Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Highly recommended for anyone who wants to get into the computational nitty-gritty of what it means to “see MEANING and INFER AWWBBJECT”

26,748 просмотров • 2 лет назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 10

Фото профиля Jake Orthwein
Jake Orthwein2 лет назад

Things to think about for like FORTY YEARS

Фото профиля RomeoStevens
RomeoStevens2 лет назад

A few years ago people were like "Romeo, why are you so hung up on affordances?" and I was like "AHHHHHHHHHHHH-"

Фото профиля Richard D. Bartlett
Richard D. Bartlett2 лет назад

@embryosophy more material for the primacy of physicality in metaphor

Фото профиля Jarrad
Jarrad2 лет назад

The ‘guy who sees affordances and can’t not take them’ anecdote is somewhat confounding, given the postmodern conundrum. If the door offers a million affordances, how does that get reduced to “walk through?” Perhaps just the first that comes to mind!

Фото профиля Jake Orthwein
Jake Orthwein2 лет назад

Hierarchy of values! That’s arguably Peterson’s primary concern. What conception of the hierarchy of values is deep enough to penetrate beneath the postmodern conundrum:

Фото профиля Richard Eborall
Richard Eborall2 лет назад

(Once again risking missing the point entirely, I ask) 'How could it be otherwise?!' Neither humans nor other animals can have complete or even 'accurate' sense data (about what is truly out there); observations are theory-laden, theory-dependent.

Фото профиля Jake Orthwein
Jake Orthwein2 лет назад

(Once again risking breaking my vow 😉) “Theory-laden” is the rationalist way of putting it But theory-laden ≠ context and purpose-laden (the latter is a claim about meaning: the relationship between representation and world) It’s not about the fact that we are wrong about what we perceive (fallibilism) but that we are not aspiring to mirror the world as it is *objectively* (on its own side, independent of our interactions with it) That some patch of world is *graspable* is not a claim about how it *is in itself* (fallible or otherwise) but a claim about what it *means* *to me* *in this context*

Фото профиля orph
orph2 лет назад

relatedly, I've been saying

Фото профиля Benjamin Parry
Benjamin Parry2 лет назад

As far as I know the insight ultimately rests on James J. Gibson’s work? It seems to me like the primary move Gibson made was philosophical (and inspired by pragmatism) though the paradigm he presents is clearly scientific. The object can’t ‘turn into’ meaning in the brain. Implies an infinite regress. When you say computational nitty-gritty what do you mean?

Фото профиля bmt
bmt2 лет назад

is this video recent, like after his coma?

Похожие видео