On Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:13:59 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On 18 July 2013 14:34, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net <javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > On 7/17/2013 8:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 
> > 
> > On 17 July 2013 05:37, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"? 
> > 
> > I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between 
> the 
> > phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating 
> > either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some 
> > arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there 
> > exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations 
> > which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A 
> computer 
> > can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound of 
> bouba, 
> > but a person can. 
> > 
> > There's nothing inherently "curvy" about bouba. It's just an 
> > accidental of our programming. Intelligent aliens may have completely 
> > different aesthetics, although there may be commonalities if it could 
> > be shown that thinking a particular way has survival value. For 
> > example, there is a correlation between symmetry and beauty because 
> > (it is speculated) asymmetry is associated with disease, and your 
> > genes won't do as well if you choose a diseased mate. But other 
> > aesthetic preferences probably have no rational basis. 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "rational" or what Craig means by 
> "arbitrary". 
> > I think "kiki" is sharp and abrupt and "bouba" is smooth and cruvy 
> because 
> > of the way we have to move our mouths to make those sounds.  This is an 
> > accident of evolution.  Whales, for example would make the sounds 
> > differently and this might create a different sound/shape correlation 
> for 
> > them.  Does that mean that the human correlation is not rational or is 
> > arbitrary?  It seems to me it is empirical. 
> I did use the term "rational" perhaps inappropriately. I meant that 
> some aesthetic choices have evolutionary utility and others not. 
> Nevertheless, all aesthetic choices must be determined by the physics 
> of our brain, unless they are determined by something else, such as an 
> immaterial soul. 
If aesthetic choices were determined by physics of our brain then pure 
sugar would look magical and gold would look like dirt. Aesthetics are not 
determined. Or they would both look like mosaics of neurochemical bonds. I 
say 'look', but of course if aesthetics were driven by physics alone, 
nothing could 'look' like anything, no more than the positions of the beads 
of an abacus can smell like something.

The universe is an aesthetic agenda. Existence is that which seeks to feel 
better, be more. Biology speeds it up in a microcosmic recapitulation is 
all, and human beings represent an even more radical experiment in what I 
call solitrophy.


> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 

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