Ooh, salience, one of my favorite topics that I’m still unraveling. will read now.
You realize this is Foucault-esque.
I’m not pro, and I didn’t get ‘into’ his stuff about power and whatnot.But what I *did* ‘get’ is his “grid of intelligibility” at least in part.I’ll use academia as an example: Each field knows what it knows and filters out what it does not know. So, it pays attention to what’s left behind once it filters out what it doesn’t want.Aristotilian-based Logic usually filters out the middle. That’s an extreme example.So if you’re using it, you now can only pay attention to two things. This or that.What brings your attention to this or that isn’t “this “or “that”, but the filtering out of the excluded middle.
I hate how awkward it is to describe. It shouldn’t have to be this wordy. But that shows to me just how embedded this ignoring is.
If it ‘clicks’ at all, please rephrase it better. I have a devil of a time describing this. I can see it in my head and could probably draw a diagram but it just sounds ridiculous when I write it out.
I think we’re very very far away from it technologically. But I’m thinking 150 years in the future. I’ll be gone.
I have strong thoughts about the wrong directions computing is going into with AI. I think eventually they’ll see it. But even with a totally revamped methodology of computing (which isn’t Von Neumann, nor little Turing tape machines, nor probability weights, but very messy, analog, mistake prone and intuitive – I think it would take a very long time to get there.How do you program intuition? You don’t. It arises from usage.
How does a cat know where to jump? I don’t think it calculates trajectory but rather follows a particular template – a complicated mixture of visually lining up so that it appears to be a straight jump, force memory to know how much to body across along with the timing it takes to bring the size of desired jump goal to match what a landed view looks like, and what the body feels like devoid of that view.
Line up body and sensations to so that it will match goal and press “play”. Jump, land.
Good example. How do you know what to ignore at that scale?
Some things they can. Scale. Planck length is the start of classical physics. So they can ignore Planck and above.
But what’s the bottom scale? That’s rough. So they work with ratios and relationships instead of granularity.
So what can they filter out in that realm? A few things. But not much.