i confronted authenticity discussion of substance versus form in internet from a blog post. while i found this hotel authentic. it were about a wooden house thats rebuilt with changing its original design, a replay that is away from origins. i had a chance to read intense emotions about a blog post writer about a wooden house thats separate from what i wanted to investigate but a different dimension, for a different internal investigation of a different form of architecture, restoration. I am mere focused on the architecting new buildings or analyzing previously built ones. This were an intense feeling set about a restorated one. The writer's point were that, in restoration topic, substance's authenticity matters more than form's authenticity. Since the replay of form(in restoration process) might be losing ties to original form. I read a reflection of intense feelings of a blog post writer against another form of architectural practise. restoration. in reading that, i wondered why creating new forms, replaying forms of architecture per restoration purpose creates that diminishing state of authenticity? could some place be restored, without losing its authenticity, but being binded to that time;s design/architecting ways. The writer thinks its better to have Pantheon in Athens as it is instead of creating forms based on this. I want to start this blog post of this analysis of fabric of authenticity/ or another word for it we need to define, and its creation/existence mechanisms and e.g. why it subjectively diminishes for a person when restoration happens whilst for others it does not have any erosion in authenticity whether it is restored or not. this subjectivity, would try to link analogies to in future Wittgenstein's language analysis with investigating whether context defines the meaning or the items have intrinsic meaning (like Aristotle would have said) with linking on the point of subjectivity, why authenticity diminishes in mind of others and why it stays same. the fabric of meanings in more higher ontologies than languages, like the feeling of a restoration process, the subjectivity of it. The words becomes the architectural styles we see and the meanings the feelings we feel/think when we belong inside, this would be being a compared to Wittgenstein's analysis of word's meanings. Would take on points from Wittgenstein on this sub linguistics studies in his some texts and would try to reutilize his ways to understand architecture and we people's relation.
I think, in analysis state of this study, I would crowdsource tagging of thoughts/emotions of architectural styles from want to be participants in a survey with VR toolsets or webgl. Would try to analyze the homogeneity of the subjective ideas/thoughts in this respect and would analyze whether we think similarly on a set of clusters with some radius or whether we all think very different with a very high entropy. Do law of entropy work in which scale in this medium of ontology layer? Are we really subjective or are we clustered? How does the fabric of this ontology layer behaves? What are the underlying forces in steps of iteration of this many centered subjectivity? Is there any process in this or is trying to craft a process model to this layer is all a romantic effort? This one to many surjection of what we feel/what we think when we enter architected structures, what is the behavior of this one to many surjections? Could models be deployed like models defined to understand language behavior with machine learning toolsets? How does this one to many surjection is distributed? So that in architecting new architected buildings, could we predict how much it would be liked? The matter of authenticity's fabric, the behavior of it, could we observe how it behaves? could our non human ai models define architectural styles based on this surjections collected data? I wonder the subjectivity or context analysis studies in high ontology layers other than language, like this, our stance to architectural styles, how we feel about/think about any architectural style? and why do we feel like that? Would the atlases of our brain by brain project would resolve our such behaviors? Like) when animates(animals used in brain project) are inside a linear corridor and a horizontally oriented lienar corridor, we have predictions of what kibnd of neural structure defines the perception of that. but what is the higher level ontology layer's situation in that, like the subjectivity of authenticity's fabric/behaviors? higher level ontologies behaviors, is it romanticising to think we could model their behaviors' underlying forces. And in overall, could we in future have ml arhictects that crafts buildings based on such data? is it trying to find a haystack in barn this effort of trying to create different levels of authenticity/aesthetics via ml models generative powers? whatever we do, it would be still black box modeling, with tryign to understand a system's behavior based on sole outputs, based on tags/thoiughts/comments data in that. But would such data be enough to have non original copies of human intellect to devise our places? Could we just copy the human intellectual frameworks/systems as done in linguistics studies based on ml methodologies based on raw output of language data, for such domain, would this be also applicable? photocopies of human intellect that tries to resemble/create things based on our data? From outside, it looks as it works. But it would be a self biased system with lacking serendipity if we dont include it by design. For instance, every era, an architect would create things that would be radically