It seems to me that the reason why the non-gerry mandered concept is preferable is connected to drill wearyness being very linear in original observables. In my own mouth i would say that drill weariness is measured in “toughness” and if eggness is a good proxy for “toughness” then it might make sense to configure the drill to be “expecting” an eggness score. Whether a drill wears out seems to ambivalent about the signaling used. This makes it okay to use to judge a signaling scheme. But how would you balance the dye machine weariness against drill weariness? It would seem there would exist a signaling scheme that is optimal in weariness times the cost of replacement of the machine. And this would not be optimal in respect to only one machine type.
One could also hypothetise that toughness is squiggly in eggness. Maybe even numbered eggnesses are tough and odd numbered eggnesses are soft. Overusing the mean squared error might be making the assumption that small deviation in your sensory organs would correspond to small deviations in your decision efficiency. In a way this might be plausible, it is more easy to be a prosperous animal if you have sensory organs that are easy to make life-promoting choices in. But in another way it is implausible. Sensory organs have trigger conditions defined in conditions that are in respect to their structure while most decisions to be made are structured differently than your bodily organs. It is rare for “see red” → “eat”,”see blue”->”don’t eat” to be the dominant strategy.
If you are a limited vision seer that hears well (such as a bat) and deal with a four color seer that hears less well (such as a ultraviolet seeing bird) does that mean that bird concepts are deceptive to you as a bat? If one would hope there would be one set of concepts that would be optimal for both bats and birds that might not be the case. But if the bat and the bird agree on what batness is and what birdness is there shouldn’t be disagreement about suitability, it just doesn’t form a uniform ladder.
It seems to me that the reason why the non-gerry mandered concept is preferable is connected to drill wearyness being very linear in original observables. In my own mouth i would say that drill weariness is measured in “toughness” and if eggness is a good proxy for “toughness” then it might make sense to configure the drill to be “expecting” an eggness score. Whether a drill wears out seems to ambivalent about the signaling used. This makes it okay to use to judge a signaling scheme. But how would you balance the dye machine weariness against drill weariness? It would seem there would exist a signaling scheme that is optimal in weariness times the cost of replacement of the machine. And this would not be optimal in respect to only one machine type.
One could also hypothetise that toughness is squiggly in eggness. Maybe even numbered eggnesses are tough and odd numbered eggnesses are soft. Overusing the mean squared error might be making the assumption that small deviation in your sensory organs would correspond to small deviations in your decision efficiency. In a way this might be plausible, it is more easy to be a prosperous animal if you have sensory organs that are easy to make life-promoting choices in. But in another way it is implausible. Sensory organs have trigger conditions defined in conditions that are in respect to their structure while most decisions to be made are structured differently than your bodily organs. It is rare for “see red” → “eat”,”see blue”->”don’t eat” to be the dominant strategy.
If you are a limited vision seer that hears well (such as a bat) and deal with a four color seer that hears less well (such as a ultraviolet seeing bird) does that mean that bird concepts are deceptive to you as a bat? If one would hope there would be one set of concepts that would be optimal for both bats and birds that might not be the case. But if the bat and the bird agree on what batness is and what birdness is there shouldn’t be disagreement about suitability, it just doesn’t form a uniform ladder.