Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA24974 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:26:05 GMT Message-Id: <200003061923.OAA02991@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:27:56 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: new line: what's the point? In-reply-to: <00030617395200.00458@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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:31:51 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >> 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)
>
> Condescension is irritating, Joe. But you know that.
>
> > 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...
>
> That's syntax, Joe, not semantics.
>
The issues of intentionality and signification are both entailed in the
concept of choice range; intentionality because that is how one
chooses, and signification because different semantic
classifications (such as notes on a scale (12), arabic numerals
(10), primary and secondary colors (6), letters of an alphabet (26),
etc.) have different numbers of alternatives, and therefore require
more binary code information to represent them. It would take only
three Morse Code dot-dash binary differences to represent one of
the particular above colors, four to represent a note or a numeral,
and five to represent a letter (2 *3 (8) vs. 2*4 (16) vs. 2*5 (32)). As I
have said (and proven) before, syntax and semantics are as
inseparably and inextricably intertwined as ontology and
epistemology, and the attempt to address either without
acknowleding the existence of the other is a futile endeavor
doomed to fail.
>
>And the rest of this is not relevant to the
> main issue, which is physical information, ie the concept in thermodynamics,
> which is inversely proportional to thermodynamic entropy. (Which is
> different from entropy in information theory, though they're related.)
>
I thought your planned "memetic ontology" was supposed to be
about information theory; or have you forgotten?
>
> Would you say that genes are items of information, Joe?
>
Genes are physical instantiations of informational patterns, which
could be symbolized in any number of ways that would not prompt
the production of the proper proteins at the proper times. The
manner of their physical instantiation is critical to their function.
Try substituting each DNA strand in a zygote with a strand of
plastic with the exact code from the DNA binarily symbolized upon
it and see how much development you get. Unlike "War and
Peace", which can be read on hemp or papyrus, written or printed
with many kinds of ink, it ain't just the code that's important; it's
also the molecular and chemical structure of the encoding material,
because it ain't an intentional and signifying subjectivity reading the
text of the gene (HGP excepted), but molecular and chemical
causation blindly unfolding.
> --
> 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 : Mon Mar 06 2000 - 19:26:11 GMT