changing previous ones and would be watched with awe/amazement. When we have photocopies of human intellect in ml algorithms, would this go where? i think we would have noncarbon counterparts in this. photocopies of our intellectual frameworks/mechanisms. It started with language. I see no reasons that it would be utilized in other domains. And i dont think its any bad thing. But to have better idea, i should start studying linguistics perspective of Wittgenstein. Since i had goal of devising buildings of game by ml algorithms, I wonder if people would attend such crowdsourcing project of webgl page that shows architectures and people's thoughts/feelings about them. maybe the survey should be about that without making people tiresome of such survey? so that photocopies of our intellect in buildings topic might be built. It would clearly state that its exactly a survey for exactly that purpose. I mean the furthest goal of such survey would be clearly very neatly stated in that and people even be discouraged to enter it in init of it with clearly stating its used for such purpose. I want to analyze the fabric of some ontology layers(higher ontology layers), whether its romanticising such processes common forces work in such layers? E.g. when that blog writer defines her dislike to the restoration projects, what is the fabric of dislike or the quest for authenticity for that user? can we stratify such layer on its own without interplay of intra layers? Can we model such behavior on its own without thinking the all? people do successfully stratified language studies like that. Would such a subjective domain, for instance authenticity feeling's fabric be modelled also? I use we might be romanticising that we could figure out the process in that with resentments to this problem of these type of matters, thqat whether stratification of such layer is possible?? like separation of natural evolution and cultural evolution discussions, as i read most people now favor the unified view. Does stratification and creation of a pseudo layer for purpose of study is a valid scientific method to define processes or could we give some muddy insights on overall unified behavior? Could we study subjectivity like this, like creating a virtual layer on base of sociological/cultural/evolutionary/external processes and try to investigate its dynamics? evolution of culture and evolution of nature is not any OSI :) could we really stratify the upper layers? specifically that are very from outside subjective looking. What is the threshold subjectivity homogeneity to tag sucgh a virtual layer just as a romanticised model building effort and what kind of subjectivity entropy level makes it possible to model it like people model languages? How to validate our methods? Should we romantically try out building a model and have the risks of it being out of real underlying process of interplay of mayn layers at once? What kind of layers are be amenable to stratification and which layers are the simulacra enabling layers that what we create might be a simulation that is far from reality.
Anyway, I want to, in summary, some time, investigate relation of mind and architecture. whether its a feasible goal or not.
i want to stay in this cabin(actually not cabin but feels like that, its a room inside a Chalet) and in this village forever:) ok i know its a holiday and it would end but. the living in a cabin thing really is a very peaceful state to read things of such curiosity areas. Of course other places might be also this much peaceful or even more. I would as said, study this subjectivity in this. How much homoegeneous it its? Take a new ceoncept of architecture, how does it diffuse to cities? What are the entropy rules in such domain? How human brain's virtualization environment serves to entropy's basic principle in that? The very basic ontology layer might be the law of entropy? Do upper virtualization technology of evolution (a.ka. our brains) do follow that in which extent? Why do we have consciousness? Do our virtualization and consciousness capability sets, are just a replay of basic laws of nature of entropy? do such an underlying layer be expected to create upper layers behave like that, or could be evolved to entropy law breaking states? language does that, every country or culture have similar or same rulesets. so its meaningless to tie a very lower layer (law of entropy) to higher one? yupp. if we had cities that has no common architecture, that every building having its own style, it would be high entropy. my entropy definition is kind of different than pshyical entropy one in that. diffusion is also different. i confused usage of diffusion, i shouldnt use diffusion in such analogy of spread of architectural styles. its wrong usage of a corresponding elegant framework. but what i wonder is, how the architectural styles spread/evolve and what is the big bang behavior of that again with a reversed meaning that spread of an architectural style all globe means reversing of big bang. those entropies have different definitions in that aspect. we have this reversed big bangs in architecture domain swhen an architectural style becomes very commonly used i think. But we also might be liking that as a bias also. I dont know what is the psychological view in this. But how this domains behaves? And could we predict feature in that sense? How this dispersed multi style buildings spreading out, what would be the new aesthethics meaning in our brains? Why in overall we find sme building authentic and why not? Would aesgthethic get lost in this multiverse of various configurations of architectural styles