Xref: utzoo comp.ai:8353 sci.bio:4257 sci.psychology:4031 alt.cyberpunk:5588 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!infinet!sena From: sena@infinet.UUCP (Fred Sena) Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.bio,sci.psychology,alt.cyberpunk Subject: Re: The Bandwidth of the Brain Message-ID: <2755@infinet.UUCP> Date: 7 Jan 91 23:51:57 GMT References: <37034@cup.portal.com> <37353@cup.portal.com> <2753@infinet.UUCP> <37618@cup.portal.com> Reply-To: sena@infinet.UUCP (Fred Sena) Organization: Infinet, Inc. North Andover, MA Lines: 61 > >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. It's probably not worth going on with this, but I'm having fun so here goes. I am not using the traditional model for communication. I'm wearing my philosopher hat, not my engineer hat. I'm probably way over my head (or just crazy) as far as trying to work on these concepts and explain them. There are two concepts that I am working on: 1. I'm trying to look at communication from another "angle". 2. Transmitted "data" depends on what you are looking for. I think there is another layer of complexity in human communication beyond the transmission of raw data. I'm looking not at the "data" transmitted, but at the processes on both ends. I think that transmission of data which stimulates old memory stuff is very important in part of this higher level, because it has the effect of creating (or just *is*) an ever evolving system of protocols. Computer symbols are nice and neat and work fine for measuring computer data. The problem with with measuring human communication is that the symbols are somewhat (if not extremely) arbitrary. If you don't believe me, try counting the number of words in the dictionary that have more than one definition, not to mention connotations, slang, context, etc. Not to mention the fact that we generate new words all of the time. I don't think that you can just assume that you know the difference between "noise" and "data". It depends on what you are looking for. It would be like assuming that the visible spectrum is "all light". Except well, oops, there's these radio effects, or well look at that, you can get an image of bones using, well, we'll call them x-rays. Information that was not there, all of a sudden is there, because we not care. I guess information is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure if I even made a point here, but at least I'm trying... >I wouldn't say these pre-understandings are communication, because they >are not necessarily the same between the transmitter and the receiver. No, I wouldn't say that either. What I am saying is they are *involved* in communication because the effects of stirring up the pre-understanding is the smoking gun that suggests something was indeed transmitted, even though it was not "data" in the traditional sense of something which you didn't know and now you know. It's more like a trigger and I suspect that it might be "invisible" if you don't know how to look for it. I was waiting to get a response about my sloppy definition of bandwidth which Tom Schneider pointed out. Definitely an "oops" on my part. I think that we've split enough hairs on this topic, any other suggestions... --fred -- -------------------------------------------------- Frederick J. Sena sena@infinet.UUCP Memotec Datacom, Inc. N. Andover, MA