 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)belb ...and 159 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613408 Today 0 Topics 127499 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
writing notes by hand has always helped things stick in my brain better. i think it's because it forces me to slow down and concentrate on the concepts a bit longer. i suspect the physical movement aids memory as well. i've been working on a piece of software for over a year now, and even though i've written the whole thing, it represents so much work that i cannot keep all of it in my head at once. i have to sit there with a pad of paper and take notes on my own code to sort of build up the house of cards in my brain before i can actually get anything done. on that note |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
see, we're at it again |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Okay, what I get from this is the following. Thesis 1. Linguistic meaning depends on context A term only has meaning in a specific context, the symbol "Mars“ doesn’t refer to anything unless the reference is determined by the context. In the field of (A) astronomy it refers to a planet, in the field of (B) Coltrane’s discography it refers to a track from the album Interstellar Space, in the field of (C) ancient Gods it refers to the God of war, in the field (D) of chocolate-bars to the tastiest of chocolate bars and so and and on. I guess that isn’t too controversial. I see no reason why one shouldn’t use the model of a „sphere of context“ to talk about these features of reality. Thesis 2. Different spheres of context influence each other in (hidden) ways Even though sphere of context A refers to categorically different aspect of reality than sphere of context C, which could suggest that those spheres would operate wholly independently of each other, those spheres in fact do influence each other, even though it’s not entirely clear how. I guess that’s true in at least some cases, too. An example that springs to my mind, which could roughly fit the model, is when I was thinking about boundaries. I was thinking of (a) boundaries between concepts. Many concepts are hard to define in an exact way and many people use this is a justification (excuse) to treat the concepts as empty. (Political example: People say there’s no British/German/whatever culture cause it’s impossible to define.) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Then I was looking at the sky and suddenly thinking about (b) the boundaries between different masses of water. There’s water in the sky in the form of clouds and water on the ground in form of rivers, waters in taps and so on. Now it would be weird to demand that strict boundaries between water in the sky and water on the ground should be enforced because it’s exactly the flux of water from the sky to the ground and water from the ground to the sky that keeps biological systems alive. Then I switched from sphere b to sphere a again and it seemed to me that what is the case for the boundaries in sphere B should hold in sphere A, too. Which results in the thought that it’s exactly the lack of clear boundaries between concepts that keeps concepts alive. This is definitely not a logical thought - because there’s a fundamental difference between the two types of boundaries - but the thought definitely did occur. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thesis 3. Adjusting the sphere of context leads to (somewhat „weird“) thought-loops When reflecting on misfiring attempts of communication that result from a confusion of spheres of context, the concept of „the sphere of context“ becomes the sphere of context itself. I think what might be worth keeping in mind is that the concept of a „sphere of context“ would have to be a higher-order-concept or meta-concept (or something along those lines). You might say the the concepts of (a) astronomy, (b) music, (c) ancient Gods, (d) chocolate bars are all on the same level. They are all specific fields of discourse human beings can focus their attention on, but can ignore, too. But some grasp of what a sphere of context is necessary for discourse as such (which would follow from thesis 1, too, insofar as the ability to distinguish contexts is the pre-condition for using language at all) . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'll freely admit to a borg/hip-hop sorta 'tude. there's a lot of reading others' work and synthesizing. honestly, it's hard for me to tell the difference, sometimes -- i'll come up with what i feel is a clever concept, then three months later, stumble into someone else making the same argument in a different way. then i think: yes, i'm digging in the right place. i'd encourage you to read this bit of the principitittus dischordian that because it is mad apropos. then there is i wrote 2016-08-09, a month or three after this whole arc launched on me. it's pretty much built off of metaprogramming by r. a. wilson: what is creativity? derailing threads with wild free-association. milftone. no, i'd say it's finding things that haven't been put together before, but fit. is there any reason to make it more complicated than that? if not, ok, we're done. please let me know i wasn't creative enough to glue together consciousness and programming on my own, but i did it by accident quite a few times. then someone else did it for me, and i felt a bit jealous thought of it and i hadn't. then i realized i still had things to add. inventing the jet engine was quite a thing, but to get it into planes all over the world took a lot of thought and creativity as well. he built the prototype and i'm working on a production model. my role is more about gluing together the smaller sub-parts, and i see it as mine simply have the right sort of background and i'm not seeing anyone else stepping up. maybe that's just because it's sheer lunacy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But some grasp of what a sphere of context is necessary for discourse as such (which would follow from thesis 1, too, insofar as the ability to distinguish contexts is the pre-condition for using language at all) i would argue the end of the line is -- patterns of sensory input experienced at some point in the past. clever boffins have managed to use a to "recognize" smells: Given a potentially large set of input patterns, sparse coding algorithms (e.g. Sparse Autoencoder) attempt to automatically find a small number of representative patterns which, when combined in the right proportions, reproduce the original input patterns. The sparse coding for the input then consists of those representative patterns. For example, the very large set of English sentences can be encoded by a small number of symbols (i.e. letters, numbers, punctuation, and spaces) combined in a particular order for a particular sentence, and so a sparse coding for English would be those symbols. it gets into very decent questions from there: how can i talk aloud without thinking about all the individual phonetic sounds? how can i walk down the street without thinking about how to move my toes? all those sparsely encoded sensory experiences are networked with strategies like , where rhythm begins to play a role from there i was into the thing as a potential mechanism for how mindfulness works, and now we're somewhat caught up to the sarah's-thots scan i posted. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thesis 3. Adjusting the sphere of context leads to (somewhat „weird“) thought-loops a charming tale of how my mental filter got stuck in an infinite loop. summary: i asked myself, "mental filter, is it a good idea to talk about mental filter?" while trying to juggle a bunch of other head in my stuff at the time same |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a fixed link |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cia trap do not post |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fuck-rabbit has caught you. Start again [] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That Principia Discordia text is so glaringly self-contradictory. The authos claim that no grid/philosophical position "can be more True than any other". But then their own position can't itself be True either. So if their poisition is not iself True, why is it relevant? They say we have no access to reality as such but then contradict themselves by claiming that "the brain" is the ultimate concept-making apparatus, that pre-linguistic chaos is the ultimate level of reality, etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My handwriting has gone weird, wanted to share a pic but I don’t want it to be forever on the net. What’s the easiest way without having to sign up? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That Principia Discordia text is so glaringly self-contradictory. The authos claim that no grid/philosophical position "can be more True than any other". But then their own position can't itself be True either. So if their poisition is not iself True, why is it relevant? you're missing the difference between truth and captial-T Truth. alternatively ~~ any system complicated enough to do basic arithmatic can either be consistant or complete, but . i like to joke: since i'm inconsistant, i must be complete! but, read properly, it feels like the same idea to me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
