subject:"RE\: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction"

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-21 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Sunday, July 21, 2013 8:25:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 20 July 2013 10:57, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, July 19, 2013 8:21:42 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 20 July 2013 06:59, Craig Weinberg  wrote: 
> >> 
> >> >> If a dog started talking in full English sentences without 
> >> >> manipulation by an outside force the explanation must be in the 
> >> >> physics of its body. I don't think this statement is either clever 
> or 
> >> >> controversial. And if the physics of the dog's body is computable 
> then 
> >> >> it should be possible to make an artificial dog controlled by a 
> >> >> computer that talks in full English sentences just like the real 
> dog. 
> >> >> I don't think that statement is either clever or controversial 
> either. 
> >> >> It can be seen to be true in the absence of any understanding of dog 
> >> >> physiology. 
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > Of course the sensory-motive capacities of anything are reflected in 
> >> > physics, but it is not necessarily transitive. Physics may not be 
> able 
> >> > replicate a particular being's sense or motive any more than the 
> >> > characters 
> >> > in a movie can change their own script. 
> >> 
> >> It's either the physics inside the movie or the physics outside the 
> >> movie if the universe is causally closed. 
> > 
> > 
> > The physics outside the movie is sensory-motive. The production of the 
> movie 
> > has voluntary intention (will) and involuntary unintention (cause). The 
> > movie strips out the former locally (through thermodynamic 
> irreversibility, 
> > loss of entropy), while perception (sense) reconstitutes it absolutely 
> > (significance, gain of solitrophy (entropy+signficance). There's yer 
> dark 
> > energy. 
>
> But it's all physics, and either the physics is computable or it 
> isn't.

Computation only exists on the public side of physics, or rather 
quantification is publication. The private side of physics can be 
computable or not, depending on our intention.

Here's something that I posted on today that relates (don't be thrown by 
the mystical shape, it's just a familiar way of laying it all out):

http://multisenserealism.com/2013/07/21/multisense-tree-of-life/

Notice the cyan and yellow paths at the bottom, and their relation to the 
RGB paths between sense and Qualia, Motive, and Quanta. The cyan path is a 
difference by degree between blue and green. Knowing blue and green, cyan 
can be predicted with a quantitative approach. On the opposite side, the 
yellow path illustrates that there must be an alternative to the 
quantitative approach, since yellow is not predictable from green and red. 
We know yellow as being halfway between green and red purely by experience, 
not from any possible formulation. Thus, the authenticity of the sense 
motivated by qualia is art rather than science, significance rather than 
entropy.

*Quanta:* Measure ‘stops time’ figuratively and creates entropy as space 
literally.
*Qualia:* Perception ‘elides (e-liminates) distance’ (joins ‘matters’ 
figuratively) and creates significance literally as time.

> If the brain is not computable then there are physical process 
> in it which are not computable. It may be the case; there is no a 
> priori reason to assume that physics is computable, and the notion of 
> non-computable functions is a legitimate one in mathematics. However, 
> there is nothing in human behaviour that gives any indication of the 
> computability of the physics in the brain. 

It's not about human behavior, it's about human feeling. Behavior is only 
known to us after it has been frozen quantitatively.  Feeling is prior to 
computation - although in our case, as an animal, it's confusing because 
our personal feeling is diffracted as sub-personal feelings as well. When 
we look at the activity of a brain, we see the computations after the fact 
of these sub-personal feelings.

There is nothing 
> conceptually or empirically in "sense" or "entropy" or the other terms 
> you use to indicate whether the physics underlying them is computable 
> or not. 
>

Physics is not part of computation, computation is part of physics, and 
physics is sense. Computation is automation of measurement. Measurement has 
a physical effect, which is to hide the measurer. This becomes an 
intractable problem when trying to measure the measurement directly.

See if you can find this interesting. 
http://24.media.tumblr.com/782ebd9e4402a824306e64ec89d95b43/tumblr_mqavewIDtQ1qeenqko1_500.jpg

Craig 

>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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.go

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 20 July 2013 10:57, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, July 19, 2013 8:21:42 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On 20 July 2013 06:59, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>> >> If a dog started talking in full English sentences without
>> >> manipulation by an outside force the explanation must be in the
>> >> physics of its body. I don't think this statement is either clever or
>> >> controversial. And if the physics of the dog's body is computable then
>> >> it should be possible to make an artificial dog controlled by a
>> >> computer that talks in full English sentences just like the real dog.
>> >> I don't think that statement is either clever or controversial either.
>> >> It can be seen to be true in the absence of any understanding of dog
>> >> physiology.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Of course the sensory-motive capacities of anything are reflected in
>> > physics, but it is not necessarily transitive. Physics may not be able
>> > replicate a particular being's sense or motive any more than the
>> > characters
>> > in a movie can change their own script.
>>
>> It's either the physics inside the movie or the physics outside the
>> movie if the universe is causally closed.
>
>
> The physics outside the movie is sensory-motive. The production of the movie
> has voluntary intention (will) and involuntary unintention (cause). The
> movie strips out the former locally (through thermodynamic irreversibility,
> loss of entropy), while perception (sense) reconstitutes it absolutely
> (significance, gain of solitrophy (entropy+signficance). There's yer dark
> energy.

