[FRIAM] quotes and questions
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Mon May 16 17:44:18 EDT 2022
I find Gabriel's poetry not poetry.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Mon, May 16, 2022, 3:39 PM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/15/22 10:42 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> If you are right then deep fakes, online or in meat space, will fail.
>
>
> *you don't have to fool all of the people all of the time... *
>
> I find Gabriel's poetry rather deficient (not that I am an expert, so
> perhaps it is mere taste) and Inkwell's even moreso, though in response to
> this thread I read a number from his collection "100 Poems Imitating 100
> Translations" which are described as "responses" to 100 classic Japanese
> poems which is a tradition in poetry (to write poem in response or homage
> to another poem) and found them quite pleasing and insightful. It felt
> that his poems were *inspired* by the originals, though without the
> originals at-hand I'm not sure how much he was inspired and how much was in
> fact "imitation" as advertised. If it was the latter then I suppose I'm
> much more impressed with what the original did than what Gabriel did by
> "imitating" the originals without breaking them.
>
> I am not sure that automatic * generation tools can do anything *but*
> imitate and emulate, by their very construction? Gabriel's title invoking
> "imitating" suggests to me that his Inkwell (at least) aspires to do no
> more than imitate. It is a fun parlor trick to create an imitation that
> "can pass" in polite company. The "creative process" is subjectively
> something different from imitation or emulation. It is an entirely
> different thing to have a uniquely awesome experience and to express it in
> a mode that evokes something similar in another.
>
> Glen harps at us from time to time that "communication is an illusion"
> (which he will likely demonstrate by correcting my understanding of
> whatever he actually has said on the topic). To the extent this assertion
> is true, then I am more sympathetic with the idea of deep-fakes, etc.
> Maybe the only difference between an imitation and an inspiration has to do
> with the level of abstraction of the language being used. Perhaps a poetry
> generator that actually generates strings of complex abstractions which
> perhaps also is constrained by poetic form, rhyme, alliteration, etc. IS
> doing the same thing as a poet?
>
> I ingest natural language generators more like an Oracle than a source of
> information much less wisdom or insight.
>
>
> On May 15, 2022, at 9:32 AM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
> Richard Gabriel developed a program, *Inkwell*, that writes poetry. It
> can produce poems in any mode—haiku to free verse—and in any author's
> style. He presented some of the poems to the annual Warren Wilson (where he
> earned his MFA in poetry) conference and they went through the usual
> criticism process. He did not reveal that the author of the poems was his
> software until the last day. Because none of the participants at the
> conference—professional poets, professors, other graduate students—twigged
> on the fact that the poems were composed by a computer instead of a human,
> he asks if *Inkwell* passed the Turing Test.
>
> Richard's last work at IBM was a DOD project that involved detecting
> "threats" in social media postings, then composing posts to deflect that
> threat. He repurposed some of the natural language, machine learning,
> capabilities of Inkwell for that project.
>
> The next time you go on social media to generate a flash mob to protest at
> the home of a supreme court justice, don't be surprised if new posts,
> indistinguishable in any and every way, from your own, appear setting a new
> time or location for the mob.
>
> As impressive as Richard's work may be (is); no, I do not think it
> resolves the fundamental issue. I still maintain that the "languages" of
> math, algorithms, logic, and similar formalisms are *inadequate* for
> communication of most human knowledge and experience. Metaphorically
> speaking, they simply lack the bandwidth.
>
> Note that I am making no claim with regard the experiences or the ability
> to communicate—in some language—those experiences. I am simply making a
> claim of inadequacy/insufficiency for a particular set of "languages." I am
> suggesting that it might be possible to develop/evolve a language
> sufficient for the task.
>
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sat, May 14, 2022, at 9:13 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> Ok, happy robots in hot tubs doesn’t do it for you. How about some
> machine learning generated poems?
>
> https://sites.research.google/versebyverse/
>
>
> On May 14, 2022, at 4:27 PM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you Marcus for the insightful comments.
>
> I agree with you that the issue is one of communication, and in some
> sense, one of language. I would depart from your response with regard the
> assertion that the language must be precise; and further, the implication
> that equations, computer programs, or a simulacrum could constitute a
> "language."
>
> I would claim that a language with perfect and complete syntax and precise
> denotation will, necessarily be insufficient to express and communicate the
> vast majority of human experiences and knowledge/awareness/understanding.
> [This is a more nuanced version of my frequently made claim that, "science
> and math are only useful for the simplest of problems."]
>
> Humans can, with reasonable efficacy, communicate by means other than a
> precisely defined language. Evocative and connotative poetry, imagery,
> allusion, and metaphor, within a rich body of context is far more powerful
> than any formal language.
>
> Consider this alternative means of communication as a "language," RBL
> (Right-brain language). It seems reasonable to expect that RBL might be
> improved and extended, with added rigor, while avoiding the reductionism
> that exemplifies formal, precisely defined languages of math and science
> (left-brained all). I can imagine a RBL-grounded metaphysics and
> epistemology.
>
> A robust RBL might provide the communication channel essential to
> communicate the ineffable, the mystical, the psychedelic—with one big
> caveat, the lack of shared experience. RBL would be an evocative language,
> and that which is invoked in each individual must have sufficient
> experiential overlap with others that "that which is invoked" provides
> sufficient common context.
