On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> 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>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.
>

You want to tell me that red is blue. I agreed! I said "sure Craig, if you
want". But you never clarified why you want this and you still fail to do
so. What is the aesthetic reason to classify disjunct sounds as conjunct
sounds? What does this acheive, other than you making the point that you
are entitled to your own opinion and you can say: "Not for me, you fossil!
Red is in reality Blue, you're just too closed minded to see it."


>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>

Some audience, thankfully minority agrees with you. Most, combined with my
employers, do not.


>
>>
>>> 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:
> http://multisenserealism.com/2013/07/17/multisense-syzygy-remastered/
>
>

"Works" is a functional statement, so we are in realm of functions and
mapping. At this point I still find your reasoning to complex. Number
relating to number is all I need to explain this "working" you describe. I
like to travel light.


>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>

Never implied that. Just "primitive bloat" reminiscent of humanist
aesthetic talk; but you don't even pull it off very well. You don't
actually make statements about the beautiful, evil, aesthetic appreciation,
aesthetic object, aesthetic appearance and truth. Even, you seem behind
A.G. Baumgarten and Kant when I browse your stuff.


> 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.
>

That's where we part ways. I can't afford to know such, as the reality I
make bread with is perhaps non-local. It's never quite "in the room", that
I can just pick up a composition or ready mix from the floor.


> 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,
>

No, you manage this alone ;-)


> but it is the absolute truth from my perspective,
>

Like in that phrase. No hands, see?


> 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
> horsepower.
>

No, if you want to play, then be precise: I'd be counting those horses to
see if I'd trust the supersonic jet. But you fill it with so much luggage,
I wonder if it would ever get off the ground. But you're right, it might be
the fastest Jet ever. To me the runway looks a bit short for it atm, is all.


>
>
>>
>> All the above comparisons can be seen to require "just" number relations,
>> where "just" is irreducibly huge.
>>
>
> Then you have missed the point entirely.
>

No, I've studied and written some thesis on aesthetics, experience,
objects, sense, transcendentalism, purpose/non purpose of aesthetics,
functional aspects, who is who of all these guys years ago. Sometimes I
still read them and enjoy the fine points made.

But for now, what you're claiming to be a supersonic jet, is rather an
overloaded Cessna 172.


> 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 objects).
>

Check on your reductionist perspective of numbers for this post. Of course
we have to make this ritual move.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>

You can easily write a script for this, yes.


> 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.
>

I'd wish it were so. Really I do. Musicians wouldn't be at the bottom of
the food chain. I hope you turn out to be right. But I don't see why the
whole aesthetic package can more elegantly be framed as one infinite aspect
of numbers' relations.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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'.
>

To your version of machine, sure. But I said to do so with infinitely long
list of items, to get better approximation.


>
>
>> 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,
>

Sure, but this discussion is so old, I find your diving doesn't add
anything but unnecessary complication. Even from a humanist perspective.


> 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
> worldviews:
>
> *Developmental Stage:* transcendental voyeur (localizing motive) – what
> is observed/transcended
>
>    - *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."
>
>
I like baroque stuff. But this just feels a bit tacky, even given that I
like ornate exaggeration and pomp. I'll continue to read/search in
aesthetics but for reasons mentioned, you merely re-defining some huge set
of primitives around sense. To walk the walk, in these areas, even if I
disagree with ontology, I prefer: Aesthetics of Appearing by Martin Seel:

*This book proposes that aesthetics begin not with concepts of being or
semblance, but with a concept of appearing. Appearing bespeaks of the
reality that all aesthetic objects share, however different they may
otherwise be. For Martin Seel, appearing plays its part everywhere in the
aesthetic realm, in all aesthetic activity.
*
*In his book, Seel examines the existential and cultural meaning of
aesthetic experience. In doing so, he brings aesthetics and philosophy of
art together again, which in continental as well as analytical thinking
have been more and more separated in the recent decades. Within Seel's
framework, to apprehend things and events with respect to how they appear
momentarily and simultaneously to our senses represents a genuine way for
human beings to encounter the world. The consciousness that emerges here is
an anthropologically central faculty. In perceiving the unfathomable
particularity of a sensuously given we gain insight into the indeterminable
of our lives. Attentiveness to what is appearing is therefore at the same
time attentiveness to ourselves. This is also the case when works of art
imagine past or future, probable or improbable presences. Artworks develop
their transgressive energy from their presence as sense-catching forms.
They bring about a special presence in which a presentation of close or
distant presences comes about. *

So there you have it. Contrary to your assertions of "everything is grey
computation", I do care about the discussion in the humanist framework and
like to read people who reason in this fashion. I find this type of
approach along history of aesthetics to be much more agile and efficient in
describing what your MSR stuff is trying to get to. This kind of writing
can stand on its own without me feeling I am playing semantic whack-a-mole
with the author as the stuff is a bit more solid, clear and consistent
without need for constantly redefining stuff and bringing in new primitives
whenever the wind changes.


>
>> May your duck find gold in those waters. PGC
>>
>
> It already has found it.
>
>
Your certainty of this is unfortunate and unbecoming of the humility you
hold so high.

Enough semantic whack-a-mole for these days; not out of disrespect but out
of lack of time.

Have a fine day, Craig :-) 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/**grou**ps/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.
>>> 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.


Reply via email to