Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA01256 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 15 May 2001 18:47:48 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:30:55 +0100 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <20010515183055.A901@ii01.org> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745E93@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745E93@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:13:42PM +0100 From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:13:42PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> 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.
I think you mean biology! But I believe "telecoms information" is much
closer to "general information" than "biological culture" is to "general
> 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).
I've said several times now that I have no problem with Joe's use of
"information" -- like many words, perhaps even most, it means different
things in different contexts. It's Joe who is insisting that his usage
is correct and any other is wrong.
> Perhaps this is at the root of your disagreement- you and Joe are at
> cross (disciplinary) purposes?
Try telling him that.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
=============================================================== 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 : Tue May 15 2001 - 18:55:32 BST