Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA00939 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 15 May 2001 16:17:38 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745E93@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <email@example.com> To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com> Subject: RE: Information Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:13:42 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Butting in briefly...
<Your dogmatism is futile. Look up "information theory" and/or
> "communication theory" in any relevant reference work. For students in
> computing, telecoms and physics, this is first year stuff.>
Computing, telecoms and physics do not have the monopoly on
information/ communication theory, indeed one could argue their uses are as
peculiar and non-generalisable as the term culture is in chemistry. If you
want to ignore fields like linguistics, semiotics and communication studies,
then fine, but such disciplines clearly have strong ideas about what terms
like information and communication mean, and if you look up such terms
in_their_reference works I think you'll find them rather closer to what
Joe's been arguing. (As I think I've said before, Shannon & Weaver's model,
for example, went out with the ark in Communication Studies).
Perhaps this is at the root of your disagreement- you and Joe are at
cross (disciplinary) purposes?
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 15 2001 - 16:21:25 BST