Talk:Semiotic information theory
"Human beings are initially concerned solely with their own lives, but then a world obtrudes on their subjective existence, and so they find themselves forced to take an interest in the objective realities of its nature."
It is good to observe thus far but this is not strictly true. Part of the mechaism of most animals it self stimulation/play or appetitive behavior. In the large circle of life one might say, "a world obtrudes on their subjective existence, and so they find themselves forced to take an interest in the objective realities of its nature." as part of a super mechanism it is abiguous and potentially leads to weak thinking when applied to "Human beings"
Wblakesx 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)wblakesx
Notes & Queries
Jon Awbrey 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
History of Article & Explanation of Tone
JA: This article was initially written as a general reader introduction to the article on Information theory, which was tagged at the time, and remains tagged to this day, as being too technical in its tone. Thus it was deliberately written in a less formal tone than the rest of the article that it was intended to introduce.
JA: Moreover, a number of articles on philosophical subjects required links to a more substantial article on information theory that would be accessible to readers with mostly philosophy backgrounds, and these needs were not being filled by some of the very basic articles on the subject, for instance, the one on Information.
JA: As a result, an attempt was made to provide a gentle introduction to basic but still substantial core ideas of information theory, and to write it in terms that would be familiar to readers with a modicum of philosophy background.
JA: In the end, however, when the necessary introduction became longer than five or six paragraphs, it was decided to spin off the general introduction to a separate article. And that is how the elephant lost its tale. Jon Awbrey 02:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah okay, I still think it needs some work, but less severe taggage. (As much as I love ASCII diagrams, they're not the Wikipedia norm. ;) Vagary 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yikes! This is a ghastly complicated introduction to a relatively simple basic concept. The ASCII diagrams have got to go, and a simpler example should be used. Perhaps the encoding of facial expressions as 1bit images. How many dots would you need to distinguish a smile from a frown? Perhaps a discussion of the shift from symbolic information (i.e. something like ASCII or unicode) to iconic information (i.e. something like a bitmap).Brennanyoung (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)