Xref: utzoo comp.ai:8341 sci.bio:4253 sci.psychology:4009 alt.cyberpunk:5560
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!fernwood!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.bio,sci.psychology,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: The Bandwidth of the Brain
Message-ID: <37618@cup.portal.com>
Date: 5 Jan 91 21:39:03 GMT
References: <37034@cup.portal.com> <37353@cup.portal.com>
  <2753@infinet.UUCP>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 24

Fred Sena says:

>   However, I was just trying to emphasize that there are a variety of
> pre-understandings between people that are immediately reconized *before* the
> next word follows.  In other words, all of the common understandings that are
> transmitted along with a word, which would imply much more information
> transmission than is obvious.  I'm trying to show the limitations of our
> ability to evaluate information content per unit time, or bandwidth.

But should any amount of pre-understanding between transmitter and receiver
be counted when calculating bandwidth?  I say no, because these pre-
understandings are bandwidth which should have been counted at some earlier
date when they entered the receiver's head.  To do otherwise is like Western
Union charging for a 40-word telegram when you send a 10-word telegram
which tells the recipient to read an earlier 30-word telegram already paid for.

I wouldn't say these pre-understandings are communication, because they
are not necessarily the same between the transmitter and the receiver.
You could say "horse meat" and I might think "hmm... Is that steak really
horsemeat?  I've never tried horsemeat, but I've heard it's good." while you
might be thinking "this steak tastes so bad I bet it's not even real beef,
I bet it's horsemeat".  I.e. unless you specifically describe referenced
objects (and allow that description to be counted in the bandwidth)
I wouldn't say you've communicated anything about those objects.