But also, and significantly, Shannon’s brother has given him a new datum: there is a discrete thing-to-be-told which would significantly help. (This is, admittedly, implicit. But if I don’t assume it, the story makes no sense to me.)
But he’s solving a puzzle, there’s always a thing-to-be-told!
(shrug) Indeed. More generally, he’s a bounded agent, there’s always a thing-to-be-told, which may or may not have anything to do with solving jigsaw puzzles.
For example, “there’s a piece that fits with another piece somewhere in this puzzle box” is certainly a thing to be told, and is always true of non-pathological jigsaw puzzles. And “There are no sharks on Mars” is also a thing his brother could have told him.
But, yes, if the Shannons didn’t have an implicit shared context that strongly suggested that there was a less generic thing-to-be-told in his brother’s mind than those examples, then most of what I said about the Shannon example is simply false.
But he’s solving a puzzle, there’s always a thing-to-be-told!
(shrug) Indeed. More generally, he’s a bounded agent, there’s always a thing-to-be-told, which may or may not have anything to do with solving jigsaw puzzles.
For example, “there’s a piece that fits with another piece somewhere in this puzzle box” is certainly a thing to be told, and is always true of non-pathological jigsaw puzzles. And “There are no sharks on Mars” is also a thing his brother could have told him.
But, yes, if the Shannons didn’t have an implicit shared context that strongly suggested that there was a less generic thing-to-be-told in his brother’s mind than those examples, then most of what I said about the Shannon example is simply false.