Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
That's nice.

My responses above still stand unchanged. This started with the claim that PP's distinction between new and copied ideas was impossible because supposedly ideas can't actually be copied because the mind and'/or language doesn'r work that way, so all ideas each person has are only different degrees of new. "But information theory" doesn't really change that assertion being an unfalsifiable assertion about "how the mind works".

Stop trying to derail the thread with this nonsense.
Not only that, it's one more instance of taking an imprecise, rough-terms description as if it were a fully-defined mathematical theorem. My ideas are always squishy--I'm not laying out some form of quantizable definition here. I'm talking in general terms about average events at a high level. Basic principles (creating new things you've never heard of is harder than learning from someone else, a principle that's really really entrenched in real life) are not some definition at a deep level.

Really, the implementation level is much weirder and much more different than that. Remember, this is a setting where things like "conservation of energy" and "atomic theory" and "quantum mechanics" just plain don't exist as such. It's a world where pseudo-aristotelian thought is much closer to reality than modern scientific thinking. So modern theories of mind and language (even if we take them as facts here on earth) just plain don't apply in any reasonable fashion beyond the macro-scale.