In LO2591, Michael McMaster says...
> What I want to do is register a positive possibility of "noise".
> Information theory suggests that ambiguity and noise are part of the
> process. Frequently, what is "noise" will not be known until after the
> fact. We can put narrow limits on a dialogue - say a specific intention -
> and then apply immediate judgement such as "is this noise or isn't it".
> If we take this course, we will allow no room for development of what at
> first appears noise but was merely ambiguous. If we wait only until the
> dialogue is complete, we may have found the whole conversation to be
> noise.
> The point is that without noise in the system - and often quite a bit of
> it - there will be little creativity, innovation or even opportunity for
> full expression of each participant. (Your logic or important point is
> frequently my noise - and vice versa.)
Your read of Shannon and mine differ somewhat Michael. I'm
afraid that your might lead some people to sanction *anything*
as potentially useful. It is useful to put limits on the process.
Claude Shannon asserts that to be information, it has to be
something we didn't already know. In theory, then, if I count
monotonically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5...), the next number in the series is
not *information* to you. However, if you expect me to count mono-
tonically, and I say (1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21 ...) you have
new information: That my numeric counting is based on a four-digit
system, not a ten-digit system.
Now, you might see "10" in the latter example as noise. But, is it?
You've discovered something about me. Now, if I'm is *erroneous*
in my use of a four-digit system, (a good example of a cultural error)
then it *is* noise. I think we are in agreement to this point. How-
ever, I think common misunderstanding of these principles by many
group leaders gives them sanction to support utterly useless contri-
butions, undermining the quality of their work.
In practice, especially in interpersonal communications, there
is truly noise, and there is information which masquerades as noise.
An example: Our job is to decide what vehicle to use to convey some
products somewhere. We consider trucks, rail, airplanes. Somebody
says "horseback." Is that noise, or the seed of a new idea? Depends
on context (are you delivering to the High Himalayas?). There is,
however, true noise for which there is no substantive information to
be extracted that is relevant to the context ("Did you see the story
in the paper today about the grass fire that got out of control?").
It may be trite idea, but I was recently reminded of Edward De Bono's
idea of "Yes," "No," and "Po." That latter word stands for "Possi-
bility," "Potential," and, even, "Poetry." It is a useful state.
Unfortunately, for most modern adults, using a "made up word" is
mildly embarassing, so they tend to avoid using it.
--
Carol Anne Ogdin "If we fixed a hangnail the way our
Deep Woods Technology, Inc. government fixed the economy, we'd
CAOgdin @ DeepWoods.com slam a car door on it."
--Cullen Hightower