On Friday, March 1, 2013 8:27:54 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
> >Thinking about how information content of a message 
> Big mistake.  Information is never contained with but 
> exactly one exception, an envelope. 

I was intentionally starting out from the common assumption that messages 
contain information, and then quickly moved on to show how it is not the 
case. I like your envelope example though.

> I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a 
> statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information 
> is represented but not contained in that representation. 
> That marks of chalk upon slate may be taken to represent 
> information at a meta level above the reality of streaks 
> of a deformed amorphous solid has nothing to do with 
> the information represented by that deformation, nor the 
> increase of entropy associated with the greater disorder 
> obtained from that deformation; these are but three of 
> the *informations* to be found upon review of those 
> streaks.  

Yes,  there are many public levels of what I would call formations, since 
they do not inherently cause any informing experiences by themselves. What 
I suggest is that entropy is the cost of significance, which balances out 
through all of time going forward. The Sistine Chapel exists not to break a 
lot of rocks and cover a ceiling with minerals, but for reasons which 
relate to interior experiences and attempts at capturing high quality 
experience. Unlike entropy's cruel mastery of emptiness, significance is a 
monopoly of quality seeking. Whatever entropy does, it does so by seeking 
nothing - relations are abandoned, objects lose their form into dissipation 
or are swept up in some giant sphere or drain.

Entropy is how nature sees information (not 
> yet an established fact but I think the tea leaves read 
> clear enough) but that has (presumably) nothing to do 
> with how intelligent individuals see information, or 
> as von Uexküll called such phenomena, signs. 

Yes, this is important because it reveals how sense partitions public space 
with entropy and generates private significance through time. They are 
symmetric (or assymetric) conjugates, with space being the catabolic 
reconciliation of forms and time being the anabolic builder of experiential 
depth (significance). In doing this, indeed the public side of nature 
under-signifies information (making it de-formaiton), and the private 
physics of sense over-signifies it (making it signal's high priority).

> Most definitely the information is not to be found 
> within the material of its expression, its representation. 
> Rather, the information is already to be found within the 
> interpreter. 

Yes. I would go so far as to say that the material of its expression isn't 
a representation, but rather a presentation of a form. The representation 
too resided with the interpreter as their semiotic expectations determine 
the nature of the message.  Just as you point out the three levels of chalk 
on slate, of amorphous solid deforming, or entropy - there is a 
corresponding hierarchy of signal reception on the interpreter end. The 
message can be interpreted directly and simply as a message containing X 
characters, it can be read as a social contract requiring a response, it 
could be a warning to indicate that additional response would not be 
welcome. etc. At the high end, the message can be interpreted as an omen or 
metaphor for some larger level of participation in destiny.

> That which is information is so by virtue of the acceptor 
> of that information; else, it is noise. 


> And, write the information on a piece of paper and seal 
> the paper within an envelope and you may justifiably 
> claim that the information is contained; else, you are 
> deluding yourself. 



> >has an inversely proportionate relationship with the 
> >capacity of sender and receiver to synchronize with 
> >each other. 
> > 
> ....<snip> 
> wrb 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to