On Fri, 27 May 2011, Bryan Jurish wrote:
As far as language (or symbols) are concerned: yes, of course. But if
I'm reading it right, there's nothing which says that the "features"
(which may or may not "count" as information content) rely for their
ontological status only on their use (or non-use) in a Shannon-esque
"message"
Shannon's information theory assumes that there is a single stream of
information that is all of à priori equal value except that unlikely
outcomes are considered more remarkable. However, to explain human
perception, you have to take into account pre-established notions of
importance of information, and what's the flow of attention-span, among a
lot more things.
(I wrote this message 6 months ago and forgot to click Send. Still trying
to exorcise myself out of this habit. In the meantime, it makes filler for
a slow week on pd-list. ;-)
_______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
