[FRIAM] quotes and questions
Steve Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Mon May 16 17:53:07 EDT 2022
On 5/16/22 3:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> Are you sure that creativity is anything but imitation, method
> (algorithms), and noise?
>
I am absolutely NOT sure of that, but expect many hairs to be split
amongst the nature of imitation, method and noise before such is
demonstrated.
I think it is notable that you separate noise from method and imitation
rather than treating it as a combination of the others since "random
number generators" are algorithms which "imitate" noise, no?
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith
> *Sent:* Monday, May 16, 2022 2:39 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] quotes and questions
>
> 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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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 <http://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
> <http://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 <http://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
> <http://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 <http://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/subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://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/subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220516/618e096e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0xFD82820D1AAECDAE.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3122 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220516/618e096e/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220516/618e096e/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the Friam
mailing list