[FRIAM] signal and noise

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

David,  

I was with you until "signal is the noise".  Great Koan, but otherwise useless for thought. 

When you say, however, that there is a signal in what others take to be noise, of course I have to prick up my ears.  A great example of this was that "junk" DNA which turned out to be, at least, structural.  It also turned out to be a mind of memory.  Junk Schmunk.  

N

Nick Thompson
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 7:12 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] signal and noise

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/