be present at once but differently in differnt coordinates, in regions of world, in cities. What this multi configuration phase high entropy state means for our brains? Could we decode how our brains work in that, to predict what architecture would mean to us in its further many more multi configurations states as science and economony lets this high entropy setting of new habitates we live in? new forests are new cities/new habitats of multiple configuration of building styles. or in anything we perceive. I dont label this as a bad thing again. I think humans defined new levels of nature. But what i wonder is, the next? what would our brains perceive this multiconfiguration world as it is? If we train a neural network with no knowledge but full high entropy, neural network would not have any value system built on it i think. I mean the value of authenticity? the fabric of authenticity? or the fabric of our previous evolution phase's common moods like authenticity? I wonder what would be next? There would be next. human evolution crafted this amazing machinery of thought while living in forests or places with low entropy. So now that entropy is back to lowest form again in now and in current future, what would be the next? i mean what kind of new concepts could be built in such new phase of our evolution? I mean take authenticity? I fixated to usage of it all along in this paragraph due to my ignorance. But what i wonder is, what would be new concepts we would be developing? I tackle this diminishing concepts problem. the fabric of reality changes as along with eras we live inside. But in this multiconfigration era, what concepts would diminish and which new ones might be invented? Or would it be a nightmare of all information being lost and we all become the noise screen in old tv sets basic signal setting. I mean I dont label this as a bad state eigther, since information might be just a transition. but to what? that i wonder? what would be new concepts? how would aesthethics evolve in such lack of information state? I dont hold any biases to any era like likng information era where there were main ecoles of styles in everything. now its all multiconfiguration (super high entropy). but what would happen next i wonder? what this subjectivity construct of evolution, would it go mad living in a multiconfiguration world? how would our constructs evolve with the evolving world? i want to analyze our subjectivity level in architectural styles to see how its spread/distributed? and i wonder how this brain of us would behave in a multi configuration world? since our construct is devised by times that such state hadnt existed or existed.
Take person a: says "i like this style a1". before style a1 were very popular among masses maybe. now every individual has a multiconfiguration enabled different styles. Do we need to have a common group behavior among configuration of items? cause its diminishing maybe? or maybe not. in some easy to do have multiconfiguration domains. but maybe these stages would be just stages. But future holds different forms of intelligences like non carbon based ones? or even including them in our cranial box? i wonder about future. Since world changed alot in era i live. but i wonder thinks like, whether in this era, grouping behavior is diminishing in some domains? by force of new nature we live inside. i wonder its evolutonary impacts since grouping were kind of hardwired most possibly? most possibly people would become more individualists in such state? yupp. i wonder this drive of nature and how evolution would change along it? so before it were grouping people hav ing the most resources? now, and in future, would it be individualist people be more faved by evolutionary processes? and awhile, to compensate that lack of grouping behavior, environments providing such features? since the circuitory of that must be very active yet? do circuitories change and in which speed? and beside new non nature circuitories are built beside the carbon based evolution. what about that? anyway,
(ok i saw a very lovely post from one newspage i am super fan of:) Thanks you all super kind people:) I<3you people alot for real. Sincere Thanks to that super exciting news site(about a specific domain) and All the Best Regards. These type of things always make me feel as living in a simulation:) since it feels being super lucky and being super lucky feels like its a simulation or whether i am inside an awesome dream:) All kind thanks:) to these amazing&kind people behind that:) )
ok these are inner thoughts before reading elegant texts of Wittgenstein. I never had chance to spare time. now its the time as i saw Wittgenstain wrote them inside a cabin setting of life:) but first listening songs i like time:) then this longly anticipated Wittgenstein readings that had never had chance to spare time since were always busy. now i am in holiday, i have time yuppp:)
