Dear Bil B. you probably have thought in these lines during similar long
periods as I did. It was ~2 decades ago when I defined
i n f o r m a t i o n  as something with (at least) 2 ends:
1. the notion (in whatever format it shows up)  - and
2. the acceptor (adjusting the notion in whatever context it can be
    perceived - appercipiated (adjusted>).
I have no idea how to make a connection between information (anyway how one
defines it) and the (inner?) disorder level of anything (entropy?). I
dislike this thermodynamic term alltogether.

Later on I tried to refine my wording into:
RELATIONS and the capability of recognizing them. That moved away from a
'human(?)' framework. E. g. I called the 'closeness of a '(+)' charge to a
'(-)' potential an information so it came close to SOME consciousness (=(?)
*response to relations*), no matter in what kind of domain.

Do you feel some merit to my thinking?

John Mikes

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:06 AM, William R. Buckley

> There is information (I take information to be a
> manifestation of entropy) and it is always represented
> in the form of a pattern (a distribution) of the units
> of mass/energy of which the Universe is composed.  I
> think that semiotic signs are simply specific bits
> of information; I will use the terms synonymously.
> Information has meaning only within context.  For many
> people, context is taken to mean one piece of information
> as compared to another piece of information.  I do not
> take this meaning of context when I discuss semiotics.
> Instead, I take semiotic context to be the acceptor of
> the information.  Hence, all meaning resides a priori
> within information acceptors.
> What you know you have always known; the sign merely
> serves to bring that knowledge to your conscious mind.
> That you may have intention and so comport your delivery
> of information to another acceptor has not bearing upon
> the subsequent acceptance or rejection of that information
> by the target acceptor.  Acceptance or rejection of
> information is determined solely by the accepting or
> rejecting context (acceptor).
> Your mere presence sends information regardless of some
> conscious intent.  Indeed, your absence does equally
> deliver information, for the target acceptor will see
> a definite difference in available information sources
> whether you are present or not.
> Consider a line worker in a bean processing plant where
> the task is to cull *bad* dried beans from *good* dried
> beans as they go by on a conveyor belt; the *bad* beans
> are removed by hand, so the line worker is constantly
> looking for *bad* beans while constantly being aware
> of the fact that not many of the beans are *bad*.  The
> consciousness is aware of both that which is present
> and that which is not present.
> Further, what any information that you emit means to
> you is irrelevant to the meaning that another may take
> for that information.  Indeed, it is via reliance upon
> -Cultural Norms- that your point regarding Morse Code
> becomes relevant.  It is perfectly reasonable for an
> ornery person to simply reject such norms and act
> otherwise; your expectation originates in you, not
> the targets of information you broadcast.
> >>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.
> >
> The word should have been *reception* - receipt of
> information (acceptance of a sign) is a function of
> the value that the acceptor puts on that sign.  That
> value is most certainly not tied to the delivery
> mechanism, even if some delivery mechanisms are
> preferred over others.
> What matters to information acceptance is disposition
> of the acceptor to that acceptance.  If the acceptor
> does not *like* the sign, it will reject the sign; of
> course, this means that all signs are accepted just
> long enough to decide if they are sufficiently meaningful
> or not; if so, they are accepted else they are rejected.
> >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
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit

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
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to