Good On Jun 5, 2011 12:29 PM, "Lonnie Clay" <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. 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.