I think, in analysis state of this study, I would crowdsource tagging of thoughts/emotions of architectural styles from want to be participants in a survey with VR toolsets or webgl. Would try to analyze the homogeneity of the subjective ideas/thoughts in this respect and would analyze whether we think similarly on a set of clusters with some radius or whether we all think very different with a very high entropy. Do law of entropy work in which scale in this medium of ontology layer? Are we really subjective or are we clustered? How does the fabric of this ontology layer behaves? What are the underlying forces in steps of iteration of this many centered subjectivity? Is there any process in this or is trying to craft a process model to this layer is all a romantic effort? This one to many surjection of what we feel/what we think when we enter architected structures, what is the behavior of this one to many surjections? Could models be deployed like models defined to understand language behavior with machine learning toolsets? How does this one to many surjection is distributed? So that in architecting new architected buildings, could we predict how much it would be liked? The matter of authenticity's fabric, the behavior of it, could we observe how it behaves? could our non human ai models define architectural styles based on this surjections collected data? I wonder the subjectivity or context analysis studies in high ontology layers other than language, like this, our stance to architectural styles, how we feel about/think about any architectural style? and why do we feel like that? Would the atlases of our brain by brain project would resolve our such behaviors? Like) when animates(animals used in brain project) are inside a linear corridor and a horizontally oriented lienar corridor, we have predictions of what kibnd of neural structure defines the perception of that. but what is the higher level ontology layer's situation in that, like the subjectivity of authenticity's fabric/behaviors? higher level ontologies behaviors, is it romanticising to think we could model their behaviors' underlying forces. And in overall, could we in future have ml arhictects that crafts buildings based on such data? is it trying to find a haystack in barn this effort of trying to create different levels of authenticity/aesthetics via ml models generative powers? whatever we do, it would be still black box modeling, with tryign to understand a system's behavior based on sole outputs, based on tags/thoiughts/comments data in that. But would such data be enough to have non original copies of human intellect to devise our places? Could we just copy the human intellectual frameworks/systems as done in linguistics studies based on ml methodologies based on raw output of language data, for such domain, would this be also applicable? photocopies of human intellect that tries to resemble/create things based on our data? From outside, it looks as it works. But it would be a self biased system with lacking serendipity if we dont include it by design. For instance, every era, an architect would create things that would be radically changing previous ones and would be watched with awe/amazement. When we have photocopies of human intellect in ml algorithms, would this go where? i think we would have noncarbon counterparts in this. photocopies of our intellectual frameworks/mechanisms. It started with language. I see no reasons that it would be utilized in other domains. And i dont think its any bad thing. But to have better idea, i should start studying linguistics perspective of Wittgenstein. Since i had goal of devising buildings of game by ml algorithms, I wonder if people would attend such crowdsourcing project of webgl page that shows architectures and people's thoughts/feelings about them. maybe the survey should be about that without making people tiresome of such survey? so that photocopies of our intellect in buildings topic might be built. It would clearly state that its exactly a survey for exactly that purpose. I mean the furthest goal of such survey would be clearly very neatly stated in that and people even be discouraged to enter it in init of it with clearly stating its used for such purpose. I want to analyze the fabric of some ontology layers(higher ontology layers), whether its romanticising such processes common forces work in such layers? E.g. when that blog writer defines her dislike to the restoration projects, what is the fabric of dislike or the quest for authenticity for that user? can we stratify such layer on its own without interplay of intra layers? Can we model such behavior on its own without thinking the all? people do successfully stratified language studies like that. Would such a subjective domain, for instance authenticity feeling's fabric be modelled also? I use we might be romanticising that we could figure out the process in that with resentments to this problem of these type of matters, thqat whether stratification of such layer is possible?? like separation of natural evolution and cultural evolution discussions, as i read most people now favor the unified view. Does stratification and creation of a pseudo layer for purpose of study is a valid scientific method to define processes or could we give some muddy insights on overall unified behavior? Could we study subjectivity like this, like creating a virtual layer on base of sociological/cultural/evolutionary/external processes and try to investigate its dynamics? evolution of culture and evolution of nature is not any OSI :) could we really stratify the upper layers? specifically that are very from outside subjective looking. What is the threshold subjectivity homogeneity to tag sucgh a virtual layer just as a romanticised model building effort and what kind of subjectivity entropy level makes it possible to model it like people model languages? How to validate our methods? Should we romantically try out building a model and have the risks of it being out of real underlying process of interplay of mayn layers at once? What kind of layers are be amenable to stratification and which layers are the simulacra enabling layers that what we create might be a simulation that is far from reality.
Anyway, I want to, in summary, some time, investigate relation of mind and architecture. whether its a feasible goal or not.
