From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon 26 May 2003 - 22:09:53 GMT
> > 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 - 22:17:15 GMT