Re: tangled context probe
R.W. (Bob) Erickson wrote: (curious thing about this spew, it keeps disappearing into the bit bucket, Yawn. Roboposting this babble doesn't really increase its chances of getting read. I work through JY because I know there's uranium in that ore. But I'm about 2 posts away from ensconcing RWBE in my procmail file next to TM, choate and proffr. -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFT SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Re: tangled context probe
R.A. Hettinga wrote: At 10:56 AM -0500 12/10/04, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: But I'm about 2 posts away from ensconcing RWBE in my procmail file What's taking you so long? :-) Cheers, RAH cf: various imprecations against feeding trolls cet... Aww, come on guys i only eat little sheep and i hide from the wolves under cover of a bridge --bob
Re: tangled context probe
Tyler Durden wrote: Well, when you put it that way, that changes everything. All is now clear. Please continue downloading the syntactic mappings of random neural firing...I'm using your output to seed a random number generator. Oh, and don't forget to cc Choate. -TD You could do worse, my entropy is real. Whatever your take on memes I predict that certain messages play better than others. Analysis of the opposition's frame of minds are key. The immediate tool is that of insinuation. You dismiss some things as chaff or fluff put you cannot avoid the priming effect that well crafted misdirection employs. We protect our selves from disruptive knowledge We artistically wield our ignorance like a shield Our creativity hides our blind spots. Security through certainty is surely vunerable --bob
Re: tangled context probe
Roy M. Silvernail wrote: R.W. (Bob) Erickson wrote: (curious thing about this spew, it keeps disappearing into the bit bucket, Yawn. Roboposting this babble doesn't really increase its chances of getting read. I work through JY because I know there's uranium in that ore. But I'm about 2 posts away from ensconcing RWBE in my procmail file next to TM, choate and proffr. Is there a term for messages that are indistinguishable from those generated by Dissociated Press or one of its superior modern cousins? A kind of inverse Turing Test? W
Re: tangled context probe
At 10:56 AM -0500 12/10/04, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: But I'm about 2 posts away from ensconcing RWBE in my procmail file What's taking you so long? :-) Cheers, RAH cf: various imprecations against feeding trolls cet... -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: tangled context probe
Well, when you put it that way, that changes everything. All is now clear. Please continue downloading the syntactic mappings of random neural firing...I'm using your output to seed a random number generator. Oh, and don't forget to cc Choate. -TD From: R.W. (Bob) Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tangled context probe Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:27:08 -0500 Tyler Durden wrote: As to the crypto relevance: context Arranged signals can be anything at all. If you don't share the context of the communicators, you have no idea what they convey in their conversation about the whether. That's a stretch. Soon you'll say that Post-modernist literary theory is Cypherpunkish content because it deals with 'context'. I suggest you take up your theories with Mr Choate and the Dallas Cypherpunk(s). In that 'context' your posts will appear lucid. -TD No, all that european bs is only relevent because it adds to the piling evidence of irrationality. Whats the connect between irrationality an C-punks? Well aside from colorful characters its also key to any understanding of the minimum mass mind. There are policy implications inherent in innate incomplitence and compliance. There are also important ecconomic understandings that hinge upon understanding irrational choices c.f hyperbolic discounting, aka matching theory. There are also techie implications: The human semantic competency is hackable --bob
re: tangled context probe
(curious thing about this spew, it keeps disappearing into the bit bucket, I know its raw verbiage, but is it so incoherent it self-destructs? -bob) Process and perception This capacity for making high order discriminations about relationships between objects in our world, can be taken as the proper function of our cognitive competency. The attribute of intentionality, to this way of thinking, is best understood as work product of a discrete sub-module of our brain. We infer agency from our observations. What is agency? Well first and foremost, it is that which is recognizable to the competencies in process, that form these judgments. Does this sound circular? Surely it is circular in a crucial sense. All that we know comes to our attention as the work product of process in various competencies. Ultimately the authority of these high order discriminations comes not from a judgment about the correlation between our perceptions and the state of the objective world, but instead from their immediacy. This is to say that we do not perceive and then make judgments, our first awareness of every thing is located in the moment that the competent module forms some thing out of the possibilities. These awareness's are not in the semantic domain. Our knowing of particular attributes precedes the semantic transform that tags and packages up insights, for storage and shipping. We know what we know and we apologize for not being able to convey this knowing more effectively. That we are able to communicate at all, is a testament to the power of trial and error and the phenomenal similarity of our minds. This similarity is not accidental. Even as each person is an absolutely unique instance of humanity, what we are, is the embodiment of a phenomenally complex tangle of historical accomplishments that is fundamentally common to us all. Creativity emerges via the capacity/ability to merge contexts Biological instrumentality: The complex objects of our knowings come to our awareness as circumstances demand, literally selected by their features. Apprehension of the world via a sophisticatedly evolved biological instrumentality is an entropy hack. Life is the opportunistic bloom of a viral exploitation of regularity in the universe. In the beginning there was sequence, and it begat pattern and context space. Within every context space there is a tree of combinatorial consequences some leaves of which are potentially lucky. Blind evolution isn't trial and error testing of mistakes (mutations), it is the random testing of legal combinations So who set up the game, where