Post a semi-introspective/'deep' contemplation here

Page 1 of 1 [ 8 posts ] 

jmnixon95
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,993
Location: 미국

10 Apr 2011, 10:28 pm

Basically, post a thought of yours that is the product of what you deem as a good amount of time.
It'll be interesting, I think, to see what we all have been spending a lot of time thinking about.

My turn...

~

I wish that I had maintained the high levels of optimism that I possessed earlier in this school year, but perhaps saying so just brings the current levels down lower... and lower...

At least I only have just over a month left. 8)

Maybe I'll do online school next year, after reading about just how badly sensory problems do affect an individual's ability to learn within a classroom. I cannot concentrate when six different people are sniffling, the teacher is yelling over the class just to be heard, the lights are buzzing, and when the kid behind me has his feet in the metal basket under my chair. In turn, my grades suffer. Perhaps being in a comfortable environment (such as my house) will make learning non-interesting topics easier, as well as getting assignments done... Certainly a familiar environment, and I can (for the most part) control the distractions.

~

So, yeah. That's what I've been thinking of lately.


What about you?



886
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,991
Location: SLC, Utah

11 Apr 2011, 1:27 am

Does it nessecarily have to be optimistic?

Not sure if I have the... oh who am I kidding, it's 11:30pm and I'm going to be awake another 7 hours. :|

I thought obsessively recently... I'm 21, I work 12am-6am everyday in horrible conditions, where did I go wrong? :| Sure, I can support myself, but am I gonna do this until I'm 55 like Ed? (some guy I work with who's been there 30 years, never promoted..) Am I gonna grow old and boring working a part-time forklift gig my whole life? Sure, I could do it. I could wake up at 8pm everyday (which I do) Eat, shower, go to work then waste time doing pointless activities alone until 10 or 11am when I fall asleep. I'd be able to pay rent, buy food and s**t, and I'd never be bothered. I could support myself. But do I really want that? That's my contemplation.

Then it's like... should I go to school and get a CDL, drive a truck or something? I can't have a social job, that's for damn sure, that's why I work grave and just move pallets around all night.

But in the end it's the same as always... nah... I'll just waste my life away here. :|

I don't know anything about online schools and how exactly they work, I guess they vary from each school district, but I imagine taking classes alone would be alot nicer so you don't have to deal with the abomination which we know as high school.

Meh, don't take my word for it, I'm the same guy who took a graveyard shift job with no people around just as an excuse to be anti-social both in a work enviroment and outside work (i sleep all day) What good do I know? And for good measure, I will use the mellow face once more because it looks odd. :| . There, I feel accomplished.


_________________
If Jesus died for my sins, then I should sin as much as possible, so he didn't die for nothing.


ZeroGravitas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 499
Location: 40,075 kilometers from where I am

11 Apr 2011, 1:48 am

I've been thinking about how the computational complexity of conversation seems able to be modeled by game theory.

In a typical small talk conversation, each statement carries low information content, and one can try to quantify the Shannon entropy of such statements as "it's sunny today" or "the bus is late."

What is interesting is that I have noticed such statements are typically found in rather narrow range of information content. A conversation contains feedback mechanisms to retain an equilibrium of information content/surprise value. These feedback mechanisms keep the conversation from either dying, or veering into more controversial, "personal," or thought-intensive tangents.

The game tree of a conversation is heavily dependent on the information content of each node. A conversation with low information will not branch out as much as one with a high entropy one.

Humans, it seem, have a comfort zone of information content. This comfort zone defines the boundary and evolution of their conversations.

This also makes me wonder about the evolutionary psychology of expecting short inferential distances. Why did we evolve expectations regarding the information content of conversation levels, with the observed level of entropy rather than another? Could we have easily been a race of terse Rorschachs ("Fine like this") or soliliquyizing poets or lecturing professors?


_________________
This sentance contains three erors.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt156929.html - How to annoy me


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,327
Location: Montreal

11 Apr 2011, 2:10 am

I find it very hard to take most discussions seriously when the subject turns to the importance of the Human race. Perhaps I need to stop studying cosmology and geology on my spare time, because time and space are too vast to make me care about most things


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

12 Apr 2011, 3:36 pm

ZeroGravitas wrote:
I've been thinking about how the computational complexity of conversation seems able to be modeled by game theory.

In a typical small talk conversation, each statement carries low information content, and one can try to quantify the Shannon entropy of such statements as "it's sunny today" or "the bus is late."

What is interesting is that I have noticed such statements are typically found in rather narrow range of information content. A conversation contains feedback mechanisms to retain an equilibrium of information content/surprise value. These feedback mechanisms keep the conversation from either dying, or veering into more controversial, "personal," or thought-intensive tangents.

The game tree of a conversation is heavily dependent on the information content of each node. A conversation with low information will not branch out as much as one with a high entropy one.

Humans, it seem, have a comfort zone of information content. This comfort zone defines the boundary and evolution of their conversations.

This also makes me wonder about the evolutionary psychology of expecting short inferential distances. Why did we evolve expectations regarding the information content of conversation levels, with the observed level of entropy rather than another? Could we have easily been a race of terse Rorschachs ("Fine like this") or soliliquyizing poets or lecturing professors?


Great post, I have a fetish for Information Theory :) Conversation can be reduced to algorithms easily enough. Meet Cleverbot

http://www.cleverbot.com/

She (I always think of A.I as female :?) is okay at low information conversation, but she hasn't got enough memory and ability to self reference to carry a technical conversation.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 102,769
Location: Hanging out with my fellow Sweet Peas at Stalag 13

12 Apr 2011, 3:43 pm

My mum's right. I come very close to Mick Avory. It's pretty hard not to come close to the person that a sensitive teenager grew up to be like. It was high school and my upbringing that did that to me. It's not easy being the big, sensitive one in a world of cold and skinny pricks.

A sensitive tomboy grew up to be like a sensitive man. Deal with it, society!


_________________
Schultz


ZeroGravitas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 499
Location: 40,075 kilometers from where I am

12 Apr 2011, 4:11 pm

Ryan93:

On an irc server I used to spend time on, I got bored one day and coded a few bots to mimic some posters. Simple log-scrapers which then markovised their responses.

One troll took about 15 lines of ruby to mimic perfectly.

I came to the conclusion that the best definition of a person's intelligence, is the computational complexity of the program which can emulate it. The output of a moron can be simulated by a much simpler program than that of a regular person.

I briefly toyed with the following idea: code mimicking bots for various people on the irc channel. Compute their algorithmic complexity, and then block any whose mimic is under a threshold value.

Try it sometime- write a program to emulate someone. You'll find that many, many people can be mimicked rather accurately in under 30 lines of code and a few kilobytes of their previous text. It's rather depressing to look at a single page of code and realize that it yields the same output as an actual person. In online communication, for all extents and purposes, this person is no more complex than that code.


_________________
This sentance contains three erors.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt156929.html - How to annoy me


Raymond_Fawkes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,179

12 Apr 2011, 8:20 pm

I was taking my dog for a walk once , and passed a can of soda left on the side of the road. My inner thoughts were to pick it up and put it in my trash bag .. but I didn't. I'm glad I didn't in retrospective, because that stuck with me and I'd never not pick something up like that again if I saw it. If I did pick it up, it wouldn't have stuck with me as much I'd think.