Craig:

 

An excellent reply will come shortly.

 

Minimally, I will show you how your intent in irrelevant to 

the message receiver.

 

I do need a little time to construct the argument, given 

a few chores around the farm (we work from 6AM to 

12PM 365.25 +/- days per year).

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 4:48 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

 



On Saturday, March 2, 2013 6:40:44 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:

Craig:

 

The truth of your statement is no reply to my claim, that how another 

receiver of signs responds is irrelevant to your knowledge, save the one 

case of conveyance of knowledge between semiotic units; where you 

intend for knowledge to be conveyed.  In that case, it is behooving of 

the sender to ensure that the receiver can receive and understand the 

message. 


I'm not sure what you are bringing up here, but I would say that my point is
that all messages have multiple levels of reception, perhaps as many levels
as their are receivers in the universe. At the same time, if we are assuming
human senders and receivers and a content range which is highly normative
and practical (i.e. Morse code alphabet rather than emoticons, inside jokes,
etc), then the information entropy is reduced dramatically.

Maybe you can give me an example of that you mean by the irrelevance of the
receiver's knowledge. Does that include the expectation of the possibility
of there being a receiver?
 

In all other cases, the recipient response is irrelevant; all 

values and measures originate in the sender of the message.


I would tend to agree with that, although the expectation of the recipient
response informs the motives, values, and measures of the sender - otherwise
there would be no message being sent.
 

 

The receiver of transmitted information is irrelevant to the mechanics 

of that transmission.


I'm not sure what you mean. Again, maybe an example would help. We expect
that human audiences can see, so we have TV screens to provide optical
stimulation. If we didn't have eyes, there would be no mechanism of TV.

Craig
 

 

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.
 
 

-- 
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