But it's all physics, and either the physics is computable or it
isn't. If the brain is not computable then there are physical process
in it which are not computable. It may be the case; there is no a
priori reason to assume that physics is computable, and the notion of
non-computable functions is a legitimate one in mathematics. However,
there is nothing in human behaviour that gives any indication of the
computability of the physics in the brain. There is nothing
conceptually or empirically in "sense" or "entropy" or the other terms
you use to indicate whether the physics underlying them is computable
or not.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-19 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, July 19, 2013 8:21:42 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 20 July 2013 06:59, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote: 
>
> >> If a dog started talking in full English sentences without 
> >> manipulation by an outside force the explanation must be in the 
> >> physics of its body. I don't think this statement is either clever or 
> >> controversial. And if the physics of the dog's body is computable then 
> >> it should be possible to make an artificial dog controlled by a 
> >> computer that talks in full English sentences just like the real dog. 
> >> I don't think that statement is either clever or controversial either. 
> >> It can be seen to be true in the absence of any understanding of dog 
> >> physiology. 
> >> 
> > 
> > Of course the sensory-motive capacities of anything are reflected in 
> > physics, but it is not necessarily transitive. Physics may not be able 
> > replicate a particular being's sense or motive any more than the 
> characters 
> > in a movie can change their own script. 
>
> It's either the physics inside the movie or the physics outside the 
> movie if the universe is causally closed. 
>

The physics outside the movie is sensory-motive. The production of the 
movie has voluntary intention (will) and involuntary unintention (cause). 
The movie strips out the former locally (through thermodynamic 
irreversibility, loss of entropy), while perception (sense) reconstitutes 
it absolutely (significance, gain of solitrophy (entropy+signficance). 
There's yer dark energy.

Craig
 

>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-19 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 20 July 2013 06:59, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>> If a dog started talking in full English sentences without
>> manipulation by an outside force the explanation must be in the
>> physics of its body. I don't think this statement is either clever or
>> controversial. And if the physics of the dog's body is computable then
>> it should be possible to make an artificial dog controlled by a
>> computer that talks in full English sentences just like the real dog.
>> I don't think that statement is either clever or controversial either.
>> It can be seen to be true in the absence of any understanding of dog
>> physiology.
>>
>
> Of course the sensory-motive capacities of anything are reflected in
> physics, but it is not necessarily transitive. Physics may not be able
> replicate a particular being's sense or motive any more than the characters
> in a movie can change their own script.

It's either the physics inside the movie or the physics outside the
movie if the universe is causally closed.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-19 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:00:44 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 18 July 2013 23:20, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote: 
>
> >> I did use the term "rational" perhaps inappropriately. I meant that 
> >> some aesthetic choices have evolutionary utility and others not. 
> >> Nevertheless, all aesthetic choices must be determined by the physics 
> >> of our brain, unless they are determined by something else, such as an 
> >> immaterial soul. 
> >> 
> > 
> > If aesthetic choices were determined by physics of our brain then pure 
> sugar 
> > would look magical and gold would look like dirt. Aesthetics are not 
> > determined. Or they would both look like mosaics of neurochemical bonds. 
> I 
> > say 'look', but of course if aesthetics were driven by physics alone, 
> > nothing could 'look' like anything, no more than the positions of the 
> beads 
> > of an abacus can smell like something. 
> > 
> > The universe is an aesthetic agenda. Existence is that which seeks to 
> feel 
> > better, be more. Biology speeds it up in a microcosmic recapitulation is 
> > all, and human beings represent an even more radical experiment in what 
> I 
> > call solitrophy. 
>
> Craig, 
>
> If a dog started talking in full English sentences without 
> manipulation by an outside force the explanation must be in the 
> physics of its body. I don't think this statement is either clever or 
> controversial. And if the physics of the dog's body is computable then 
> it should be possible to make an artificial dog controlled by a 
> computer that talks in full English sentences just like the real dog. 
> I don't think that statement is either clever or controversial either. 
> It can be seen to be true in the absence of any understanding of dog 
> physiology. 
>
>  
Of course the sensory-motive capacities of anything are reflected in 
physics, but it is not necessarily transitive. Physics may not be able 
replicate a particular being's sense or motive any more than the characters 
in a movie can change their own script.

Thanks,
Craig

> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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.

