[FRIAM] quotes and questions

Mon May 16 19:14:41 EDT 2022

I think it is not clear there are any random numbers.

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 2:53 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quotes and questions

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><mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 2:39 PM
To: friam at redfish.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220516/1730d3b0/attachment.html>