[FRIAM] signal and noise

[Marcus Daniels]

“Noise” may have some quantitative properties but nothing that reveals ultimate causality without at least factoring all unseen events from the Big Bang onward.  Signal to noise is about being able to discriminate something you want from something you don’t.   Further, if you wanted to predict the noise part, it just wouldn’t be possible.  There are many different signals to consider that have differing relevance to different observers, and they to can be easier or harder to objectively discriminate from noise too.

> On Sep 8, 2022, at 4:14 PM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> It seems, to me, that several conversations here—AI, hallucinogens, consciousness, participant observation, and epistemology—have a common aspect: a body of "data" and disagreement over which subset should be attended to (Signal) and that which is irrelevant (Noise).
> 
> Arguments for sorting/categorization would include: lack of a Peircian convergence/consensus; inability to propose proper experiments; anecdotal versus systematic collection; an absolute conviction that everything is algorithmic and, even if the algorithm has yet to be discerned, it, ultimately, must be; etc..
> 
> I often feel as if my positions on these various topics reduces, in some sense, to a conviction that there is overlooked Signal in everyone else's Noise; even to the point of believing the Noise IS the Signal.
> 
> Is this in any way a "fair' or "reasonable" analysis?
> 
> davew
> 
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/