RE: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread chris peck

>> That exist an  association does not means that this is a mathematical 
>> topological isomorphism in the brain of the humans shaped by genes between 
>> the space of shapes and the space of sounds in the form of fourier 
>> derivates. Right? 

I don't know mate, you tell me.

>> o statistically, acute sounds in phonetic alphabets is expected to b 
>> associated with more jagged letters and viceversa. it does not go beyond 
>> that.

right. Maybe the designers were just having an off day when it came to 'c'. 

'T' definitely looks like a tree so I'm sure your onto something. :) 

From: agocor...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 02:25:26 +0200
Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

That exist an  association does not means that this is a mathematical 
topological isomorphism in the brain of the humans shaped by genes between the 
space of shapes and the space of sounds in the form of fourier derivates. 
Right? Things are not that way.  An association is an association, so 
statistically, acute sounds in phonetic alphabets is expected to b associated 
with more jagged letters and viceversa. it does not go beyond that.

 (alphabets are phonetic, most of them, scripting systems have not to be 
alphabetic nor phonetic, can be ideographic, like chiness in which case it is 
meaningless to associate  )



2013/7/19 chris peck 





Hi Alberto

But alphabets are not phonemic are they? And some alphabets are curvy (Thai) 
where as others are very angular (Chinese)

Even in Latin based alphabets there are going to be difficulties with your view 
I think. 



The 'c' in 'circle' is essy and soft.

But the 'c' in 'cut' is sharp and 'angular'.

Same 'curvy' letter though.

From: agocor...@gmail.com


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:31:51 +0200
Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com



If the alphabet is phonethic , I guess so, because the inventors of the 
alphabets also had these innate associations.  



2013/7/19 chris peck 











Hi Alberto



I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non Latin 
based alphabets?




--- Original Message ---



From: "Alberto G. Corona" 

Sent: 19 July 2013 2:03 AM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction






the asimilation sound-shape applies also to the letters:  the letters K and I 
of KIKI have a lot of peaks, while B O U and A of BOUBA have more rounded 
edges. the forms with Sharp edges are more aggressive, and this is know in 
design. For example the rounded
 edges of the Apple products, that is also in their window system is less 
intimidating than the squared forms of the Windows and Unix systems.
 
It may be said that this is synesthesia is not something arbitrary but an 
evolutionary adaptation and thus universal. A form with sharp edges can be more 
dangerous, so the eye detect it fast. While a acute or metallic sound with 
higher frequency components
 is produced by rigid objects with open ends, while the opposite happens with 
low frequency components of bouba are produced by objects less rigid or with 
non sharp edges.  The association is natural.
 
 
For this reason there are a lot of K, X T, Z sounds in contraculture and  young 
revolutionary movements. and also in marketing.





2013/7/15 Craig Weinberg 



>From a worthwhile 
thread on Quora.

"Below are two shapes. One of them is called Kiki and the other is called Bouba.





(image 
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bouba.png)



Almost all respondents when asked say that the jagged one is kiki and the 
rounded one is bouba. This can be observed across cultures. This is an innate 
ability of our brain by which one mode of sensation can cross over into 
another."







Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the 
connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?



-- 

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.

 

 








-- 

Alberto. 



-- 

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.c

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread Alberto G. Corona

That exist an  association does not means that this is a mathematical
topological isomorphism in the brain of the humans shaped by genes between
the space of shapes and the space of sounds in the form of fourier
derivates. Right? Things are not that way.  An association is an
association, so statistically, acute sounds in phonetic alphabets is
expected to b associated with more jagged letters and viceversa. it does
not go beyond that.

(alphabets are phonetic, most of them, scripting systems have not to be
alphabetic nor phonetic, can be ideographic, like chiness in which case it
is meaningless to associate  )


