Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA27030 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sat, 5 May 2001 23:46:46 +0100 Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:30:35 +0100 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <20010505133035.A1058@ii01.org> References: <3AF0908F.757.FB2CC2@localhost>; <20010503193657.A592@ii01.org> <3AF2CDEF.20100.6C3DAE@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AF2CDEF.20100.6C3DAE@localhost>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:42:39PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:42:39PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On 3 May 2001, at 19:36, Robin Faichney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:56:15PM -0500, email@example.com wrote:
> > > We cannot fall into the behaviorist trap of
> > > dismissing the unobserved as nonexistent...
> > You seem very happy to do just that regarding information.
> But information is different, in that unless it INFORMs someone,
> that is, unless it is observed, it is not INFORMation, but pattern or
> configuration. It cannot possess significance or meaning unless it
> signifies or means something to someone. I have no doubt that
> unobserved pattern, structure and/or configuration indeed exists,
> but as it is unobserved, no one is INFORMed concerning its
> particularities, thus there is no INFORMing, hence no
> INFORMation. The systematically configured marks in books only
> become information when someone is writing or reading them.
So what do you think of the use of "information" in communication theory?
Is that all wrong too? Are you the only one that's in step?
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 05 2001 - 23:58:58 BST