The following is a message to a friend, an excellent scholar and correspondent on lots of cool things.
He is more concerned with searching for truth than for life(or more accurately what it is to be alive and have your truths shattered). Or at least that is what I would worry about were I to critique josh. But I mean this as a complement as well as a eyebrow raise (critique can be positive or neutrally interesting). Josh just understands so much that only thing that even approaches something like scholarly issues are actually pretty well defined. It's a case of discretitus.
It's a weak computational bias at first, but it can really accelerate rapidly if you aren't careful.
But if there are to be truth statements about things that happen in the world they must be temporally defined. I would argue that even if we allow for approximate simultaneity, so long as just noticeable differences work out to be stable. But they are not stable. In fact, the order of stimulus presentation matters in and of itself. (Ackn: Thanks to Thom Morgan for helping me think about this stuff.) so it changes overtime and the endpoint is affected by the slope over time, meaning there's also some notion of nearness (and therefore of farness) since there is some dimension somewhere along which you can imagine yourself having had thought… were you to believe the information were uniformly randomly delivered (ie on a poisson schedule…notErlang Ackn:josh Abbott for getting me to think about random variations in vehicular transfer time(time to get on and off the bus + the time takes to slow to a stop and open the door and close the door and then speed up to what the max speed would be) to avoid collisions (or more accurately… caravans)) And then you could reasonably calculate the range of possible data structures that could result from the data that you have seen, if it had been delivered in the opposite direction. Well, what does this amount to? Slippery truths that suggest a wide range of mutually exclusive but model consistent ideas, but particular instances of truth only are the knots that we happen to see, or rocks in the stream of thought/experience.
Grasping at nothing. Nothing there to grasp.
Truths are slippery. Get w i m . s m g i n
For another example of how this idea of same input different filters meaning very different things…