3 ms·

Do you mean an abstract binary packet, which can represent an infinite number of symbolic expressions, or do you mean a specific binary packet, which can be tra

Do you mean an abstract binary packet, which can represent an infinite number of symbolic expressions, or do you mean a specific binary packet, which can be transformed into a photograph of art? I understand we can simplify this argument down to 'everything is everything', 'i don't know' or 'maybe'. But that's an over-generalization of something very complicated, and then I miss the point of implementing things, doing things - with something real behind it. I just don't know whether computer code and mathematics can truly be like art, and art can truly be like mathematics and code. Communication can be simple. It can also be everything besides simple. You can look at a symbol and know what it is. But do you really know what it is? Are you just using a bunch of other symbols to explain what you think you know it is? And then how do you explain those symbols? In my mind, it's crazy. Not in a bad way. Just in an incessantly annoying way. There's a lot of philosophy and ideas and emotions and theories surrounding art, in what it represents, how it affects culture and society, how it represents culture and society and the individual. It's all reactions. Sometimes I think the same way about code, except in a psychoanalysis way, in that it explains how I think way, and why my perceptions of people socially are challenging, in two perfectly explainable simultaneous ways that keep changing depending on how much math and logic I know (or have the capacity to use all at once).

ap22213 12y ago
It's more like if you had a server and a client. If the client understands the server packet, then it can perhaps do something with it. The packet contains some information. But, the developer may package it in an infinite number of ways. I would say that a 'non-abstract' packet would be one that would contain all possible state of the system. It would be akin to photo-realistic paintings or perhaps photography. But, I would say that an 'abstract' packet would be one that contains the least amount of structure and metadata for the primary information to be passed. Maybe it's not a good analogy - I'm just coming up with something on the fly. Picasso experimented a lot with this. Take a look at his bull drawings. He started with a very representational image of a bull. Then, he said, 'what if I start taking things away - how much can I take away for it to still be a bull?' Picasso then went on similarly to experiment with different perspectives. How much can you twist or warp the perspective for it to be still representative of the thing? Can the artist take away so much that it just becomes a Platonic form? Can it still communicate information (emotion)? I'm just an amateur artist though - I'm sure an academic could shed more light.
- drcomputer 12y ago
  When I learned about Picasso in school, I heard that his representations of people were meant to consider the planar nature of the canvas superimposed as form. Then we learned about the waves of critics, the warping of perspective, of explanations. > I would say that a 'non-abstract' packet would be one that would contain all possible state of the system. Abstraction can refer both to the process of generalizing and enumeration of state, so this is where we diverge on terms, a slight leaning in either direction. > But, I would say that an 'abstract' packet would be one that contains the least amount of structure and metadata for the primary information to be passed. For me to understand that, I have to imagine every possible state that the defined abstraction can manifest as, and only then can I feel as though I understand the abstract form (but not really because infinity). The definition gets defined. All enumerations of state up to a scope are generated. The definition is checked to make sure every enumeration fits under the associated expectations of the definition. I don't understand the idea of taking away until it is not the thing I once called it. In one state I called it a thing. Then I smashed it to bits and called it something else. They are contextually dependent, there is a bigger picture of which these things are defined in. When I called it a thing, I called it that thing because I compared it to a bunch of other things. When I smashed it, I think smashing it does something. But it doesn't have to. When I was in philosophy class, my professor asked me what I would call the overhead if he sat on it. I said "a chair". He said "you must have a lot of trouble communicating with people." > What if the artist takes away so much that it just becomes a Platonic form? Can it still communicate information (emotion)? Ooof. That one might take my entire life to figure out, in a humorously, ironically sad and overly verbose way. I surely hope not. > I'm just an amateur artist though - I'm sure an academic could shed more light. I have heard this guy has important opinions : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg > Maybe it's not a good analogy - I'm just coming up with something on the fly. No. I learned a new way to call things abstract that makes sense to me in computer science from you. The usage of the word 'abstract' in CS has been bugging me for a long time. There's also all the goop under the form. A word can be like a case for which to hold an idea. So can books.

ap22213 12y ago

It's more like if you had a server and a client. If the client understands the server packet, then it can perhaps do something with it. The packet contains some information. But, the developer may package it in an infinite number of ways. I would say that a 'non-abstract' packet would be one that would contain all possible state of the system. It would be akin to photo-realistic paintings or perhaps photography. But, I would say that an 'abstract' packet would be one that contains the least amount of structure and metadata for the primary information to be passed. Maybe it's not a good analogy - I'm just coming up with something on the fly. Picasso experimented a lot with this. Take a look at his bull drawings. He started with a very representational image of a bull. Then, he said, 'what if I start taking things away - how much can I take away for it to still be a bull?' Picasso then went on similarly to experiment with different perspectives. How much can you twist or warp the perspective for it to be still representative of the thing? Can the artist take away so much that it just becomes a Platonic form? Can it still communicate information (emotion)? I'm just an amateur artist though - I'm sure an academic could shed more light.

drcomputer 12y ago
When I learned about Picasso in school, I heard that his representations of people were meant to consider the planar nature of the canvas superimposed as form. Then we learned about the waves of critics, the warping of perspective, of explanations. > I would say that a 'non-abstract' packet would be one that would contain all possible state of the system. Abstraction can refer both to the process of generalizing and enumeration of state, so this is where we diverge on terms, a slight leaning in either direction. > But, I would say that an 'abstract' packet would be one that contains the least amount of structure and metadata for the primary information to be passed. For me to understand that, I have to imagine every possible state that the defined abstraction can manifest as, and only then can I feel as though I understand the abstract form (but not really because infinity). The definition gets defined. All enumerations of state up to a scope are generated. The definition is checked to make sure every enumeration fits under the associated expectations of the definition. I don't understand the idea of taking away until it is not the thing I once called it. In one state I called it a thing. Then I smashed it to bits and called it something else. They are contextually dependent, there is a bigger picture of which these things are defined in. When I called it a thing, I called it that thing because I compared it to a bunch of other things. When I smashed it, I think smashing it does something. But it doesn't have to. When I was in philosophy class, my professor asked me what I would call the overhead if he sat on it. I said "a chair". He said "you must have a lot of trouble communicating with people." > What if the artist takes away so much that it just becomes a Platonic form? Can it still communicate information (emotion)? Ooof. That one might take my entire life to figure out, in a humorously, ironically sad and overly verbose way. I surely hope not. > I'm just an amateur artist though - I'm sure an academic could shed more light. I have heard this guy has important opinions : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg > Maybe it's not a good analogy - I'm just coming up with something on the fly. No. I learned a new way to call things abstract that makes sense to me in computer science from you. The usage of the word 'abstract' in CS has been bugging me for a long time. There's also all the goop under the form. A word can be like a case for which to hold an idea. So can books.