The family of notions – I am a fan of. You can get into knitty-gritty of it to find which specific form you find most agreeable (or rather, know which variants you find to be incorrect) – but seen as a general worldview or approach to cognition, I’m 100% behind it. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition

The family of notions – I am a fan of. You can get into knitty-gritty of it to find which specific form you find most agreeable (or rather, know which variants you find to be incorrect) – but seen as a general worldview or approach to cognition, I’m 100% behind it.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition

=====

But, if you embrace this family, you may have to abandon or significantly modify skull bound theories.

====

 

Myself, I’m been fascinated by the human-computer interface, HCI, or ergonomics in general, since I was a kid comparing joystick vs flat pad in home consoles, keyboard layouts on computers screen glare (MATTE SCREEN ONLY FOR ME) as anything that distracts from immersing in the experience of working with a system spoils it.
 
I’ve watched that field grow, now known as Enactive Interface Design, among other names.
 
Microsoft used to have strict XBox rules for game makers, including rules on first person player behavior, with the goal that NOTHING should get in the way of being “in the game”. [rules about viewing self as third person and such].
 
It could loosely be collapsed into aesthetic – but it’s even more seamless than that.
=====
I have a self rule I made up (I think): Any paradox is resolved by going up a dimension in an orthagonal direction from the system you’re working within.
====
 Well, I think so. If you can’t solve in the general, solve in the specific. Sample: You want to break into the most secure database that’s mathematically impossible? How do you do it?
=====
 You could also do that. But it might not work. You need a greater guarantee of success.
=====
 Your computational resources are limited [his is a thought experiment of mine]
=====
Ok. Tell me a feature every secure system has?
====
 Cut the electric. Set off an EM pulse. Pull the fire alarm. Safeguarding data for these contingencies is often forgotten by data makers.
====
 How can they talk? I’d look into radio astronomy for possible answers for that. Headers, patterns acting as handshake
===
Scaffolding handshaking.
====
 Low energy sensor continually monitors for Minimal pattern. Minimal pattern found, send who are you? 2nd level sensor listens for response. If none found, go back to first level.
=====
Now, do that simultaneously with a single listener/transmitter that’s also unique for each.
=====
 They’re involved in the same activity but have distinct expectations and send distinct signal. Signal/noise
=====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ five = 8

Leave a Reply