On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:55:36 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > 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.

That's the problem. You are a person who is used to dealing with sound as a 
person senses it, using equipment designed to render analogs (metaphors 
which could easily print out in text or icons of Captain Crunch instead of 
the waveforms that you expect) which human sound specialists expect. This 
does not mean that your experience of sound represented visually is *the* 
unrepresented nature of sound. You have not been able to have the patience 
to consider this point before, so I assume that you will continue giving me 
'gotcha' arguments and teasing instead.

> 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.

You don't see the need, because you don't see the issue at all. For you, 
sound is a wave and waves are a shape, and that's that. It just is simply 
the case. I am saying that it is only the case because aesthetic sense - 
experience, is more fundamental than all of the computation and arithmetic 
in which mathematical abstractions such as wave mechanics are defined.

>> 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.

No there is a connection, and the connection is sense. This is how I think 
it works: 

>> 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,

People always think that there is something elusive about sense. There is 
nothing more ordinary or ubiquitous (and profound/mysterious) than sense. 
If you are laboring under the delusion that I am talking about some 
pseudosubstance or aether, then you are arguing with your own Straw Man.

> 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.

Every interpreter has their own local interpretation which is entirely 
proprietary, plus a fragment of the most common interpretation which is 
almost entirely generic, and a whole spectrum of interpretive opportunities 
in between. This is what is meant by Multisense Realism. There is no 
reality beyond this tessellated participation of absolute unity and 
relative multiplicity, privacy and publicity. This is a completely new 
concept in the history of the world as far as I know. What you are talking 
about is like going back to fourth grade for me. I say that knowing full 
well that you will use it as evidence of how delusional and 
self-aggrandizing I am, but it is the absolute truth from my perspective, 
and it may help explain why I seem reluctant to be bowled over by the 
revelations of legacy interpretations of physics and sensation. I am giving 
you a supersonic jet and you are looking for the the horses in the 

> All the above comparisons can be seen to require "just" number relations, 
> where "just" is irreducibly huge. 

Then you have missed the point entirely. Number relations can only exist as 
representations. Numbers are figures. We use them to figure out relations 
which relate to our own aesthetic experiences, both private and public 
(although they are derived more from public experiences of tangible 

>> 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.

So then a computer will automatically assign even numbers to these soft 
tones and hues. If you plug in a video camera and point it as beige-grey, 
it will give you an even number? The issue is not whether we find certain 
correlations innate or not - the point of this post was to show just that. 
The point is to show that this indicates how local aesthetic experience and 
its relation to the totality of aesthetic experience drives computation, 
not the other way around. Computation is nothing but measurement, it is 
counting. Aesthetic experience is already something, whether it is counted 
or not. Counting follows from aesthetics just as using your fingers to 
count is a natural way to access controllable objects (digits). What we 
count are things that can be experienced. Shapes or beats, positions in 
space or time. Minimalist abstractions of that which we concretely 
visualize or understand logically. None of these abstractions have any 
aesthetic content to the objects which we are using to count them Our 
fingers don't know which one is first. It takes a consensus of similar 
perceptions to carry a large bandwidth of figurative associations. 

>> 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".

To a machine designed to pick out that mixture of compounds specifically, 
it would be a perfect match. There is nothing random about it. It seems 
random to you because you are telling a story about how you got to the end 
result of the flavor, but in a blind taste test, I can say that nobody is 
likely to describe your slurry of foodstuffs as 'randomness incarnate'.

> 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.

Yes, I am well aware that it is profoundly hypocritical, on one level, to 
criticize the posture of alienating subjectivity by alienating objectivity, 
but I do this consciously. In the course of trying to plumb the depths of 
consciousness, I have found that alienating alienation itself is the best 
solution. It exposes the symmetries of the other solutions:

>From my Thesis (http://multisenserealism.com/thesis/) :

"MSR immodestly places itself at the end of the chain of advancing human 

*Developmental Stage:* transcendental voyeur (localizing motive) – what is 

   - *Archaic/shamanic:* Natural spirits (magic) – alienates objectivity 
   with direct animism
   - *Classical/polytheistic:* Named supernatural deities (prayer) – 
   alienates physicality with empathetic identification
   - *Post-Classical/monotheistic:* Absolute supernatural deity (religious 
   devotion) – alienates morality with indirect identification
   - *Enlightenment/dualistic*: Impersonal deity (reason) – alienates 
   animism with mechanistic observation
   - *Modern/scientific: *Impersonal forces and laws* (engineering) – 
   alienates subjectivity with abstract formulation
   - *Post-modern/existential:* Pure probability** (computation) – 
   alienates subjective-objective dualism with quantum reconciliation
   - *Integral/holistic:* Re-enchanted information (signifying pattern) – 
   alienates impersonal perspectives with quantized qualia.
   - *Multisense/Ouroboran:* Sensory perception (motive participation) – 
   alienates alienation with qualia-quanta reconciliation."

> May your duck find gold in those waters. PGC

It already has found it.


>> 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-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.
>> 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.

Reply via email to