>
> Or one might assume Indra's Net where all contextualizes all.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 5:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> If one wants to translate subjective experience into a narrative, or
> compare & contrast experiences, then negotiating some language is
> necessary. If one wants to carefully compare experiences, then one must
> be prepared to make the language precise. The language could be
> “equations”, or some computer program or some careful use of the English
> language, or it could be some use of a well-modelled physical system to
> mimic another physical system, etc. But it is must to be possible to
> create experiments and evaluate the results in an objective, reasoned way
> using a shared, deconstructable language. This says nothing about the
> Big Picture of the diverse things that happen in the universe by itself, of
> course. But the (presumably) narrow window we have on the whole universe
> can be categorized into knowledge we share – objective language, and
> private experiences we don’t know how to share, or are too large and
> complicated to compress into a readable academic paper (e.g. some massive
> generative learning system). If one wants to go further and say there are
> some experiences that can’t, in principle, be shared, that’s fine, but then
> shut up about it already! There’s nothing to **talk** about because it
> is private **and** subjective **and** opaque.
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2022 4:51 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] quotes and questions
>
>
>
>
> I will channel McGilchrist here, not assert my own opinions/reasoning:
>
>
>
> The argument you have posited is an example of left-brain arrogance *(NOT
> MARCUS ARROGANCE)* in assuming that the left-brain perception and
> apprehension, a totally reductionist and representationalist one, of the
> universe is the only truth. All that holism, connectedness, empathy,
> stochastic dynamism, etc. that the right-brain believes to be truth is
> woo-woo nonsense and it can be ignored.
>
>
>
> There is also the purely pragmatic problem, ala the 19th century physics
> of Mach, that if you had perfect knowledge of every particle in the
> universe at time 1 you could predict with perfect accuracy its state at
> time 2. Replicating the totality of sensors and the variable range of
> sensitivity in context (e.g. changes in pressure as the water cools as a
> function of distance from jet), plus the variability in the pattern of
> sensors that are simultaneously reporting, and, and, and
>
>
>
> Even if true in principle, it is pragmatically impossible.
>
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 3:47 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> > I am sure I have said it dozens of times before: Create a robot
>
> > covered in sensors of similar pressure and temperature sensitivity.
>
> > Have it sit in the tub and use some algorithm to learn the distribution
>
> > of the sensors and how relates to the performance of its own motor
>
> > system.
>
> >
>
> >> On May 13, 2022, at 3:36 PM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote:
>
> >>> An interesting property of turbulence is that it need not be a
> statement about fluids, but rather a property entailed by a system of
> equations.
>
> >>
>
> >> McGilchrist would assert that the "reality" that is apprehended by the
> left-brain is precisely that set of abstract equations. However, the
> right-brain apprehension of "reality" is the totality of the experience of
> sitting in the spa and feeling the bubbles and jets caress your body.
>
> >>
>
> >> The latter is not expressible in equations.
>
> >>
>
> >> davew
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 1:47 PM, glen wrote:
>
> >>>> On 5/12/22 10:32, Steve Smith wrote:
>
> >>>> I personally don't think "Turbulent Flow" is an oxymoron.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Exactly! That's the point. By denouncing negation, I'm ultimately
>
> >>> denouncing contradiction in all it's horrifying forms. It's judo, not
>
> >>> karate.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote:
>
> >>>> An interesting property of turbulence is that it need not be a
> statement about fluids, but rather a property entailed by a system of
> equations.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I'm a bit worried about all the meaning packed into "property",
>
> >>> "entailed", and "system of equations". But as long as we read
>
> >>> "equations" *very* generously, then I'm down.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> On 5/12/22 19:54, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>> Unitary operators are needed. Apply a Trumping operator you get a
> Biden and apply another one to get a Trump back. To make this work a
> bunch of ancillary bits are needed to record all the wisdom that Trump
> destroys. I am afraid we are dealing with a dissipative system, though.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> IDK. The allowance of unitary operators seems to be a restatement of
>
> >>> orthogonality. In a world where no 2 variates/objects can be perfectly
>
> >>> separated, there can be no unitary operators. (Or, perhaps every
>
> >>> operator has an error term. f(x) → y ∪ ε) I haven't done the work.
> But
>
> >>> it seems further that we can define logics without negation and logics
>
> >>> without currying. Can we define logics with neither? What's the
>
> >>> expressive power of such a persnickety thing? Is it that such a thing
>
> >>> can't exist? Or merely that our language is incapable of talking about
>
> >>> that thing with complete faith? Biden is clearly not not(Trump), at
>
> >>> least if the object of interest is "too damned {old, white, male}". If
>
> >>> that's the object, clearly Biden ≡ Trump and ∀x|x(Trump) = x(Biden) ∪
>
> >>> ε, where |ε| >> |x(Trump)-x(Biden)|.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> --
>
> >>> Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙
>
> >>>
>
> >>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>
> >>> bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present
>
> >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> >>
>
> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>
> > bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> > archives: 5/2017 thru present
>
> > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe>
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220516/fb54f1b5/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list