Just to say one more time here: the central idea is "meaning", and "data" has no meaning without "process" (you can't even distinguish a fly spec from an intentional mark without a process.
One of many perspectives here is to think of "anything" as a "message" and then ask what does it take to "receive the message"?
People are used to doing (a rather flawed version of) this without being self-aware, so they tend to focus on the ostensive "message" rather than the processes needed to "find the actual message and 'understand' it".
Both Shannon and McLuhan in very different both tremendously useful ways were able to home in on what is really important here.
Most humans are quite naive about this -- but it is endlessly surprising to me -- and depressing -- to see computer people exhibit similar naivete.
For example, the extent to which most code today relies on "outside of code" programmer views (and hopes) is astounding and distressing.
One of many perspectives here is to think of "anything" as a "message" and then ask what does it take to "receive the message"?
People are used to doing (a rather flawed version of) this without being self-aware, so they tend to focus on the ostensive "message" rather than the processes needed to "find the actual message and 'understand' it".
Both Shannon and McLuhan in very different both tremendously useful ways were able to home in on what is really important here.
Most humans are quite naive about this -- but it is endlessly surprising to me -- and depressing -- to see computer people exhibit similar naivete.
For example, the extent to which most code today relies on "outside of code" programmer views (and hopes) is astounding and distressing.