Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA15028 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:47:53 +0100 Subject: Re: The Guardian on Information Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:44:13 -0400 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20010624194415.AAA3496@email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Hi Robin Faichney -
>practically universal consensus is reached that treating physical
>structure as information is more useful than not.)
Yeah, I totally am with you on the not-understanding front, but, hmmm,
treating things as being more useful than not is only a handy tool
towards understanding, not a property of what is being studied,
Certainly the structure's structure is informative....
But I'm totally with Joe when he says one needs an entity that is being
informed, and, I can't see any other entity being informed than, well,
homo sapiens sapiens.
And it's sometimes dangerous sharing jargons, or to settle with what is
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 : Sun Jun 24 2001 - 20:51:48 BST