Elon has stated repeatedly that X adheres to freedom of speech, not freedom of reach. Up until recently, X was a left-wing echo chamber. This is a classic example of MSM falsely reporting anything as non-moderate and non-left wing as "hate speech."
And this basically proves my point--you're not able to show, concretely, a non-cherry picked example of this purpoted "hate speech."
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.
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.
I'm not sure who claimed the brain was a "predictive engine" or what that means exactly. The OP specifically referenced predictive coding which describes precisely what is meant, and has empirical support.
If you meant this as a comparison to machine learning, then a predictive coding model closely matches.
My former claim is that everything in the natural world can be reduced to statistics, so saying meaning cannot be derived "because statistics" is a very poor argument.
The second is a theory for the underlying mechanisms of the brain.
> Epistemology 101. Statistical pattern matching has no epistemological truth beyond a correspondence of linguistic statistics.
It is merely statistical
Your belief in epistemic truth is a statistical inference from your perception of apparently reliable causality. How do you ground this inductive inference?
Your attempt to appeal to epistemology 101 with a casual dismissal as "mere statistical probability" covers this deep, gaping maw. Bayesian inference reduces to classical logic when all probabilities are pinned to 0 and 1, but in what circumstances can we actually demonstrably infer absolute certainty? None that I can think of, except one's own existence.
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.
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
You don't have to do subpixel AA. It's arguably worse on modern high DPI displays because of the color fringing that wouldn't be present with grayscale AA.
the concepts we develop through sensory-motor interaction with our environment structure our perception so-as-to-present a certain "level of abstraction" over the environment
But just as `sum([2, 4, 6])` presents `12`, it does so via directly summating `2`, `4`, `6`.
That our perception is aggregating and abstracting does not mean that it isnt caused directly by those things which it aggregates and abstracts.
Here, "seeing" is the `sum`, `[2, 4, 6]` are the atoms, and `12` is the perception.
A case in point: a frog can detect a single photo. Is there any sense here in which a frog's qualitative sensation of a "flicker" is not directly caused by a photon?
And likewise, that redness of the apple is just an abstract presentation of photons of light scattering of the atoms of its surface. The causal chain here is direct.
Light does not "go via" purgatory first, we see, directly, the objects of the world.
