i think that's only bc the static doesn't give any information, so there's no reason to consider it beyond "this is static"
-
-
Replying to @fire__exit
right but that begs the question of how we know static contains no information... you can use static as rng sees to make intriguing visual patterns
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
that's a good point, and it feels like a cop-out to just say "everything is noise without imposing a representation on it"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fire__exit
in what sense (maybe it sounds better in german - “content without concepts are blind, concepts without content are empty”)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
if i head over to oeis and pick a random integer sequence to show someone they might see it as just picking numbers out of a hat
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fire__exit
and depending on context that might be effectively correct or it might be totally wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
yeah, which might be where i'm going with what representations are useful to put on things? i'm not quite sure, i'm just thinking
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fire__exit
the problem is that a lot of important work has been done on this separately in philosophy, in info theory, and in ev bio, and integrating it all is a bitch and a half
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @fire__exit
for example millikan’s work on biosemantics and “Normal” contexts might really interest you but I can’t promise it wouldn’t seem impossible to translate into language of AI
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
i'll check it out, normal contexts rings a bell
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
you might have seen the “darwinian reactionary” blog
-
New conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.