3 ms·
While playing the devil's advocate, I could argue that the description using only 0 and 1 is more precise than the phrase "It's a picture of a white cliff on th
by erelde 11y ago
While playing the devil's advocate, I could argue that the description using only 0 and 1 is more precise than the phrase "It's a picture of a white cliff on the shore of the sea, possibly in the south of England, in the foreground there's the silhouette of a man or woman to small to distinguish clearly at the bottom of the cliff, the sky above the cliff is bright blue with a few trailing clouds etc etc etc etc etc".
But we're not really talking about the description of a picture, we're in fact talking about political discourse.
- pdabbadabba 11y agoI agree with you, but clarity is not the same thing as precision.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- CocaKoala 11y agoLet's play a game; I'll describe a scene to you, and you need to make a drawing of the scene based on the description. The closer your drawing is to the scene I'm describing (for some agreeable metric of 'closer'), the more money you win. Now, do you want me to recite a bunch of ones and zeros? Or would you rather I say, "It's a picture of a white cliff on the shore of the sea, possibly in the south of England; in the foreground there's a person's silhouette, too small to pick out their gender..."? If, as you say, you could argue that the ones and zeros makes for a more precise description, then obviously you would prefer that option, yes?
- bcbrown 11y agoI disagree. That's a reproduction, not a description.