[FRIAM] signal and noise

[Prof David West]

Nick, 

noise is the signal - no a koan at all, but a conjecture that all that is considered noise, at this point, will eventually be revealed as signal. In part because, I believe, that the 'noise' is essential context for interpreting the signal. This is based almost entirely on natural language where syntax is inadequate for conveying meaning.

And, I was surprised when you failed to find justification from Jochen's post about metaphor and how it supports (y)our long held position that it is "metaphors all the way down."

All,

Thank you for the thoughtful responses to my question. I take to heart Glen's cautions about over generalization and "othering."  None of the conversations I was referring to were binary, and all were comprised of nuanced polyphonic positions from all participants with points of agreement as frequent as disagreement. More empathy than othering.

It does seem to me that if and when there was any kind of 'final divergence' it centered around a kind of signal-noise dichotomy along with an assertion of 'faith': e.g., anything human can do,HAL will do better; or, just say OM and drop acid.

davew


On Fri, Sep 9, 2022, at 10:22 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> 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/
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> 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/