did the rules come from, and the design language? The dynamic core of our consciousness consists of transient alignments of Feature Value - Action loops that compete for selection in a flicker-dance-sort of associations and sensory stimuli. Perception is a physics hack. Timing is everything. Three dimensionality is accessible to us via a cross mapping within the temporal manifold. Propagation of coherent correlations between map-mapped sheets of neurons act as a massively parallel delay line with multiple taps. Because both spatial and temporal coherence is preserved, the network sorts up the objects of perception and tracks them real time. Reality is best fit. Misperceptions happen, but its better than being blind. Our competency at this is not postulated, it is stipulated that the high order discriminations we perceive as qualia are exactly as amazing as the incredible complexity of the neurological stack that gives us them. Intentionality is an emergent design goal in secondary consciousness. (before getting upset about intentional language, remember that it works because reality fits.) Phenomenal transform is a semantic label for a context shift. If you insist on thinking of it as a happening, what's happening is that we find ourselves switching lexicons when we discuss certain things. Its not a description of a change of state in the object, it is a handle for referring to a pragmatic feature of discourse about it. The important thing to realize is that this sorting out of the features of the objects of our perception usually is done before we are aware of the process, but this does not mean that the process is different for hard discriminations, just that they are taking longer than the ~400ms self context loop, that feeds a product of the net's immediate state back into itself. Think convolving and converging. Discrimination occurs opportunistically, our competencies do not require conscious attention. In the formation of PV Action loops each project become one of the factions in our interior parliament. We have lots of timing to tap. Response times, flicker fusion times, saccades, pulse, peristalsis, menstruation. The royal road to cognitive illumination is the path of chronus. --bob me, I'm just a lawn mower
Re: tangled context probe
Tyler Durden wrote: As to the crypto relevance: context Arranged signals can be anything at all. If you don't share the context of the communicators, you have no idea what they convey in their conversation about the whether. That's a stretch. Soon you'll say that Post-modernist literary theory is Cypherpunkish content because it deals with 'context'. I suggest you take up your theories with Mr Choate and the Dallas Cypherpunk(s). In that 'context' your posts will appear lucid. -TD No, all that european bs is only relevent because it adds to the piling evidence of irrationality. Whats the connect between irrationality an C-punks? Well aside from colorful characters its also key to any understanding of the minimum mass mind. There are policy implications inherent in innate incomplitence and compliance. There are also important ecconomic understandings that hinge upon understanding irrational choices c.f hyperbolic discounting, aka matching theory. There are also techie implications: The human semantic competency is hackable --bob
Re: tangled context probe
As to the crypto relevance: context Arranged signals can be anything at all. If you don't share the context of the communicators, you have no idea what they convey in their conversation about the whether. That's a stretch. Soon you'll say that Post-modernist literary theory is Cypherpunkish content because it deals with 'context'. I suggest you take up your theories with Mr Choate and the Dallas Cypherpunk(s). In that 'context' your posts will appear lucid. -TD From: R.W. (Bob) Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Roy M. Silvernail [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tangled context probe Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:29:21 -0500 Roy M. Silvernail wrote: R.W. (Bob) Erickson wrote: (curious thing about this spew, it keeps disappearing into the bit bucket, Yawn. Roboposting this babble doesn't really increase its chances of getting read. I work through JY because I know there's uranium in that ore. But I'm about 2 posts away from ensconcing RWBE in my procmail file next to TM, choate and proffr. OK, it was just an unknown context for me.. My sincere apologies for subjecting you to a decrease in signal to noise. I know that I have to work on my presentation. Without sufficient introduction anything new is indistinguishable from cracked pottery. The synthetic perspective I am toying with is built upon some premises from cogsci In my opinion there are real strategic implications in the modern scientific perception of the individual as a tangle of competing interests. Self interest is one of given principles. In so far as the self is a personal mythology, and the irrationality of sheep hood is built in, I think three could be policy implications. As to the crypto relevance: context Arranged signals can be anything at all. If you don't share the context of the communicators, you have no idea what they convey in their conversation about the whether. Once again, I plead stupidity for the duplicates I will do penance --bob
Re: tangled context probe
Roy M. Silvernail wrote: R.W. (Bob) Erickson wrote: (curious thing about this spew, it keeps disappearing into the bit bucket, Yawn. Roboposting this babble doesn't really increase its chances of getting read. I work through JY because I know there's uranium in that ore. But I'm about 2 posts away from ensconcing RWBE in my procmail file next to TM, choate and proffr. OK, it was just an unknown context for me.. My sincere apologies for subjecting you to a decrease in signal to noise. I know that I have to work on my presentation. Without sufficient introduction anything new is indistinguishable from cracked pottery. The synthetic perspective I am toying with is built upon some premises from cogsci In my opinion there are real strategic implications in the modern scientific perception of the individual as a tangle of competing interests. Self interest is one of given principles. In so far as the self is a personal mythology, and the irrationality of sheep hood is built in, I think three could be policy implications. As to the crypto relevance: context Arranged signals can be anything at all. If you don't share the context of the communicators, you have no idea what they convey in their conversation about the whether. Once again, I plead stupidity for the duplicates I will do penance --bob