2013/7/19 chris peck 

> Hi Alberto
>
> But alphabets are not phonemic are they? And some alphabets are curvy
> (Thai) where as others are very angular (Chinese)
>
> Even in Latin based alphabets there are going to be difficulties with your
> view I think.
>
> The 'c' in 'circle' is essy and soft.
>
> But the 'c' in 'cut' is sharp and 'angular'.
>
> Same 'curvy' letter though.
>
> --------------
> From: agocor...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:31:51 +0200
>
> Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
>
> If the alphabet is phonethic , I guess so, because the inventors of the
> alphabets also had these innate associations.
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/19 chris peck 
>
>  Hi Alberto
>
> I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non
> Latin based alphabets?
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: "Alberto G. Corona" 
> Sent: 19 July 2013 2:03 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
>
>   the asimilation sound-shape applies also to the letters:  the letters K
> and I of KIKI have a lot of peaks, while B O U and A of BOUBA have more
> rounded edges. the forms with Sharp edges are more aggressive, and this is
> know in design. For example the rounded edges of the Apple products, that
> is also in their window system is less intimidating than the squared forms
> of the Windows and Unix systems.
>
> It may be said that this is synesthesia is not something arbitrary but an
> evolutionary adaptation and thus universal. A form with sharp edges can be
> more dangerous, so the eye detect it fast. While a acute or metallic sound
> with higher frequency components is produced by rigid objects with open
> ends, while the opposite happens with low frequency components of bouba are
> produced by objects less rigid or with non sharp edges.  The association is
> natural.
>
>
> For this reason there are a lot of K, X T, Z sounds in contraculture
> and  young revolutionary movements. and also in marketing.
>
>
> 2013/7/15 Craig Weinberg 
>
>  From a worthwhile thread on 
> Quora<http://www.quora.com/Psychology/What-are-the-most-awesome-psychological-facts-that-you-know-of>
> .
> "Below are two shapes. One of them is called Kiki and the other is called
> Bouba.
>
>
> (image http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bouba.png)
>
> Almost all respondents when asked say that the jagged one is kiki and the
> rounded one is bouba. This can be observed across cultures. This is an
> innate ability of our brain by which one mode of sensation can cross over
> into another."
>
> Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the
> connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> 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

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 18 July 2013 23:20, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>> I did use the term "rational" perhaps inappropriately. I meant that
>> some aesthetic choices have evolutionary utility and others not.
>> Nevertheless, all aesthetic choices must be determined by the physics
>> of our brain, unless they are determined by something else, such as an
>> immaterial soul.
>>
>
> If aesthetic choices were determined by physics of our brain then pure sugar
> would look magical and gold would look like dirt. Aesthetics are not
> determined. Or they would both look like mosaics of neurochemical bonds. I
> say 'look', but of course if aesthetics were driven by physics alone,
> nothing could 'look' like anything, no more than the positions of the beads
> of an abacus can smell like something.
>
> The universe is an aesthetic agenda. Existence is that which seeks to feel
> better, be more. Biology speeds it up in a microcosmic recapitulation is
> all, and human beings represent an even more radical experiment in what I
> call solitrophy.

Craig,

If a dog started talking in full English sentences without
manipulation by an outside force the explanation must be in the
physics of its body. I don't think this statement is either clever or
controversial. And if the physics of the dog's body is computable then
it should be possible to make an artificial dog controlled by a
computer that talks in full English sentences just like the real dog.
I don't think that statement is either clever or controversial either.
It can be seen to be true in the absence of any understanding of dog
physiology.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread meekerdb


On 7/18/2013 4:42 PM, chris peck wrote:

Hi Alberto

But alphabets are not phonemic are they? And some alphabets are curvy (Thai) where as 
others are very angular (Chinese)


Even in Latin based alphabets there are going to be difficulties with your view 
I think.

The 'c' in 'circle' is essy and soft.

But the 'c' in 'cut' is sharp and 'angular'.

Same 'curvy' letter though.


And coins which are round are spelled with a rounded "c" instead of a spiky "k".  But 
there are obviously going to be cultural accidents in these associations. That's why 
anthropologists use made up words like "kiki" and "bouba".


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-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.

RE: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread chris peck

Hi Alberto

But alphabets are not phonemic are they? And some alphabets are curvy (Thai) 
where as others are very angular (Chinese)

Even in Latin based alphabets there are going to be difficulties with your view 
I think. 

The 'c' in 'circle' is essy and soft.

But the 'c' in 'cut' is sharp and 'angular'.

Same 'curvy' letter though.

From: agocor...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:31:51 +0200
Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

If the alphabet is phonethic , I guess so, because the inventors of the 
alphabets also had these innate associations.  



2013/7/19 chris peck 









Hi Alberto



I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non Latin 
based alphabets?




--- Original Message ---



From: "Alberto G. Corona" 

Sent: 19 July 2013 2:03 AM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction






the asimilation sound-shape applies also to the letters:  the letters K and I 
of KIKI have a lot of peaks, while B O U and A of BOUBA have more rounded 
edges. the forms with Sharp edges are more aggressive, and this is know in 
design. For example the rounded
 edges of the Apple products, that is also in their window system is less 
intimidating than the squared forms of the Windows and Unix systems.
 
It may be said that this is synesthesia is not something arbitrary but an 
evolutionary adaptation and thus universal. A form with sharp edges can be more 
dangerous, so the eye detect it fast. While a acute or metallic sound with 
higher frequency components
 is produced by rigid objects with open ends, while the opposite happens with 
low frequency components of bouba are produced by objects less rigid or with 
non sharp edges.  The association is natural.
 
 
For this reason there are a lot of K, X T, Z sounds in contraculture and  young 
revolutionary movements. and also in marketing.





2013/7/15 Craig Weinberg 



>From a worthwhile 
thread on Quora.

"Below are two shapes. One of them is called Kiki and the other is called Bouba.





