This week I am responding to “The Mathematical Theory of Communication” by Claude E Shannon and Warren Weaver and The Human Use of Human Beings, chapters 1 and 11, by Norbert Wiener.
Again, beginning with a couple informal responses.
I hate math. One of math’s favorite hobbies is to tear my brain in pieces and then stomp on them while laughing maliciously at the spurting brain juice. So I was a bit apprehensive about the Shannon and Weaver reading. But I actually found it quite interesting, and not as painful as I was afraid it would be. I was especially intrigued by the idea of “noise” as it applies to the transmission of information, and, more specifically, translation between languages. I am double majoring in English and Spanish, studying Mandarin Chinese, and planning to go onto grad school in translation studies. Languages fascinate me, as does the act of translating something said in one language into another. Noise, in this case, would be whatever discrepancies arise from structural, vocabulary, stylistic, or idiomatic differences between languages. As I believe Wiener pointed out, a translator has, broadly speaking, two options: a more direct, literal translation that maintains denotative ideas from the original language, but perhaps loses something of idiomatic meaning or style, or a broader, more liberal translation that may maintain the original tone, but that also, intentionally or unintentionally, inserts meanings and nuances that were not originally present. I would say that the job of the translator, looking at these two options (and the spectrum of choices in between), is to pick the option producing the least amount of noise.
And now, the prompt:
The Marxists we have previously read seemed concerned with the manipulation of information from a socio-political standpoint—how is information being manipulated for the political ends of the ruling class, and how can the revolutionary class counter it? Shannon, Weaver, and Wiener, seem more concerned with manipulation of information (manipulation as in “technical treatment of a given material with a particular goal in mind,” as Enzensberger defines it) from a pragmatic stance—how can we, whoever we may be, manipulate information most effectively, such that it may arrive at the receiver, be that human or machine, with the least amount of distortion occurring during the transmission process. Both articles seem concerned with the idea of information free from any sort of partisan bias. Their concern is the act of communication, especially the changes it will, should, or should not undergo in the face of the development of communicative technologies.
Shannon and Weaver focus on establishing a framework for thinking about information in quantifiable terms. I think it’s significant that they emphasize “information must not be confused with meaning” (161). This idea shifts the focus from the semantic implications of that which is communicated to the data that is transmitted.
With this framework in mind, Wiener’s writing may be understood to discuss how machines can be designed to transmit, receive, and respond to information, and therefore the role they should play in social communication. His idea of a “message” is similar to Shannon’s idea of a “signal”—a stimulus, be it verbal, visual, etc., transmitted from a transmitter to a receiver, with the end of communicating a meaning. Wiener’s concern is control, “the sending of messages which effectively change the behavior of the recipient” (8). If we put in in Shannon’s terms, control is the process of removing noise from a transmitted message: “a message can lose order spontaneously in the act of transmission, but cannot gain it” (7). In terms of machines, control becomes difficult because machines can only respond to a message in one of a predetermined set of responses. Thus, while Wiener seems enthusiastic about the potential usages of communication machines in society, he warns that it is important to determine their place. Placing machines in roles that belong to humans can be dangerous, because they cannot be appropriately controlled, but placing humans in a role that should belong to a machine, now that such machines exist, is degrading to the human.
I must say that I laughed when I read your opening lines, they eloquently echoed my own trepidations in regard to the math basis of these pieces!Your point about translation is very fascinating. Dare I say it, it seems Shannon and Weaver may have provided the background for the saying, words can be "lost in translation." The level of noise due to the amount of technological devices that we are using now to communicate with one another certainly causes an increase in entropy levels. Weiner's discussion of cybernetics in particular is a bit perplexing but ultimately no matter how interesting the experiments that continue which make machines more humanoid (or trick humans into thinking they are talking to another person),the fact remains that these machines will not really have human emotions.
ReplyDeleteHey Christy!
ReplyDeleteThe beginning of your post made me smile. I have a feeling I'm going to get that response a lot in the future since I'm going to be a math teacher.
What compelled me to comment on your post was your application of these works on the mathematics of communication to languages, especially language translation. As a mathematics major, I have been taught that math is also a language. In fact, it is supposed to be the purest language of all. I guess this would partially be due to the lack of "noise" in mathematics.
One of the math professors here at TU, Dr. Constanda, continually complains about our use of the English language. We insert words such as "like" and "umm" into our ordinary conversations though they add nothing to our understanding. Yet, we can still comprehend what others are saying. In math, however, one cannot throw out random symbols or whatever and still be understood.
Mathematical writing must be precise and exact in order to convey its message. Perhaps these writers chose math to study communications because of this sort of lack of "noise." Or, maybe I've gone off on a complete tangent...
Sarah Hagan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello!
ReplyDeleteIn your blog you mention the role of humans and machines. I've thought about this concept before and I don't know that there really is such a thing. I think that as technologies in medicine and feeding masses increase, the number of humans will also increase. Unfortunately lots of these technologies displace jobs typically designed for humans. The problem then, in my opinion, is to figure out how to lower the number of humans, rather than designating jobs that are human, rather than for machines.
You also commented on language, which is very interesting. I’m currently reading a book on emotions in one of my psychology classes. In the book the author mentions different types of pride, but he can’t describe them because there isn’t a sufficient word in English, although the feeling exists. He chooses “fiero,” and Italian word, to describe pride and excitement in one’s accomplishments. In addition to this, he describes “naches,” a Yiddish word, to distinguish the sense of pride and joy we feel for our children. Basically, I think your comment about the noise in language is right on!