thermodynamics, which you might find very interesting,
> if you ever get around to looking into it.
>
> (And, by the way, Shannon and Weaver explicitly stated that their work was
> *not* concerned with meaning.)
>
And they go on to say (context is important, Robin) that:
"In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with
meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense, can be exactly
equivalent, from the present viewpoint, as regards information...To
be sure, this word information in communication theiry relates not
so much to what you DO say, as to what you COULD say.That is,
information is a measure of one's freedom of choice when one
selects a message...information is defined as the logarithm of the
number of choices." This is also the meaning of the term "entropy'
when used in information theory, Robin; high entropy = low
organization = low information = wide choice freedom. If there are
only two semantic alternatives (black and white, zero and one,
etc.), less information is contained and less encoding is needed
than if there are more alternatives from which one chooses a
specific message (such as the differing notes on a musical scale,
or the differing primary and secondary colors). In other words, the
more alternatives you choose your particular message from, the
more informational content is there, and the more symbols are
required to encode one's message. This cannt be considered by
any sane person to be nonrelational to either signification
(message) or intention (choice). You can't just make any old
assertions out of your hat, Robin, when I have such a voluminous
collection of linings I can check - and YOU call ME fatuous!
>
Main Entry: in·for·ma·tion
Pronunciation: "in-f&r-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA b : the attribute inherent in and
communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that
produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental
data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d : a quantitative
measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed
3 : the act of informing against a person
4 : a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting officer as distinguished from an indictment presented by a grand jury
- in·for·ma·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
- in·for·ma·tion·al·ly adverb
>
Main Entry: information theory
Function: noun
Date: 1950
: a theory that deals statistically with information, with the
measurement of its content in terms of its distinguishing essential
characteristics or by the number of
alternatives from which it makes a choice possible, and with the
efficiency of processes of communication between humans and
machines
>
Do you see anything in the above that doesn't mean anything,
Robin? Shannon and Weaver said that their particular work was
independent of any PARTICULAR meaning, but not of meaning
itself. BTW, I quote for you the very first two sentences in the first
of the two papers comprising their book THE MATHEMATICAL
THEORY OF COMMUNICATION: "The word "communication" will
be used here in a very broad sense to include all of the procedures
by which one mind may affect another. This, of course, involves
not only written and oral speech, but also music, the pictoral arts,
the theatre, the ballet, and in fact all human behavior" They go on
to outline the three levels of communications problems (and once
again, I quote):
Level A. How accurately can the symbols of communication be
transmitted? (The technical problem).
Level B. How precisely do the transmitted symbols convey the
desired meaning? (The semantic problem).
Level C. How effectively does the received meaning affect conduct
in the desired way? (The effectiveness problem).
>
> >> 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.
>
> You may prefer that word, but your preference has no significance for the rest
> of us, and in fact those of us who seek consilience between disciplines (I'm
> sure you know of Wilson's work) know that "information" is much, much more
> useful.
>
Information is the logarithm of the number of choices. Pattern is
connected to code, by means of which particular choices are
represented. There is no such thing as patternless (maximum
entropy) information, for in the absolute absence of pattern or
organization, I = 0 since there are no differentiable alternatives
between which one must choose; everything is amorphous
(formless).
>
> >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.
>
> So we come back to words again. I prefer to break out of such tiny circles.
> Was it here someone recently talked about widening tautologies? If you could
> just accept that "information is out there", your mental world would open up
> immeasurably.
>
If you could just assept that subjectivity, intentionality and
signification are "in here" and are inextricably linked to the
communication of information as a particular choice among
alternative meanings, your mental world would open up
immeasurably.
>
> >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.
>
> Can't parse that.
>
You are one of the few.
>
> >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.
>
> Obviously so. I never made any such claim.
>
> >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.
>
> I don't deny all these things happen. But science is about the compression of
> information, seeking the simplest possible valid (or useful) model of reality,
> and I say that the spread of behaviours can usefully be studied without
> worrying about their mental representations. I doubt that your rehashed
> continental philosophy will ever convince anyone to the contrary.
>
the keys include not only simplest, but valid/useful; oversimplism
renders models invalid and useless. If you do not worry about the
internal half of memetics, your external half will be incorrect
because it will be incomplete, as not only will one half be missing.
but the interrelation between the halves will be absent also, leaving
you withnless than half a theory. As to continental philosophy,
check out COMPLEXITY AND POSTMODERNISM:
UNDERSTANDING COMPLEX SYSTEMS by Paul Cilliers. I here
post my Amazon.com review of the book:
A seminal work in the philosophy of technology
Reviewer: Joe E. Dees from Pensacola, Florida January 8, 2000
This work is essential for a cutting-edge understanding of how two independently cultivated lines of investigation - complexity and
postmodernism - have fortuitously dovetailed, providing us with a new level of perspective upon the character and evolution of
contemporary technology. I highly recommend reading this work in tandem with Don Ihde's groundbreaking study EXPANDING
HERMENEUTICS: VISUALISM IN SCIENCE, itself a phenomenologically well-grounded yet visionary exposition of where the
computer-inspired "visual turn" in hermeneutics is leading us in the 21st century.
>
> 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 - 22:05:05 GMT