Re: What are you reading?

161
seby wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:47 pmNot unrelatedly, I just wrote this if you are interested in deep-diving on semantic information more generally:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/info ... -semantic/
Cool! Information theory is super interesting to me.

One part caught my eye:

That one part of our environment may carry information about another part of our environment depends on our environment behaving in reliable, non-randomised way. Our ability to use information at one part of our environment to access information at another part of it depends not only on our ability to recognise patterned regularities, but on our ability to recognise connections between such regularities.

Does this mean that if I read from this book, I am able to access information about "another part" or parts (that which the text is referring to), and that since I am able to do this consistently (I expect the information to be the same each time I return to the text), I can conclude that reality does not behave randomly, in that if it did, the information contained in the book might possibly refer to a different part when I return to it at some other time, thus I couldn't be sure of what the information contained in the book actually was, and therefore couldn't rely on it as information at all?

To the last part of my question though I want to counter-question: Couldn't it be as valid for the information being some thing at one time (referring to some part), and a different thing at another time (referring to some other part), and still be valid? I would still obtain some information, even if it was just in this single occurrence. And that first part of my environment - the book - would in that instant "carry information" about that other part.
born to give

Re: What are you reading?

162
kokorodoko wrote:Continuing on with Hobbes a bit.
An obvious flaw in this account is overlooking the fact that the "passions" would conceivably include also the need/want/desire for community, cooperation, relationships. This is the line Rousseau takes up, right? And then Kropotkin.

Though perhaps Hobbes would concede that these are there, but that other passions override them. Since the commonwealth is able to realize all those things which are immanent but unrealizable in the state of nature (the same law holds, but is unenforcable), it is in only here that these passions can find expression. But in that case, why is the fear of the sovereign considered the main thing that continues to bind the commonwealth, rather than also passions that now as opposed to before are able to find
their expression?

Unless there are distinctions I am not aware of in this word "passions", which would explain or alter things.
born to give

Re: What are you reading?

163
kokorodoko wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:43 am
seby wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:47 pmNot unrelatedly, I just wrote this if you are interested in deep-diving on semantic information more generally:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/info ... -semantic/
Cool! Information theory is super interesting to me.

One part caught my eye:

That one part of our environment may carry information about another part of our environment depends on our environment behaving in reliable, non-randomised way. Our ability to use information at one part of our environment to access information at another part of it depends not only on our ability to recognise patterned regularities, but on our ability to recognise connections between such regularities.

Does this mean that if I read from this book, I am able to access information about "another part" or parts (that which the text is referring to), and that since I am able to do this consistently (I expect the information to be the same each time I return to the text), I can conclude that reality does not behave randomly, in that if it did, the information contained in the book might possibly refer to a different part when I return to it at some other time, thus I couldn't be sure of what the information contained in the book actually was, and therefore couldn't rely on it as information at all?

To the last part of my question though I want to counter-question: Couldn't it be as valid for the information being some thing at one time (referring to some part), and a different thing at another time (referring to some other part), and still be valid? I would still obtain some information, even if it was just in this single occurrence. And that first part of my environment - the book - would in that instant "carry information" about that other part.
Indeed it would! We can refine this by speaking of information channels carrying such BBC and such information at time t and what not (although this is usually buried in the background unless one is working with temporal logics explicitly). What matters is reliable correlation at the instance of transmission.

What this means is that classical Shannon-Weaver information theory will not cut it for modelling epistemic networks. This is because on that theory a channel with even a bit of a wobble is no good - even if it happens to be working perfectly at the time at which you are using it! Dretske has a great paper about this - “Epistemology and Information”
"lol, listen to op 'music' and you'll understand"....

https://sebastiansequoiah-grayson.bandcamp.com/
https://oblier.bandcamp.com/releases
https://youtube.com/user/sebbityseb

Re: What are you reading?

164
seby wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:31 pmDretske has a great paper about this - “Epistemology and Information”
Readable and informative (lul).

The "computer science" view of information is precisely the one I have gone with, information as simply data. Dretske says this is the "classical" one , and the one still most common - I take it he is an outlier here then? That reason probably being that he discovered instances where such a model is not adequate, as you alluded to.

The distinction between natural meaning and linguistic meaning, their distinct characteristics and their interplay, is something I'd be interested in exploring.

- - -

I just went through Freud's "Five Lectures" and started on the "Introductory Lectures". Reading Freud I have found to be a bit of a cut n paste job. There isn't one place where everything is gathered and any particular concept you're looking for appears as fragments in this source and that source, from which you have to piece together an understanding. This has made me frustrated and impatient with him. Maybe it's because I have previously kind of just picked things at random. At any rate, these lectures seem to be a good starting point. The former gives a historical sketch and establishes some key terms in an easily graspable manner.
born to give

Re: What are you reading?

165
In the middle of reading the tenth and last Kurt Wallander book, The Troubled Man. When it's done, that'll be it, aside from the sole Linda Wallander book, if that counts. It's been a trip of sorts. To go back and break down the strengths and weaknesses of each installment, and the series as a whole, would require more effort/time than I'm willing to commit atm, but it has been enjoyable delving into them, even if few of them are exactly "perfect." Plotting aside, I think what the books capture best is a certain tone, which might have a lot to do with their setting, while also touching on various, at-times-inter-generational insights into aging. Guessing that would account for their popularity more than anything else.

Anxious to get to the other titles I acquired last year, some of which don't have much to do with genre literature. Might have to fuck off from social media to make more room from them.
ZzzZzzZzzz . . .

New Novel.

Re: What are you reading?

