foolrush

Sleigh guidance.

> But those are also the most expensive line items in Federal and State budgets,

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_s...

I hope you are kidding. Tell you what, why don’t you show yourself and search for common racist language or homophobia?

https://counterhate.com/blog/fact-check-musks-claim-about-a-...

“Brighter-than-white”…

Gilchrist enters the chat.

http://wexler.free.fr/library/files/gilchrist%20(1999)%20an%...

False.

I did not lay claim to epistemic truth. I referenced epistemology. That is, there are a plurality of epistemologies, all of which have their own epistemic truth mechanics.

So I would agree with you, entirely!

I was merely pointing out that statistical correlation alone affords no epistemological basis.

You have a penchant for processing how cognition works, and then also link to the fact that no one knows.

Sit down.

The issue is that the definition of “statistics” is anchored in a magnitude of frequency of glyphs. The “information” is fabricated in this regard, pulled up out of the ether, and by decree christened as “meaning”.

Numbers carry no meaning, nor do the magnitudes arbitrarily assigned to meaning. The map is not the territory.

Epistemology 101. Statistical pattern matching has no epistemological truth beyond a correspondence of linguistic statistics.

It is merely statistical probability, which hardly can be classified as an epistemological basis. If we pretend for a moment it is, the ontologies formed are most certainly peculiar, and we can expect ideologies that emerge out of the ontologies are problematic.

This is not technically correct as best as I can ascertain.

When we think about AA, it is a representation of sub pixel occlusion. As such, using uniform tristimulus to sample the “in between” value is incorrect.

There is simply no “correct” approach because there are no known models that properly model visual cognition.

What we can say though, is that the intermediate subpixel should not sample RGB tristimulus, but a loose nonuniform representation that approximates the lower order visual signal representation.

When discarding signal, RGB tristimulus is more “correct”. When interpolating the signal, approximate lightness is more “correct”. Some solid analysis is available here: https://hhoppe.com/filtering.pdf

> in the sense that atoms are a direct cause of our perceptions.

I do not believe this is correct in any manner, and reduces the role of cognition.

Jastrow’s work focuses on this departure between one context and higher order cognition.

Resisting the structure requires an epistemic shift; resist applying a license.

So having a self avowed Neo-Nazi invited back into the room, who cannot be reported, is “virtually no difference”?

Take humanities courses there; you come from the land of some of the heaviest continental philosophy thinkers.

Roll with the chances of life.

It’s linear output; the PQ is just the “down the wire” encoding, and the display undoes it back to linear photon light.

Paradox of Tolerance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Science is political. Get over yourself.

And if you actually read Binet, you’d know that he explicitly warned against its usage beyond what he designed it for.