Re: Information

From: Robin Faichney (
Date: Tue May 15 2001 - 18:30:55 BST

  • Next message: "Re: Information"

    Received: by id SAA01256 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 15 May 2001 18:47:48 +0100
    Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:30:55 +0100
    Subject: Re: Information
    Message-ID: <>
    References: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
    In-Reply-To: <>; from on Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:13:42PM +0100
    From: Robin Faichney <>
    Precedence: bulk

    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
    (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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 15 2001 - 18:55:32 BST