i want to stay in this cabin(actually not cabin but feels like that, its a room inside a Chalet) and in this village forever:) ok i know its a holiday and it would end but. the living in a cabin thing really is a very peaceful state to read things of such curiosity areas. Of course other places might be also this much peaceful or even more. I would as said, study this subjectivity in this. How much homoegeneous it its? Take a new ceoncept of architecture, how does it diffuse to cities? What are the entropy rules in such domain? How human brain's virtualization environment serves to entropy's basic principle in that? The very basic ontology layer might be the law of entropy? Do upper virtualization technology of evolution (a.ka. our brains) do follow that in which extent? Why do we have consciousness? Do our virtualization and consciousness capability sets, are just a replay of basic laws of nature of entropy? do such an underlying layer be expected to create upper layers behave like that, or could be evolved to entropy law breaking states? language does that, every country or culture have similar or same rulesets. so its meaningless to tie a very lower layer (law of entropy) to higher one? yupp. if we had cities that has no common architecture, that every building having its own style, it would be high entropy. my entropy definition is kind of different than pshyical entropy one in that. diffusion is also different. i confused usage of diffusion, i shouldnt use diffusion in such analogy of spread of architectural styles. its wrong usage of a corresponding elegant framework. but what i wonder is, how the architectural styles spread/evolve and what is the big bang behavior of that again with a reversed meaning that spread of an architectural style all globe means reversing of big bang. those entropies have different definitions in that aspect. we have this reversed big bangs in architecture domain swhen an architectural style becomes very commonly used i think. But we also might be liking that as a bias also. I dont know what is the psychological view in this. But how this domains behaves? And could we predict feature in that sense? How this dispersed multi style buildings spreading out, what would be the new aesthethics meaning in our brains? Why in overall we find sme building authentic and why not? Would aesgthethic get lost in this multiverse of various configurations of architectural styles be present at once but differently in differnt coordinates, in regions of world, in cities. What this multi configuration phase high entropy state means for our brains? Could we decode how our brains work in that, to predict what architecture would mean to us in its further many more multi configurations states as science and economony lets this high entropy setting of new habitates we live in? new forests are new cities/new habitats of multiple configuration of building styles. or in anything we perceive. I dont label this as a bad thing again. I think humans defined new levels of nature. But what i wonder is, the next? what would our brains perceive this multiconfiguration world as it is? If we train a neural network with no knowledge but full high entropy, neural network would not have any value system built on it i think. I mean the value of authenticity? the fabric of authenticity? or the fabric of our previous evolution phase's common moods like authenticity? I wonder what would be next? There would be next. human evolution crafted this amazing machinery of thought while living in forests or places with low entropy. So now that entropy is back to lowest form again in now and in current future, what would be the next? i mean what kind of new concepts could be built in such new phase of our evolution? I mean take authenticity? I fixated to usage of it all along in this paragraph due to my ignorance. But what i wonder is, what would be new concepts we would be developing? I tackle this diminishing concepts problem. the fabric of reality changes as along with eras we live inside. But in this multiconfigration era, what concepts would diminish and which new ones might be invented? Or would it be a nightmare of all information being lost and we all become the noise screen in old tv sets basic signal setting. I mean I dont label this as a bad state eigther, since information might be just a transition. but to what? that i wonder? what would be new concepts? how would aesthethics evolve in such lack of information state? I dont hold any biases to any era like likng information era where there were main ecoles of styles in everything. now its all multiconfiguration (super high entropy). but what would happen next i wonder? what this subjectivity construct of evolution, would it go mad living in a multiconfiguration world? how would our constructs evolve with the evolving world? i want to analyze our subjectivity level in architectural styles to see how its spread/distributed? and i wonder how this brain of us would behave in a multi configuration world? since our construct is devised by times that such state hadnt existed or existed.
Take person a: says "i like this style a1". before style a1 were very popular among masses maybe. now every individual has a multiconfiguration enabled different styles. Do we need to have a common group behavior among configuration of items? cause its diminishing maybe? or maybe not. in some easy to do have multiconfiguration domains. but maybe these stages would be just stages. But future holds different forms of intelligences like non carbon based ones? or even including them in our cranial box? i wonder about future. Since world changed alot in era i live. but i wonder thinks like, whether in this era, grouping behavior is diminishing in some domains? by force of new nature we live inside. i wonder its evolutonary impacts since grouping were kind of hardwired most possibly? most possibly people would become more individualists in such state? yupp. i wonder this drive of nature and how evolution would change along it? so before it were grouping people hav ing the most resources? now, and in future, would it be individualist people be more faved by evolutionary processes? and awhile, to compensate that lack of grouping behavior, environments providing such features? since the circuitory of that must be very active yet? do circuitories change and in which speed? and beside new non nature circuitories are built beside the carbon based evolution. what about that? anyway,
(ok i saw a very lovely post from one newspage i am super fan of:) Thanks you all super kind people:) I<3you people alot for real. Sincere Thanks to that super exciting news site(about a specific domain) and All the Best Regards. These type of things always make me feel as living in a simulation:) since it feels being super lucky and being super lucky feels like its a simulation or whether i am inside an awesome dream:) All kind thanks:) to these amazing&kind people behind that:) )
ok these are inner thoughts before reading elegant texts of Wittgenstein. I never had chance to spare time. now its the time as i saw Wittgenstain wrote them inside a cabin setting of life:) but first listening songs i like time:) then this longly anticipated Wittgenstein readings that had never had chance to spare time since were always busy. now i am in holiday, i have time yuppp:)
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder