Oof Misunderstanding! Information continuously cycles within an awareness between the so called "conscious mind", the "memory", and the "subconscious". Furthermore there are often many layers within each of those broad categories, each of which exchanges content within its own realm of control. For example, when I want to fetch a particular datum from memory due to a fleeting wisp of recollection, I must follow a path of mnemonically associated compactions to attain retrieval. If I have secreted the memory to prevent unauthorized extraction, then I must also follow a keying sequence of permissible windows of synchronization, such that I am not diverted into false leads which provide bogus imitations of the buried data. Information exists as datums taken WITHIN CONTEXT in my mind. Perhaps I could clarify by saying that every transitional exchange of a datum is information regardless of whether the transmitter and receiver are located within the same awareness? As extraction proceeds, the information attains a solidity of form which approaches clarity of its true meaning, until the final stage is attained with the clarity at which the datum was stored. This begs the question of how much subtext is contained in the clarified information, and how many associated datums must be synthesized together within the conscious mind to attain a true vision of the meaningfulness of the data.
So far as derived conclusions go based upon the gibberish which I spout - Arrggghhhh Yaarrr, Good Luck Pilgrim! Lonnie Courtney Clay On Saturday, June 4, 2011 8:01:57 AM UTC-7, Awori wrote: > > Interesting...but the assumption is that data only becomes information when > it is transmitted from one source to another. But information 'intelligence' > can be derived from without. > > On Jun 4, 2011 4:54 PM, "Lonnie Clay" <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Wonderful to hear from you einseele, especially on this topic! > > > > Information in isolation, taken out of context one bit at a time, is > > incompressible, and often binary. However, even a simple yes/no DOES have > > > context because it is subject to the experiential base of the receiving > > awareness/computational entity. So *I* maintain that information is > ALWAYS > > compressible until it reaches a critical limit of uncertainty based upon > > each unique receiver's experiential base. > > > > The question then devolves to "How many receiver's sensoriums do I desire > to > > attain comprehension of my message?" That depends upon objectives of the > > sender. Furthermore, the question arises as to the impact of > > miscommunication upon those who are not the objectives of a particular > > message's transmission dispersal. Interception of messages outside the > > transmitter's intended routing list is so common as to be taken as a > given. > > *I* maintain therefor that the optimum composition strategy for messages > > MUST include as a PRIMARY objective the goal of making messages not only > > incomprehensible outside of the routing list, but also contain content > such > > that each intercepted message will be DISCARDED as "nonsense" by > > interceptors outside of the routing list of intended recipients. By > > following this precept there is little harm which will occur due to > messages > > scattered freely to the public, such as my messages on the internet... > > > > I estimate that limited comprehension of the surface text of the above > > statements can be attained by 1% of the population. Deeper understanding > of > > the implications can be attained by 0.1% of the population. Since it is > > intuitively obvious to those who have provided intelligence tests to me, > > that due to my scoring at the 0.1% level of intelligence on a consistent > > basis that my intelligence must be at the 0.1% level rather than (for > > example) at the 1 per billion level, then there can't possibly be > anything > > even deeper to be discerned. However, I note that sometimes *I* surprise > > even *myself* by how cute or clever I have been in past postings. > > > > What might those further hidden meanings be? *GOD* only knows LOLOL... > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2011 4:35:29 AM UTC-7, einseele wrote: > >> > >> Which is the compression limit > >> Physics teaches that such limit is mass > >> > >> So the question is. Which is the limit for information compression. > >> > >> The answer to this question is about information itself. > >> > >> If information cannot be compressed beyond certain limit, then > >> information has mass. > >> > >> If information can be compressed limitless, then information does not > >> consist of a mass, therefore is not compressible. > >> > >> I believe this is the case, and the next question should be. > >> Well, if information has no mass, what are we compressing in its > >> place, and where and what is information. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/Yk9CSUlkeWF6SzhK. > > To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/MFh5Q3JvSFB3UVFK. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
