So like I agree that “understanding what process is generating that output” is a better state to be in than “not understanding what process is generating that output”. But I don’t think “nonsense” is entirely in the map; consider
This is a bit of a thing that I don’t know if you have any questions or need to be a good time to time to time
You might be able to guess what process generated that string of words. But I wouldn’t say “that process isn’t generating nonsense, it’s just outputting the max-probability result from such-and-such statistical model”. Rather, I’d say “that process is generating nonsense because it’s just outputting....”
This leaves open a bunch of questions like
Can we come up with a sensible definition of “nonsense”?
Given such a definition, was Lacan talking nonsense?
In fact, is talking nonsense a thing humans basically ever do in practice?
Do some people have a tendency to too-quickly assume nonsense, when in fact they simply don’t understand some not-nonsense? (How many such people? What are some factors that tend to predict them making this mistake?)
Do some people have the opposite tendency? (How many? What are some factors?)
I think your framing hides those questions without answering them.
As a tangent, it might be that Billy did piecewise subtraction in this instance partly because he wasn’t paying attention. (Where “because” is imprecise but I don’t feel like unpacking right now.) “Billy wasn’t paying attention” is a claim about the territory that makes predictions about what Billy will do in future, which have partial but not total overlap with the predictions made by the claim “Billy did piecewise subtraction”. (Some people who do piecewise subtraction will do it regularly, and some will do it only when not paying attention.)
Of course, if you’re going to stop at “not paying attention” and not notice the “piecewise subtraction” thing, that seems bad. And if you’re going to notice that Billy got the problem wrong and say “not paying attention” without checking whether Billy was paying attention, that seems bad too.
So like I agree that “understanding what process is generating that output” is a better state to be in than “not understanding what process is generating that output”. But I don’t think “nonsense” is entirely in the map; consider
You might be able to guess what process generated that string of words. But I wouldn’t say “that process isn’t generating nonsense, it’s just outputting the max-probability result from such-and-such statistical model”. Rather, I’d say “that process is generating nonsense because it’s just outputting....”
This leaves open a bunch of questions like
Can we come up with a sensible definition of “nonsense”?
Given such a definition, was Lacan talking nonsense?
What about a person with Receptive (Wernicke’s) aphasia?
Time Cube?
In fact, is talking nonsense a thing humans basically ever do in practice?
Do some people have a tendency to too-quickly assume nonsense, when in fact they simply don’t understand some not-nonsense? (How many such people? What are some factors that tend to predict them making this mistake?)
Do some people have the opposite tendency? (How many? What are some factors?)
I think your framing hides those questions without answering them.
As a tangent, it might be that Billy did piecewise subtraction in this instance partly because he wasn’t paying attention. (Where “because” is imprecise but I don’t feel like unpacking right now.) “Billy wasn’t paying attention” is a claim about the territory that makes predictions about what Billy will do in future, which have partial but not total overlap with the predictions made by the claim “Billy did piecewise subtraction”. (Some people who do piecewise subtraction will do it regularly, and some will do it only when not paying attention.)
Of course, if you’re going to stop at “not paying attention” and not notice the “piecewise subtraction” thing, that seems bad. And if you’re going to notice that Billy got the problem wrong and say “not paying attention” without checking whether Billy was paying attention, that seems bad too.