Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jan 17 2001 - 19:47:49 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA25182 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:54:35 GMT
    Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:47:49 +0000
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
    Message-ID: <20010117194749.A432@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <200101171351.IAA01093@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net>; <20010117152329.A11194@reborntechnology.co.uk> <200101171601.LAA13193@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
    In-Reply-To: <200101171601.LAA13193@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:06:49AM -0600
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:06:49AM -0600, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    > We have points of agreement, and points of disagreement, like any
    > other two people who are not cognitive clones. Information, per se,
    > is not necessarily meaningful, and meaningless information, and
    > meaningful information some meaning of which cannot be grasped
    > by the potential recipient, are in my view, poor candidates for
    > memetic propagation.

    You accept that information is not necessarily meaningful, and that may
    be enough. Our previous argument as to whether memes are meaningful was
    really about the use of the word "meme", ie semantics. My quest is for
    an understanding of how meaning arises out of the universe's inherent
    meaninglessness, and how memes can be carried by or encoded in matter.
    How can the structure of matter be meaningful? Accept, just for the sake
    of this argument, that it could be useful to view material structure
    as information. It has no inherent meaning, unless that structure
    in itself is all you're interested in. But we now have information:
    how can it be imbued with meaning? How can the squiggles on a piece
    of paper refer to things, people, events, relationships, "out there"?
    And don't tell me to read some book to answer that question. I know that
    many, many people have written about such stuff. I also know, with as
    much certainty as is possible in such things, that noone has taken my
    approach to it, noone has answered precisely the questions I'm asking,
    which (obviously) require more than one paragraph to fully describe.

    That's a start (if it's anything). Is it worth going on? Even if
    so, there are many possible directions to take, and it might well be
    impossible to get anywhere, along any of them, within the space of one
    email. But specific questions, if any, I'll try to answer. (But I do
    mean _specific_ questions, not vague ones, because they're too difficult,
    unless you have the time and energy to woffle, which I don't.)

    -- 
    Robin Faichney
    robin@reborntechnology.co.uk
    

    =============================================================== 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 : Wed Jan 17 2001 - 19:56:16 GMT