(image 
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bouba.png)



Almost all respondents when asked say that the jagged one is kiki and the 
rounded one is bouba. This can be observed across cultures. This is an innate 
ability of our brain by which one mode of sensation can cross over into 
another."





Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the 
connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?



-- 

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.

 

 








-- 

Alberto. 



-- 

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.

 

 



-- 
Alberto.





-- 

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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread Alberto G. Corona

If the alphabet is phonethic , I guess so, because the inventors of the
alphabets also had these innate associations.




2013/7/19 chris peck 

>  Hi Alberto
>
> I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non
> Latin based alphabets?
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: "Alberto G. Corona" 
> Sent: 19 July 2013 2:03 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
>
>   the asimilation sound-shape applies also to the letters:  the letters K
> and I of KIKI have a lot of peaks, while B O U and A of BOUBA have more
> rounded edges. the forms with Sharp edges are more aggressive, and this is
> know in design. For example the rounded edges of the Apple products, that
> is also in their window system is less intimidating than the squared forms
> of the Windows and Unix systems.
>
> It may be said that this is synesthesia is not something arbitrary but an
> evolutionary adaptation and thus universal. A form with sharp edges can be
> more dangerous, so the eye detect it fast. While a acute or metallic sound
> with higher frequency components is produced by rigid objects with open
> ends, while the opposite happens with low frequency components of bouba are
> produced by objects less rigid or with non sharp edges.  The association is
> natural.
>
>
> For this reason there are a lot of K, X T, Z sounds in contraculture
> and  young revolutionary movements. and also in marketing.
>
>
> 2013/7/15 Craig Weinberg 
>
>  From a worthwhile thread on 
> Quora<http://www.quora.com/Psychology/What-are-the-most-awesome-psychological-facts-that-you-know-of>
> .
>
> "Below are two shapes. One of them is called Kiki and the other is called
> Bouba.
>
> (image http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bouba.png)
>  Almost all respondents when asked say that the jagged one is kiki and the
> rounded one is bouba. This can be observed across cultures. This is an
> innate ability of our brain by which one mode of sensation can cross over
> into another."
>
> Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the
> connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread chris peck

Hi Alberto

I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non Latin 
based alphabets?

--- Original Message ---

From: "Alberto G. Corona" 
Sent: 19 July 2013 2:03 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

the asimilation sound-shape applies also to the letters:  the letters K and
I of KIKI have a lot of peaks, while B O U and A of BOUBA have more rounded
edges. the forms with Sharp edges are more aggressive, and this is know in
design. For example the rounded edges of the Apple products, that is also
in their window system is less intimidating than the squared forms of the
Windows and Unix systems.

It may be said that this is synesthesia is not something arbitrary but an
evolutionary adaptation and thus universal. A form with sharp edges can be
more dangerous, so the eye detect it fast. While a acute or metallic sound
with higher frequency components is produced by rigid objects with open
ends, while the opposite happens with low frequency components of bouba are
produced by objects less rigid or with non sharp edges.  The association is
natural.

For this reason there are a lot of K, X T, Z sounds in contraculture
and  young revolutionary movements. and also in marketing.

2013/7/15 Craig Weinberg 

>  From a worthwhile thread on 
> Quora<http://www.quora.com/Psychology/What-are-the-most-awesome-psychological-facts-that-you-know-of>
> .
>
> "Below are two shapes. One of them is called Kiki and the other is called
> Bouba.
>
> (image http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bouba.png)
>  Almost all respondents when asked say that the jagged one is kiki and the
> rounded one is bouba. This can be observed across cultures. This is an
> innate ability of our brain by which one mode of sensation can cross over
> into another."
>
> Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the
> connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>

--
Alberto.

--
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread Alberto G. Corona

the asimilation sound-shape applies also to the letters:  the letters K and
I of KIKI have a lot of peaks, while B O U and A of BOUBA have more rounded
edges. the forms with Sharp edges are more aggressive, and this is know in
design. For example the rounded edges of the Apple products, that is also
in their window system is less intimidating than the squared forms of the
Windows and Unix systems.

It may be said that this is synesthesia is not something arbitrary but an
evolutionary adaptation and thus universal. A form with sharp edges can be
more dangerous, so the eye detect it fast. While a acute or metallic sound
with higher frequency components is produced by rigid objects with open
ends, while the opposite happens with low frequency components of bouba are
produced by objects less rigid or with non sharp edges.  The association is
natural.


For this reason there are a lot of K, X T, Z sounds in contraculture
and  young revolutionary movements. and also in marketing.


