Richard Gabriel developed a program, **Inkwell**, that writes poetry. It can produce poems in any mode—haiku to free verse—and in any author's style. He presented some of the poems to the annual Warren Wilson (where he earned his MFA in poetry) conference and they went through the usual criticism process. He did not reveal that the author of the poems was his software until the last day. Because none of the participants at the conference—professional poets, professors, other graduate students—twigged on the fact that the poems were composed by a computer instead of a human, he asks if **Inkwell** passed the Turing Test.
Richard's last work at IBM was a DOD project that involved detecting "threats" in social media postings, then composing posts to deflect that threat. He repurposed some of the natural language, machine learning, capabilities of Inkwell for that project. The next time you go on social media to generate a flash mob to protest at the home of a supreme court justice, don't be surprised if new posts, indistinguishable in any and every way, from your own, appear setting a new time or location for the mob. As impressive as Richard's work may be (is); no, I do not think it resolves the fundamental issue. I still maintain that the "languages" of math, algorithms, logic, and similar formalisms are _inadequate_ for communication of most human knowledge and experience. Metaphorically speaking, they simply lack the bandwidth. Note that I am making no claim with regard the experiences or the ability to communicate—in some language—those experiences. I am simply making a claim of inadequacy/insufficiency for a particular set of "languages." I am suggesting that it might be possible to develop/evolve a language sufficient for the task. davew On Sat, May 14, 2022, at 9:13 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Ok, happy robots in hot tubs doesn’t do it for you. How about some machine > learning generated poems? > > https://sites.research.google/versebyverse/ > > >> On May 14, 2022, at 4:27 PM, Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote: >> >> >> Thank you Marcus for the insightful comments. >> >> I agree with you that the issue is one of communication, and in some sense, >> one of language. I would depart from your response with regard the assertion >> that the language must be precise; and further, the implication that >> equations, computer programs, or a simulacrum could constitute a "language." >> >> I would claim that a language with perfect and complete syntax and precise >> denotation will, necessarily be insufficient to express and communicate the >> vast majority of human experiences and knowledge/awareness/understanding. >> [This is a more nuanced version of my frequently made claim that, "science >> and math are only useful for the simplest of problems."] >> >> Humans can, with reasonable efficacy, communicate by means other than a >> precisely defined language. Evocative and connotative poetry, imagery, >> allusion, and metaphor, within a rich body of context is far more powerful >> than any formal language. >> >> Consider this alternative means of communication as a "language," RBL >> (Right-brain language). It seems reasonable to expect that RBL might be >> improved and extended, with added rigor, while avoiding the reductionism >> that exemplifies formal, precisely defined languages of math and science >> (left-brained all). I can imagine a RBL-grounded metaphysics and >> epistemology. >> >> A robust RBL might provide the communication channel essential to >> communicate the ineffable, the mystical, the psychedelic—with one big >> caveat, the lack of shared experience. RBL would be an evocative language, >> and that which is invoked in each individual must have sufficient >> experiential overlap with others that "that which is invoked" provides >> sufficient common context. >> >> Or one might assume Indra's Net where all contextualizes all. >> >> davew >> >> >> On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 5:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> If one wants to translate subjective experience into a narrative, or >>> compare & contrast experiences, then negotiating some language is >>> necessary. If one wants to carefully compare experiences, then one must >>> be prepared to make the language precise. The language could be >>> “equations”, or some computer program or some careful use of the English >>> language, or it could be some use of a well-modelled physical system to >>> mimic another physical system, etc. But it is must to be possible to >>> create experiments and evaluate the results in an objective, reasoned way >>> using a shared, deconstructable language. This says nothing about the >>> Big Picture of the diverse things that happen in the universe by itself, of >>> course. But the (presumably) narrow window we have on the whole universe >>> can be categorized into knowledge we share – objective language, and >>> private experiences we don’t know how to share, or are too large and >>> complicated to compress into a readable academic paper (e.g. some massive >>> generative learning system). If one wants to go further and say there are >>> some experiences that can’t, in principle, be shared, that’s fine, but then >>> shut up about it already! There’s nothing to **talk** about because it is >>> private **and** subjective **and** opaque. >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West >>> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2022 4:51 PM >>> *To:* friam@redfish.