Re: Abstractism

From: Robin Faichney (robin@ii01.org)
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 11:43:40 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: necessity of mental memes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA04766 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:01:36 GMT
    Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:43:40 +0000
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Abstractism
    Message-ID: <20020131114340.A517@ii01.org>
    References: <200201310107.g0V17Ls04883@mail12.bigmailbox.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    In-Reply-To: <200201310107.g0V17Ls04883@mail12.bigmailbox.com>
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@ii01.org>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 05:07:21PM -0800, Joe Dees wrote:
    >
    > > "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net> <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Re: AbstractismDate: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:20:49 -0800
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> Representation is not found in the matter and energy per se, but in
    > >> >their meaningful configuration. According to your formulation, since
    > >> >everything in the universe is matter/energy, representation can exist
    > >> >nowhere in it. Is this the position you are representing?
    > >> >>>>
    > >> >
    > >> >Funny that you dismissed Robin Faichney when you're using
    > >> >"representation" to mean exactly what he means by "information."
    > >> >
    > >> Actually, umm, no. For Robin, information does not have to be either
    > >meaningful or representational. Representation is a forteriori meaningful,
    > >as representation is itself a meaningful relation to that which the
    > >trepresentation re-presents.
    > >
    > >Robin claims information is contained in material "patterns." You claim
    > >representation is contained in material "configurations." You're arguing
    > >exactly the same thing, yet imagining you're having this thunderous debate.
    > >You're not discoursing so much as butting heads to establish hierarchy.
    > >
    > No, it is a central and fundamental disagreement; he sees no necessity for either a meanong-giving self or meaningful information in memetics...

    My actual position, for those who are interested, is that culture can
    in principle be studied without reference to meaning -- confined to
    observing patterns of behaviour -- but the usefulness of doing so is
    limited, and in practice -- and in particular where the study is part
    of the culture (ie it's our own) -- it's extremely difficult. More at
    http://www.ii01.org/culture.html

    Also, the types of information that are inherent in physical
    structure and that are meaningful are very different. See
    http://www.ii01.org/physics.html

    -- 
    Robin Faichney 
    "It is tempting to suppose that some concept of information could serve
    eventually to unify mind, matter, and meaning in a single theory," say
    Daniel Dennett and John Haugeland. The theory is here: http://www.ii01.org/
    

    =============================================================== 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 31 2002 - 12:10:05 GMT