2013/7/15 Craig Weinberg 

>  From a worthwhile thread on 
> Quora
> .
>
> "Below are two shapes. One of them is called Kiki and the other is called
> Bouba.
>
> (image http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bouba.png)
>  Almost all respondents when asked say that the jagged one is kiki and the
> rounded one is bouba. This can be observed across cultures. This is an
> innate ability of our brain by which one mode of sensation can cross over
> into another."
>
> Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the
> connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 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  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 inventi

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:13:59 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 18 July 2013 14:34, meekerdb > 
> wrote: 
> > On 7/17/2013 8:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 
> > 
> > On 17 July 2013 05:37, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"? 
> > 
> > I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between 
> the 
> > phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating 
> > either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some 
> > arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there 
> > exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations 
> > which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A 
> computer 
> > can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound of 
> bouba, 
> > but a person can. 
> > 
> > There's nothing inherently "curvy" about bouba. It's just an 
> > accidental of our programming. Intelligent aliens may have completely 
> > different aesthetics, although there may be commonalities if it could 
> > be shown that thinking a particular way has survival value. For 
> > example, there is a correlation between symmetry and beauty because 
> > (it is speculated) asymmetry is associated with disease, and your 
> > genes won't do as well if you choose a diseased mate. But other 
> > aesthetic preferences probably have no rational basis. 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "rational" or what Craig means by 
> "arbitrary". 
> > I think "kiki" is sharp and abrupt and "bouba" is smooth and cruvy 
> because 
> > of the way we have to move our mouths to make those sounds.  This is an 
> > accident of evolution.  Whales, for example would make the sounds 
> > differently and this might create a different sound/shape correlation 
> for 
> > them.  Does that mean that the human correlation is not rational or is 
> > arbitrary?  It seems to me it is empirical. 
>
> I did use the term "rational" perhaps inappropriately. I meant that 
> some aesthetic choices have evolutionary utility and others not. 
> Nevertheless, all aesthetic choices must be determined by the physics 
> of our brain, unless they are determined by something else, such as an 
> immaterial soul. 
>
>
If aesthetic choices were determined by physics of our brain then pure 
sugar would look magical and gold would look like dirt. Aesthetics are not 
determined. Or they would both look like mosaics of neurochemical bonds. I 
say 'look', but of course if aesthetics were driven by physics alone, 
nothing could 'look' like anything, no more than the positions of the beads 
of an abacus can smell like something.

The universe is an aesthetic agenda. Existence is that which seeks to feel 
better, be more. Biology speeds it up in a microcosmic recapitulation is 
all, and human beings represent an even more radical experiment in what I 
call solitrophy.

Craig
 

>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:27:14 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 7/17/2013 10:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>  
> On 18 July 2013 14:34, meekerdb   wrote:
>
>  On 7/17/2013 8:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On 17 July 2013 05:37, Craig Weinberg   
> wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?
>
> I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between the
> phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating
> either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some
> arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there
> exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations
> which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A computer
> can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound of bouba,
> but a person can.
>
> There's nothing inherently "curvy" about bouba. It's just an
> accidental of our programming. Intelligent aliens may have completely
> different aesthetics, although there may be commonalities if it could
> be shown that thinking a particular way has survival value. For
> example, there is a correlation between symmetry and beauty because
> (it is speculated) asymmetry is associated with disease, and your
> genes won't do as well if you choose a diseased mate. But other
> aesthetic preferences probably have no rational basis.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "rational" or what Craig means by "arbitrary".
> I think "kiki" is sharp and abrupt and "bouba" is smooth and cruvy because
> of the way we have to move our mouths to make those sounds.  This is an
> accident of evolution.  Whales, for example would make the sounds
> differently and this might create a different sound/shape correlation for
> them.  Does that mean that the human correlation is not rational or is
> arbitrary?  It seems to me it is empirical.
>
>  I did use the term "rational" perhaps inappropriately. I meant that
> some aesthetic choices have evolutionary utility and others not.
> Nevertheless, all aesthetic choices must be determined by the physics
> of our brain, unless they are determined by something else, such as an
> immaterial soul.
>
>  
> Exactly so.  But that's what Craig is trying to deny.  By saying the 
> correlation is arbitrary, he thinks that implies that it could only be 
> physically realized by a god or some agent inserting it "by hand" and so a 
> computer could only have it by a human programmer inserting it and that 
> would be "arbitrary".  
>

Not at all. I am saying that the correlation is aesthetic-experiential. It 
is grounded in a unity of sense which cuts across the multiplicity of  
sense modalities. Computation follows this unity, not leads it. This is my 
assertion that I challenge you to dispute rationally. I have never believed 
in a god or agent inserting anything by hand. That just shows me that you 
are not even seeing the first premises of my view. You argue with a straw 
cartoon.

