Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA15537 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 25 Jun 2001 03:27:05 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 21:29:57 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Guardian on Information Message-ID: <3B365BD5.14056.219B1D@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010624141013.A970@ii01.org> References: <20010622201057.AAA4142@email@example.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:10:45PM -0400 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 24 Jun 2001, at 14:10, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:10:45PM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> > On 06/22/01 15:48, Robin Faichney said this-
> > >Think "structure". Information theory in physics is the treatment
> > >of structure as an element in itself.
> > Structure is _still_ a product of _process_.
> > The shape of a termite mound, a snowflake- the only 'information' or
> > 'structure' required is the determinants of the process.
> I think you meant "determinands". But see below.
> > Time and material were required to arrive at this process, but the
> > only information there or anywhere else is the invention of an
> > observing entity, namely us.
> > Perhaps it's semantics.
> Of course it's semantics. Because communications theory a la Shannon
> and thermodynamics have some abstract concepts and math in common, it
> was found convenient to use the term "information" in thermodynamics.
> Disputes about what information "really" is are meaningless. All it
> "really" is, is a word.
> > But even asking 'structure' to be required seems
> > erroneous to me.
> Process determines high level structure, but the process is
> simultaneously determined by low level structure.
> I don't yet fully understand it myself -- nobody does. But I'm
> betting that Dan Dennett, Murray Gell-Mann and David Hull, along with
> countless physicists, eventually turn out to be on the "right" side.
> (I.e. a practically universal consensus is reached that treating
> physical structure as information is more useful than not.)
Memes, and information, necessarily involve significance, meaning,
and semantics. Otherwise, memetic hooks and filters could not
exist, for they are semantically based and directed.
> Robin Faichney
> Inside Information -- http://www.ii01.org -- "a prime source of
> 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 : Mon Jun 25 2001 - 03:31:09 BST