On 7/16/2013 12:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:41:28 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




    On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net 
<javascript:>> wrote:

        On 7/15/2013 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
        Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the
        connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely 
computational?

Why not? Being a broken line vs a differentiable line is a computable property. The difference between "k" sounds and "b" sounds is computable. So I'm not sure
        what you're getting at.  Or are you asking how "k" came to be 
associated with
        "broken line" or how the written letter "k" was associated with the 
phonetic
        sound of "k"?


    Right. Almost too easy, which makes me suspicious Craig has some weird 
counter play ;-)

    Indeed, why not? Rise and fall in values of acoustics + phonetics, shrill i 
of kiki
    vs. roundness of bouba, are mapped to jagged form vs rounder form.


You could just as easily map the acoustics so that kiki appears round and bouba appears jagged. There is nothing implicitly visual about a sound unless an interpreter makes that connection.

But there's something inherently abrupt about how you form "kiki" with your mouth and inherently rounded about how form "bouba".

If there were, then watching an oscilloscope of a song playing would be the same as hearing it. Since we can make sense of both audio and visual sensations, we can read the commonality between them, but a machine won't make that connection on its own.

    Spikes vs. curves in values of graphic pattern mirrored by disjunct vs. 
conjunct in
    sound, which you could make visible by frequency response graph. Spikes vs. 
curves,
    odd to even, states of randomness to organization etc. Full buffet, eat all 
you can,
    choice is yours. PGC


All of those 'vs' and 'to' comparisons or contingent on a sensible interpreter.

Who says a computer can't be a sensible interpreter?

Brent

They imply no intrinsic quantitative equivalence to each other without one. What color is even? What flavor is randomness?

Craig



        Brent
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
        "Everything List" group.
        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email
        to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
        To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
<javascript:>.
        Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
        <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
        <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3204/6496 - Release Date: 07/16/13


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to