I'll link you to my new diagram as well, which ideally would be 
three-dimensional, but it shows the proper place of computation in the 
universe:

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

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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:34:19 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 7/17/2013 8:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>  
> On 17 July 2013 05:37, Craig Weinberg   
> wrote:
>
>  On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?
>
>  I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between the
> phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating
> either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some
> arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there
> exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations
> which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A computer
> can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound of bouba,
> but a person can.
>
>  There's nothing inherently "curvy" about bouba. It's just an
> accidental of our programming. Intelligent aliens may have completely
> different aesthetics, although there may be commonalities if it could
> be shown that thinking a particular way has survival value. For
> example, there is a correlation between symmetry and beauty because
> (it is speculated) asymmetry is associated with disease, and your
> genes won't do as well if you choose a diseased mate. But other
> aesthetic preferences probably have no rational basis.
>
>  
> I'm not sure what you mean by "rational" or what Craig means by 
> "arbitrary".  I think "kiki" is sharp and abrupt and "bouba" is smooth and 
> cruvy because of the way we have to move our mouths to make those 
> sounds.  This is an accident of evolution.  Whales, for example would make 
> the sounds differently and this might create a different sound/shape 
> correlation for them.  Does that mean that the human correlation is not 
> rational or is arbitrary?  It seems to me it is empirical.
>

Your correlation between the roundness of 'ou' vs 'i' is not bad at all. I 
was considering that you might be right on that for some time. There are 
other words which support that hypothesis. Boobs come to mind. I think that 
this kind of onomotopoeic relation is legitimate part of the answer - 
however, it is not the whole solution. The B sound and the K sound have the 
same soft and hard association but the way the mouth moves does not suggest 
that visually - it feels that way when you say it though. B feels softer 
than K. This goes back to the original point. Aesthetics of first person 
experience drive the computation, not the other way around. A computer, 
knowing nothing about what it is like to say "B" (it uses a screen or a 
speaker, not vocal chords and lips) has no way to map B to softness. 

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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 6:04:46 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 7/16/2013 2:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:44:20 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 7/16/2013 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:18:09 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>  On 7/16/2013 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?  

>>>
>>> I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between 
>>> the phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating 
>>> either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some 
>>> arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there 
>>> exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations 
>>> which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A 
>>> computer can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound 
>>> of bouba, but a person can.
>>>  
>>>
>>> Sez you.  I think you're just suffering from a failure of imagination.
>>>  
>>
>> You say failure of imagination, I say success avoiding the pathetic 
>> fallacy.
>>  
>>
>> And success in stroking your ego that wants humans to be special.
>>  
>
> Humans are special to humans. Something that cannot be said of machines.
>
> Consider this. If I were to try to invent the polar opposite of God, what 
> would it be?
>
> God = Anthropomorphic, intentional, conscious, aesthetic, moralizing, 
> miraculous.
>
> Computation = Mechanemorphic, unintentional, unconscious, anesthetic, 
> amoral, prosaic.
>
> Wouldn't you say that the symmetry is remarkable? 
>
>
> I don't see anything remarkable about you making up a lot of negative 
> assertions about computation for which you don't even have an argument, 
> much less a proof. Nor about you sticking together a bunch of human 
> attributes and tagging the conglomerate "God".  Theologians have been doing 
> that for millenia.
>

You make my point. You see what you want to see Brent. I could show you 
apples and oranges and you would say that I have no proof they are 
different...just a bunch of fruity opinions.

>
>  In both cases, there is an originator whose origin is unquestioned. 
>
>
> Sez who?
>

Who says otherwise? It doesn't seem like a controversial point to me. Bruno 
gives Arithmetic Truth as the unquestioned originator. Do you claim 
something less Godlike?

>
>  The difference is that the former is like us, only superlative in every 
> qualitative measure, 
>
>
> Like us?  Does God like sex, beer and rock&roll?  Did God eliminate 
> smallpox?  polio?  
>

Depends which God. Dionysus likes those things. My point was not to present 
yet another opportunity for defenders of mechanistic supremacy to beat 
their chest about the near-infallibility of their near-Anti-God, but to 
point out the innocuous observation that mythology generates stories which 
feature super-men and super-women, and that we call those figures "Gods". 
It is my contention that monotheism takes this figurative exaggeration one 
step higher, to the Absolute. A *Capo di tutti capi *through which the 
dreams and sufferings of all kinds of people can be augmented and soothed 
in one fell swoop. This was Bronze Age technology. It revolutionized the 
cultures which adopted it with spectacular success, turning backwater 
pastoralists into fighting, looting, reproducing machines. Religion 
weaponized civilization, and invented the monastic discipline which 
eventually gave birth to our particular flavor of science. So yes - God did 
eliminate smallpox and polio.

