Re: (Reply to Benzon)

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon 26 May 2003 - 22:09:53 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: (Reply to Benzon)"

    > > From: "Wade T. Smith" <wade.t.smith@verizon.net>
    > >
    > > On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 02:58 PM, Gudmundur wrote:
    > >
    > > > But if it weren't for an existing interpretative context
    > > > (scientists' minds and other paraphernalia) published genes would
    > > > not mean anything to anyone. Similarly, for DNA to convey any
    > > > information there has to be the interpretative environment of the
    > > > cell. So, a more accurate view of information is to see it as
    > > > emerging when some system (scientist, cell, etc.) interprets a
    > > > series of signifiers/signs (DNA, letters, etc.).
    > >
    > > And there it is.
    >
    > This is why the term "information storage" is incoherent.
    >
    Yeah, such things as minds and movies and books and records and cd's and tapes and computers and maps and schematics just don't make sense, do they?
    >
    > Ted
    >
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 2.1.5 : Mon 26 May 2003 - 22:15:18 GMT