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] quotes and questions >>> >>> >>> >>> I will channel McGilchrist here, not assert my own opinions/reasoning: >>> >>> The argument you have posited is an example of left-brain arrogance *(NOT >>> MARCUS ARROGANCE)* in assuming that the left-brain perception and >>> apprehension, a totally reductionist and representationalist one, of the >>> universe is the only truth. All that holism, connectedness, empathy, >>> stochastic dynamism, etc. that the right-brain believes to be truth is >>> woo-woo nonsense and it can be ignored. >>> >>> There is also the purely pragmatic problem, ala the 19th century physics of >>> Mach, that if you had perfect knowledge of every particle in the universe >>> at time 1 you could predict with perfect accuracy its state at time 2. >>> Replicating the totality of sensors and the variable range of sensitivity >>> in context (e.g. changes in pressure as the water cools as a function of >>> distance from jet), plus the variability in the pattern of sensors that are >>> simultaneously reporting, and, and, and >>> >>> Even if true in principle, it is pragmatically impossible. >>> >>> davew >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 3:47 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> > I am sure I have said it dozens of times before: Create a robot >>> > covered in sensors of similar pressure and temperature sensitivity. >>> > Have it sit in the tub and use some algorithm to learn the distribution >>> > of the sensors and how relates to the performance of its own motor >>> > system. >>> > >>> >> On May 13, 2022, at 3:36 PM, Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote: >>> >>> An interesting property of turbulence is that it need not be a >>> >>> statement about fluids, but rather a property entailed by a system of >>> >>> equations. >>> >> >>> >> McGilchrist would assert that the "reality" that is apprehended by the >>> >> left-brain is precisely that set of abstract equations. However, the >>> >> right-brain apprehension of "reality" is the totality of the experience >>> >> of sitting in the spa and feeling the bubbles and jets caress your body. >>> >> >>> >> The latter is not expressible in equations. >>> >> >>> >> davew >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 1:47 PM, glen wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/12/22 10:32, Steve Smith wrote: >>> >>>> I personally don't think "Turbulent Flow" is an oxymoron. >>> >>> >>> >>> Exactly! That's the point. By denouncing negation, I'm ultimately >>> >>> denouncing contradiction in all it's horrifying forms. It's judo, not >>> >>> karate. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote: >>> >>>> An interesting property of turbulence is that it need not be a >>> >>>> statement about fluids, but rather a property entailed by a system of >>> >>>> equations. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm a bit worried about all the meaning packed into "property", >>> >>> "entailed", and "system of equations". But as long as we read >>> >>> "equations" *very* generously, then I'm down. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 5/12/22 19:54, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> >>>> Unitary operators are needed. Apply a Trumping operator you get a >>> >>>> Biden and apply another one to get a Trump back. To make this work >>> >>>> a bunch of ancillary bits are needed to record all the wisdom that >>> >>>> Trump destroys. I am afraid we are dealing with a dissipative >>> >>>> system, though. >>> >>> >>> >>> IDK. The allowance of unitary operators seems to be a restatement of >>> >>> orthogonality. In a world where no 2 variates/objects can be perfectly >>> >>> separated, there can be no unitary operators. (Or, perhaps every >>> >>> operator has an error term. f(x) → y ∪ ε) I haven't done the work. But >>> >>> it seems further that we can define logics without negation and logics >>> >>> without currying. Can we define logics with neither? What's the >>> >>> expressive power of such a persnickety thing? Is it that such a thing >>> >>> can't exist? Or merely that our language is incapable of talking about >>> >>> that thing with complete faith? Biden is clearly not not(Trump), at >>> >>> least if the object of interest is "too damned {old, white, male}". If >>> >>> that's the object, clearly Biden ≡ Trump and ∀x|x(Trump) = x(Biden) ∪ >>> >>> ε, where |ε| >> |x(Trump)-x(Biden)|. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ >>> >>> >>> >>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> >>> bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >> >>> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> >> bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> > bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> > archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
