Handwriting | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (2)
belb
big
...and 52 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2608104
Today 21
Topics 127198
  
 
Messageboard index
Handwriting
 

offline EpicMegatrax from Greatest Hits on 2017-11-11 22:27 [#02537195]
Points: 23981 Status: Addict



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


 

offline mohamed from the turtle business on 2017-11-12 13:18 [#02537228]
Points: 31139 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



see, we're at it again


 

offline welt on 2017-11-12 15:34 [#02537248]
Points: 2035 Status: Lurker | Followup to EpicMegatrax: #02537186



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.)


 

offline welt on 2017-11-12 15:35 [#02537249]
Points: 2035 Status: Lurker



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.


 

offline welt on 2017-11-12 15:35 [#02537250]
Points: 2035 Status: Lurker



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)
.


 

offline EpicMegatrax from Greatest Hits on 2017-11-12 21:06 [#02537269]
Points: 23981 Status: Addict | Followup to welt: #02537248



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 hyperflake posted because it is mad apropos.

then there is this post 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.



 

offline EpicMegatrax from Greatest Hits on 2017-11-12 21:19 [#02537271]
Points: 23981 Status: Addict | Followup to welt: #02537250



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 qualia --
patterns of sensory input experienced at some point in the
past.

clever boffins have managed to use a sparse autoencoder 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 population coding, where rhythm begins to
play a role

from there i was into the gcPc thing as a
potential mechanism for how mindfulness works, and now we're
somewhat caught up to the sarah's-thots scan i posted.


 

offline EpicMegatrax from Greatest Hits on 2017-11-12 21:33 [#02537273]
Points: 23981 Status: Addict | Followup to welt: #02537250



Thesis 3. Adjusting the sphere of context leads to
(somewhat „weird“) thought-loops


here is 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


 

offline EpicMegatrax from Greatest Hits on 2017-11-12 21:36 [#02537274]
Points: 23981 Status: Addict



here is a fixed link


 

offline wavephace from off the chain on 2017-11-13 07:03 [#02537289]
Points: 3098 Status: Lurker



cia trap do not post


 

offline SignedUpToLOL from Zuckuss fanfiction (United Kingdom) on 2017-11-14 15:55 [#02537405]
Points: 2853 Status: Regular



fuck-rabbit has caught you. Start again []


 

offline welt on 2017-11-15 21:53 [#02537512]
Points: 2035 Status: Lurker | Followup to EpicMegatrax: #02537269



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.


 

offline RussellDust on 2017-11-15 22:41 [#02537519]
Points: 15892 Status: Regular



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?


 

offline welt on 2017-11-15 23:53 [#02537522]
Points: 2035 Status: Lurker | Followup to RussellDust: #02537519



expires in at least 30 minutes

expires in at least a day


 

offline EpicMegatrax from Greatest Hits on 2017-11-16 06:49 [#02537526]
Points: 23981 Status: Addict | Followup to welt: #02537512



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
not both.

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