Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA01325 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 15 May 2001 19:15:46 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:17:37 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <3B012C71.13992.14E3FF@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010515183055.A901@ii01.org> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745E93@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:13:42PM +0100 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 15 May 2001, at 18:30, Robin Faichney wrote:
> 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 culture".
> > 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's pseudodefinition of information as a mere pattern bereft of
either meaning or any awareness of it by a consciousness to
whom it could mean anything, like his benighted and empirically
contrafactual insistence that top-down and bottom-up (that is,
vertical) causation cannot exist, but that both horizontal causation
and its frankenstein bastard offspring with the to-him-nonexistent
vertical causation, namely 'diagonal' causation, does, is simply
another thread in his skein of anti-self and anti-world attempts to
buddhize memetics - which poses the question of how the 'illusory'
he can possibly consider 'intrinsic' information to exist in a mayic
and illusory world, or how he could pose any questions if he lacks
a self as source for them, or how he can voice them or tap them
out if his (for Robin nonexistent) dynamically recursive emergent
self cannot exercise executive decisional control over his
subsequent actions doing so.
> 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 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 - 19:19:31 BST