I'd add that the information channel is not the meaning channel.
Any information that a human processes contains a huge amount of prior knowledge and context. Just compare the size of this comment in text bits vs. the (hypothetical) size of the knowledge you need (and have) in order to understand it.
If anything, saying that we communicate only 0.2MB per day illustrates just how huge this prior knowledge must be.
From an information theory perspective human communications might better be modeled as a compressed data stream with a very very big lookup table.
That's closer to the reality, yes, though I don't think lookup-table is entirely the right concept either. Useful, yes, but doesn't quite generate the right mix of concepts of neurons, activation thresholds, fuzzy activation, multiple access paths, etc., etc.
I'm not focusing on the overall channel bandwidth because I think it tells the full story, but it does tell an important story, and in particular, it shows just how constrained that channel really is. If we're sucking (or blowing) through a straw, then there's only so much information as can be mediated.
This becomes particularly significant when you look at the amount of crap that people are flooded with, and realise how much this cuts down on the ability to process significant and meaningful information.
Any information that a human processes contains a huge amount of prior knowledge and context. Just compare the size of this comment in text bits vs. the (hypothetical) size of the knowledge you need (and have) in order to understand it.
If anything, saying that we communicate only 0.2MB per day illustrates just how huge this prior knowledge must be.
From an information theory perspective human communications might better be modeled as a compressed data stream with a very very big lookup table.