166
I downloaded a few scans of the Acéphale journal to practice French (Acéphale was a secret society housing Georges Bataille among others).

On the first page we have this:

Ce que nous avons entrepris ne doit être confondu avec rien d'autre, ne peut pas être limité à l'expression d'une pensée et encore moins à ce qui est justement considéré comme art.

(That which we have undertaken should not be confused with anything else, cannot be limited to the expression of a thought, still less to that which is rightly considered art.)

Il est nécessaire de produire et de manger : beaucoup de choses sont nécessaires qui ne sont encore rien et il en est également ainsi de l'agitation politique.

(It is necessary to produce and to eat - many things are necessary which are yet nothing, and so it is too with political agitation.)

Qui songe avant d'avoir lutté jusqu'au bout à laisser la place à des hommes qu'il est impossible de regarder sans éprouver le besoin de les détruire?
Mais si rien ne pouvait être trouvé au delà de l'activité politique, l'avidité humaine ne rencontrerait que le vide.


(Who dreams, before having fought to the end, of giving way to men whom it is impossible to look at without feeling the need to destroy them?
But if nothing could be found beyond political activity, human greed would meet only emptiness.)

NOUS SOMMES FAROUCHEMENT RELIGIEUX et, dans la mesure où notre existence est la condamnation de tout ce qui est reconnu aujourd'hui, une exigence intérieure veut que nous soyons également impérieux.

(WE ARE FEROCIOUSLY RELIGIOUS - and, in so far as our existence is the condemnation of all that is recognized today, an inner demand calls us to be equally imperious.)
---


I was first thinking that wow, these boys really love words. However pondering this some more, there actually is a consistency to it.

The project (whatever it is) is to stand on its own, it is not simply art - that would be a kind of limitation to it, would be finding for it a place within the existing, a slot for it to be comfortably fitted, not matter how daring it might be; not simply expressing a thought - because if it is expressing something, then the expressed thing becomes the primary and the means of expression retreat into the background, become instrumental. In other words, it is to find something which there is no other way to find, and which thing itself perhaps is not really known. If it were meant to express something, the thing to be expressed would be already known.

This project may arise in some way from the same impetus as political activity and agitation - a sickness with the existing, an urge to destroy it - no one would dream of giving up in the face of all this before having fought to end against it! BUT political activity is oriented around need, is oriented toward fulfilling basic need; and is also always about expressing clearly. (One of my own criticisms of Marxism/socialism is the strong tendency to focus on Maslowian need, which also has potentially unpleasant implications for how a society on such grounds is imagined to function.)

Thus, l'avidité humain ("human greed", I'm interpreting this as "thirst" - for something more, something beyond) would not find anything there with which to be satisfied. The addition of "human" suggesting it's a kind of tendency, something ever present and recurring - human always reaches beyond its needs, is dissatisfied with satisfaction. The main theme of Bataille's The Accursed Share is a rejection of the "economical" part of economics in favour of the excessive, lavish, luxurious - in other words the unnecessary and (from the standpoint of classical economics) irrational.


Still, I wonder if anyone other than a Frenchman could get away with writing like this. It is indeed something like this that gives French writing a special singing quality and a kind of fiery urgency - very apt for manifestos and such.

Of course, this kind of expressiveness is, I hazard to guess, a firm part of French self-image, which likely feeds into my own reception and interpretation of this text, but also would place it closer at hand for a French speaker to unapologetically express themselves like this.
born to give

Re: What are you reading?

167
Mothership: Tales from Afrofuturism and Beyond
The Baffler
The Paris Review
Blank Forms 06: Organic Music Societies - all about Don and Moki Cherry's work in the 60s and 70s
"I got to tell you, if I went to a show and an opening band I never heard of lugged a Super Six on stage, I am paying attention." - Owen

Re: What are you reading?

170
kokorodoko wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:40 am
seby wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:31 pmDretske has a great paper about this - “Epistemology and Information”
Readable and informative (lul).

The "computer science" view of information is precisely the one I have gone with, information as simply data. Dretske says this is the "classical" one , and the one still most common - I take it he is an outlier here then? That reason probably being that he discovered instances where such a model is not adequate, as you alluded to.

The distinction between natural meaning and linguistic meaning, their distinct characteristics and their interplay, is something I'd be interested in exploring.

- - -

I just went through Freud's "Five Lectures" and started on the "Introductory Lectures". Reading Freud I have found to be a bit of a cut n paste job. There isn't one place where everything is gathered and any particular concept you're looking for appears as fragments in this source and that source, from which you have to piece together an understanding. This has made me frustrated and impatient with him. Maybe it's because I have previously kind of just picked things at random. At any rate, these lectures seem to be a good starting point. The former gives a historical sketch and establishes some key terms in an easily graspable manner.
Dretske did not discover the cases, they are old hat in mainstream non-formal epistemology. But he was probably one of the first if not the first to frame them in channel-theoretic terms! I shall post a list of paper from my Phil info course that deal with this stuff in detail and you can have at it : )

There is a weird connection with Freud! There was a split between the psychoanalysts and phenomenologists back around 1900 or so. The phenomenologists also exchanged ideas with Frege wrt his mathematical concept script. It was while trying to get a formal handle on Frege’s conception of ‘sense’ that Carnap came up with intensions, and Carnap was, along with Bar-Hillel, one of the very first people to turn Shannon and Weaver’s mathematical theory of communication towards explicitly semantic goals.

So there you go
"lol, listen to op 'music' and you'll understand"....

https://sebastiansequoiah-grayson.bandcamp.com/
https://oblier.bandcamp.com/releases
https://youtube.com/user/sebbityseb

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests