On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>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> 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. > If you want to be stubborn, sure. Simple test: run around some local street and with the highest strain that your vocal chords permit, yell "Kiki" and "Bouba" on separate days at 3am and set a stopwatch. Do this several times to eliminate bias. If you have no vocal impediments, I bet that neighbors will more quickly be disturbed on the "Kiki" nights. Telling a person who deals with sound that "kiki" is rounder than "bouba" is like telling someone that can see, that a jagged line is curved. Sure, if you want Craig. Shucks, I thought you had some significant counter play, but it's just the usual inversion plus a bunch of complex luggage, which I see no need for concerning this question. > There is nothing implicitly visual about a sound unless an interpreter > makes that connection. If there were, then watching an oscilloscope of a > song playing would be the same as hearing it. > You started with the pattern recognition/mapping exercise! Now you're arguing that there is no connection, except where you want it to be?! Seems rather transparent. > 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. > Your invention. You need all these primitives of interpreters, some perpetually elusive sense, aesthetics, interpreters etc. and fail to explain the connection convincingly. I don't see why I should move from "yeah, ok Craig, that's like your opinion man..." basic lebowski position. All the above comparisons can be seen to require "just" number relations, where "just" is irreducibly huge. > They imply no intrinsic quantitative equivalence to each other without > one. What color is even? > Soft tones and hues, conjunct with relatively ordered/symmetrical environment or context. > What flavor is randomness? > > You eating vanilla ice cream with mustard, ketchup, rice vinegar, potato chips, chocolate, mint, curry and some plants and objects from your local environment ground to a pulp, and mixed together in non- homogenous way, add some chunks of tire, some pepper, some bacon etc. lengthen this list and keep it disorderly and you get infinite random tastes that will surprise you in "yuck" or "wow, that wasn't as horrible as I'd have imagined" ways. Make sure you keep chewing though to allow for the maximum "randomness dissipation". Also if you want to air psychological predispositions as some sort of observation of symmetry, know your duck is swimming in muddy waters, perhaps because it negates the very humility it finds lacking from the arrogant, falsely humble, inhuman, machine mechanist fanatics. May your duck find gold in those waters. PGC > 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. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>> >>> 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. > > > -- 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.
