I find Gabriel's poetry not poetry. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, May 16, 2022, 3:39 PM Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/15/22 10:42 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > If you are right then deep fakes, online or in meat space, will fail. > > > *you don't have to fool all of the people all of the time... * > > I find Gabriel's poetry rather deficient (not that I am an expert, so > perhaps it is mere taste) and Inkwell's even moreso, though in response to > this thread I read a number from his collection "100 Poems Imitating 100 > Translations" which are described as "responses" to 100 classic Japanese > poems which is a tradition in poetry (to write poem in response or homage > to another poem) and found them quite pleasing and insightful. It felt > that his poems were *inspired* by the originals, though without the > originals at-hand I'm not sure how much he was inspired and how much was in > fact "imitation" as advertised. If it was the latter then I suppose I'm > much more impressed with what the original did than what Gabriel did by > "imitating" the originals without breaking them. > > I am not sure that automatic * generation tools can do anything *but* > imitate and emulate, by their very construction? Gabriel's title invoking > "imitating" suggests to me that his Inkwell (at least) aspires to do no > more than imitate. It is a fun parlor trick to create an imitation that > "can pass" in polite company. The "creative process" is subjectively > something different from imitation or emulation. It is an entirely > different thing to have a uniquely awesome experience and to express it in > a mode that evokes something similar in another. > > Glen harps at us from time to time that "communication is an illusion" > (which he will likely demonstrate by correcting my understanding of > whatever he actually has said on the topic). To the extent this assertion > is true, then I am more sympathetic with the idea of deep-fakes, etc. > Maybe the only difference between an imitation and an inspiration has to do > with the level of abstraction of the language being used. Perhaps a poetry > generator that actually generates strings of complex abstractions which > perhaps also is constrained by poetic form, rhyme, alliteration, etc. IS > doing the same thing as a poet? > > I ingest natural language generators more like an Oracle than a source of > information much less wisdom or insight. > > > On May 15, 2022, at 9:32 AM, Prof David West <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Prof David West > *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2022 4:51 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> > 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/ > > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/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://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/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/
