Interesting. Targeting the assumption that there exist those of us who
understand Zen and those of us who don't, can a person who does not understand
Zen write a poem that *simulates* someone who does? I'd argue that if you *can*
fake it successfully, then the categories are more likely to exist. If you
cannot simulate it, then the categories are likely illusory. You need a
psychopath. 8^D They're the best simulators. How many Zen masters are/were
psychopaths?
On 1/30/23 13:02, Prof David West wrote:
This issue needs some further background. I arose from an ongoing discussion
with Jenny Quillien (FRIAM) and Richard Gabriel (not of FRIAM) with regard
aesthetics.
For Jenny, the immediate concern is with a subset of Zen Art (painting, poetry, ceramics, calligraphy) that
evokes," triggers, engenders an "Aha!" state of mind, or instills a sense of "Oneness."
Alternatively, it might be said that one encountering such a piece of art can say with certitude, "yes, that
creator gets it!"
A story to illustrate: When the Fifth Patriarch of Zen knew his death was
imminent, he bade his acolytes to express their understanding of Zen in the
form of a poem. Only the lead student did so, and he did it anonymously by
writing it on a wall at night. Hui Neng had some one read the poem to him, and
recognized that the author did not understand Zen at all and had another person
write a poem he dictated on the opposite wall. The Fifth Patriarch read the
poems on both wall and knew that Hui Neng was to be his successor.
A longstanding conversation with Richard (and Jenny) revolves around Christopher Alexander's notion
of QWAN—Quality Without A Name. In later work, Alexander used the term "liveness" as a
synonym/successor to QWAN. In both cases is is a quality or an attribute whose presence or absence
makes a building (any human built environment) "beautiful" or not.
Alexander asserts that QWAN (liveness) is universal and timeless. He did a lot
of experiments with oriental carpets to test his assertion. Richard repeated
Alexander's experiments and did other with photographs and artifacts. All of
these experiments, statistically, seemed to prove Alexander correct.
Statistically, because there are always curmudgeons who thing the Taj Mahal is
just a tomb.
An AI came into the discussion: 1) could you build/train an AI (ZenChatGPT) to write a poem,
ala Hui Neng, that appeared to embody a "true understanding of Zen?; 2) could you
build/train an AI to sort thru the Google image base and detect "Zen evocative art"
or buildings with QWAN/liveness?
davew
The two poems— which one was Hui Neng's?
The body is the wisdom-tree,
The mind is a bright mirror in a stand;
Take care to wipe it all the time,
And allow no dust to cling.
Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists,
Nor the stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is empty from the beginning,
Where can the dust alight
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023, at 11:46 AM, glen wrote:
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/
