While I appreciate Jochen's and SteveS' responses, they didn't cover a point I think might be useful. You point out the assumption of effability, which is interesting. But I think a more fragile assumption is that there *are* categories in humans/artifacts that are classifiable in the first place. I think we can safely leave aside that humans and the artifacts they respond to are different. But if others feel it makes a difference, I'm happy to lob some words at it.
On one extreme of a spectrum, let's say the left, we could place the situation that there is 1 type of human/artifact that trigger in this way (implying there are 2 types, those who do and those who don't). On the other end of the spectrum, let's say the right, there are as many classes/categories as there are humans/artifacts. I.e. any possible human/artifact might be triggered, depending on the circumstances. But no 2 people will trigger under the same circumstances. My claim is that AI/ML will *not* be useful in an open set from the middle to the right. The lower bound will move as we apply more complicated AI/ML. But at the limit, if everyone's in their own class, they're not really classes. But it may be useful for a region on the left. I think DaveW's also assuming that there *are* classes to find. Whether I buy that assumption or not is irrelevant. I think it needs to be defended. Why would we believe there are classes of human/art that would trigger this, rather than, say, a random event where the humans/artifacts are rationalized later as having been triggered and been the trigger? On 1/28/23 15:10, Prof David West wrote:
This is a serious question albeit one in a realm that many would dismiss as non-serious. First, some background. Rinzai Zen is the "sudden enlightenment" school that asserts the possibility of a single event serving as a 'trigger' that evokes/instills-in-the-mind a state of enlightenment. The trigger might be a closed fist of your guru striking your ear, or—as was the case with Hui Neng (illiterate peasant who became the Sixth Patriarch) overhearing a fragment of the Diamond Sutra spoken by a passerby of the fish market where he was working. This kind of "evocative trigger" is analogous to your nose detecting the scent of cinnamon as you walk past a bakery and your mind instantly filled with a complete memory of grandmother's kitchen, all the scents and sounds, and emotions, an activities, in complete detail. A 'Zen evocative trigger' would, by analogy, fill your mind with—put your mind in a state of—Enlightenment. This might be ephemeral, satori with a lower case 's', or permanent, Satori with an upper case 'S'. There is a large body of art (calligraphy, painting, poetry, ceramics, ...) that embodies exactly this kind of trigger; one that can be 'sensed' even if its sensing does not trigger (S)satori. So the question: is it possible to construct a self-learning AI with a training set of such art and, once trained, turn it loose on the Google image base to find other examples of art with evocative triggers? Of course, there is a hidden assertion: whatever the quality or characteristic of the art that embodies the 'trigger' is ineffable; which means, in this case, it has no "representation" (word, symbol, brush stroke, etc.).
-- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (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/
