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
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
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.
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.