May-be my poor English, or your very frequent use of acronyms and English Internet slang, but, you know, I have great difficulty to understand many of your writings.
[edit] Not to forget the tired of my old neurons ;-)
Last edited:
Perhaps, but given the backgrounds of most folk here, this might be an easier way to deal with a very difficult topic
Phenomenology of perception
by Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 1908-1961
Published 1962
Topics Phenomenology
https://archive.org/details/phenomenologyofp00merl
I'm perhaps not as dismissive, if that's your concern. But there are discussions that, after you get the gist, realize the person is tilting at windmills. Or has a point so amorphous and diffuse that you're rendered unable to really communicate.
I really try to take people at their content, but at some point, there's only so much brain power to go around and you have to weigh the value of addressing it. And a healthy bit of Bayesian prior plausibility as intellectual shortcuts.
Philosophically, I do take a worldview that most are well-intended but often wrapped in their own world. If you should worry that comes across as overly judgmental, I apply that first and foremost to myself.
Last edited:
Thank you, 2-face Fred. Looks much better that way.
As you've seen (time and again) I'm a little dim myself.
In my early membership days, I thought I was sending various nude images of myself to individual members, but for some reason they popped-up on threads.
In retrospective, I should count myself lucky those weren't added as external multi-MB links, now that would have painted a real Nèzty picture.
Certainly.
Jacco, your input on the subject would be greatly appreciated!
George
Attachments
Sorta backing Mr Wurcer's line.
A simpleton as myself thinks of a symmetrical plough going through a homogenous butter field.
1-dimensional resulting force field, zero higher-order moments.
The nextdoor field is more difficult to plough, still butter, but the plough bumps into/onto rocks on a frequent basis, also non-symmetrical distribution on the track to plough.
Plough excitation would be pretty hard to calculate, but could more than likely be simulated, and measured.
Just crossed my mind what it would be like if the plough only weighed half a gram (-me award).
(huh, why does sperm-bike makes me think of Semen-Cycle, and why does that sound so familiar ? Oh Yeah, it sounds like Shimano and bicycle. Demented me, just had a talk about that and them a few hours ago)
Last edited:
No firestorm from me: 0.05% (-66 dB) seems a safe enough low number.
Since adding 0.1% of H2 with a 1KHz signal is clearly audible i would suggest one order of magnitude below this level at this frequency and rising linearly with frequency from here.
Of course 0.1% at 1KHz wont be audible in a musical signal but that s entirely due to masking effects.
Not just you. I have no idea what Jacco is on and he won't give me the number of his supplier
Care to deliberate/expand/interpret? Because to me your quoted text reads like reductio ad absurdum. Unless, of course, you draw from an epistemological solipsistic viewpoint, in which case I can understand--but utterly disagree with.
Last edited:
Reading the original is rather daunting - however Hubert Dreyfus makes MMP so much more approachable - Hubert Dreyfus's "Intelligence Without Representation"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.