Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA29721 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:53:27 GMT Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:40:53 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia? Message-ID: <20010118194053.B2244@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200101172019.PAA25505@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net>; <20010118105921.C433@reborntechnology.co.uk> <200101181842.NAA23241@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <200101181842.NAA23241@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 12:42:58PM -0600 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 12:42:58PM -0600, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> > > The three-legged
> > > stool of signification (signifier, sign, signified) requires all three legs
> > > to stand.
> >
> > So how did the stool first come into existence? Was it just created,
> > complete? Or is this the eternal stool, that was never created and
> > will never be destoryed?
> >
> It emerged along with self-reference, as the structure of its
> manifestation. It did not exist until entities capable of signification
> evolved. It ain't your Uncarved Block or Original Face.
OK, so we're agreed on that.
> > You are obviously reluctant to see your stool deconstructed, presumably
> > because that would mean facing up to the original stoollessness of
> > the universe. But your tripartition has exactly the same problems as,
> > and is no better than, Cartesian dualism. Whereas my view encompasses
> > the (necessarily linked) emergence of consciousness and meaning from
> > mere matter.
> >
> Actually, before we evolved, there WAS no structure of
> signification. Kill us all, anf there won't be, again. It is the
> structure of our minds' interaction with the meaningful world
> surrounding them...
<snip>
> If
> you can think of ANY CASE where this is not true, PLEASE POST
> IT; otherwise admit that all you can do is impotently grouse and
> search for irrelevant potshots, because you have no
> counterexamples with which to refute it.
But I don't disagree with it. Why do you think I do?
> > <open quote>
> > It is tempting to suppose that some concept of _information_ could
> > serve eventually to unify mind, matter, and meaning in a single theory.
> > <close quote>
> > >From Intentionality, Daniel C. Dennett and John Haugeland, in The Oxford
> > Companion to the Mind, ed. Richard Gregory, 1987 (emphasis in the
> > original).
<snip>
> > What I'm doing is to prove Dennett's supposition, in the first quote,
> > correct. Now tell me that's already been done.
> >
> Do not confuse structure, which, since it is not random, is an
> information analogue (can be compressed symbolically) with
> meaning. Not all structure is, or has to be, meaningful.
I know that, Joe. I've said as much here myself, more than once.
You're shadow boxing. Presumably because you can't meet my challenge,
to show me that what I'm doing has already been done.
<snip>
> There should be no confusion between the molecular
> significance we can grant to the structure of a material (or an
> energy) and the communicational significance we impose upon
> certain configurations or patterns of one substance or another.
> There isn't with me.
Nor with me. Why do you think there is?
Your problem, Joe, is that you're so busy arguing, you don't get around to
listening. The best possible encapsulation, or least lossy compression,
of my work is "to prove Dennett's supposition correct". Now tell me
either why you object to _that_, or what more you would need to know
before formulating your objections.
-- 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 : Thu Jan 18 2001 - 19:57:15 GMT