>  while the latter is like inanimate objects, utterly devoid of all 
> qualitative measure. What is it that God super-signifies and computation 
> de-signifies? 
>
> Like you, I see that anthropomorphism is a psychological defense 
> mechanism, but unlike you I see that the simple reaction against it is not 
> necessarily the antidote (like throwing liquid nitrogen on a burn is not an 
> improvement).
>
> The Anti-god of Mechanism substitutes the opposite kind of vanity - the 
> arrogance of false humility. To witness all things as a pure vessel of 
> skeptical clarity, capable of self-compensating for all flawed perceptions 
> and cognitive bias. Self-importance merely pivots to self-insignficance as 
> the ego then identifies with the o

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-18 Thread Craig Weinberg

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 
> 
> > 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  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.

>
> 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.

>  
>
>> 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/

>  
>
>> 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.

> 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 bey

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-17 Thread meekerdb


On 7/17/2013 10:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 18 July 2013 14:34, meekerdb  wrote:

On 7/17/2013 8:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 17 July 2013 05:37, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?

I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between the
phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating
either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some
arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there
exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations
which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A computer
can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound of bouba,
but a person can.

There's nothing inherently "curvy" about bouba. It's just an
accidental of our programming. Intelligent aliens may have completely
different aesthetics, although there may be commonalities if it could
be shown that thinking a particular way has survival value. For
example, there is a correlation between symmetry and beauty because
(it is speculated) asymmetry is associated with disease, and your
genes won't do as well if you choose a diseased mate. But other
aesthetic preferences probably have no rational basis.


I'm not sure what you mean by "rational" or what Craig means by "arbitrary".
I think "kiki" is sharp and abrupt and "bouba" is smooth and cruvy because
of the way we have to move our mouths to make those sounds.  This is an
accident of evolution.  Whales, for example would make the sounds
differently and this might create a different sound/shape correlation for
them.  Does that mean that the human correlation is not rational or is
arbitrary?  It seems to me it is empirical.

I did use the term "rational" perhaps inappropriately. I meant that
some aesthetic choices have evolutionary utility and others not.
Nevertheless, all aesthetic choices must be determined by the physics
of our brain, unless they are determined by something else, such as an
immaterial soul.


Exactly so.  But that's what Craig is trying to deny.  By saying the correlation is 
arbitrary, he thinks that implies that it could only be physically realized by a god or 
some agent inserting it "by hand" and so a computer could only have it by a human 
programmer inserting it and that would be "arbitrary".


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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-17 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 18 July 2013 14:34, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 7/17/2013 8:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On 17 July 2013 05:37, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?
>
> I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between the
> phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating
> either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some
> arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there
> exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations
> which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A computer
> can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound of bouba,
> but a person can.
>
> There's nothing inherently "curvy" about bouba. It's just an
> accidental of our programming. Intelligent aliens may have completely
> different aesthetics, although there may be commonalities if it could
> be shown that thinking a particular way has survival value. For
> example, there is a correlation between symmetry and beauty because
> (it is speculated) asymmetry is associated with disease, and your
> genes won't do as well if you choose a diseased mate. But other
> aesthetic preferences probably have no rational basis.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "rational" or what Craig means by "arbitrary".
> I think "kiki" is sharp and abrupt and "bouba" is smooth and cruvy because
> of the way we have to move our mouths to make those sounds.  This is an
> accident of evolution.  Whales, for example would make the sounds
> differently and this might create a different sound/shape correlation for
> them.  Does that mean that the human correlation is not rational or is
> arbitrary?  It seems to me it is empirical.

I did use the term "rational" perhaps inappropriately. I meant that
some aesthetic choices have evolutionary utility and others not.
Nevertheless, all aesthetic choices must be determined by the physics
of our brain, unless they are determined by something else, such as an
immaterial soul.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-17 Thread meekerdb


On 7/17/2013 8:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 17 July 2013 05:37, Craig Weinberg  wrote:


On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?


I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between the
phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating
either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some
arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there
exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations
which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A computer
can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound of bouba,
but a person can.

There's nothing inherently "curvy" about bouba. It's just an
accidental of our programming. Intelligent aliens may have completely
different aesthetics, although there may be commonalities if it could
be shown that thinking a particular way has survival value. For
example, there is a correlation between symmetry and beauty because
(it is speculated) asymmetry is associated with disease, and your
genes won't do as well if you choose a diseased mate. But other
aesthetic preferences probably have no rational basis.


I'm not sure what you mean by "rational" or what Craig means by "arbitrary".  I think 
"kiki" is sharp and abrupt and "bouba" is smooth and cruvy because of the way we have to 
move our mouths to make those sounds.  This is an accident of evolution.  Whales, for 
example would make the sounds differently and this might create a different sound/shape 
correlation for them.  Does that mean that the human correlation is not rational or is 
arbitrary?  It seems to me it is empirical.


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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-17 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 17 July 2013 05:37, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?
>
>
> I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between the
> phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating
> either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some
> arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there
> exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations
> which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A computer
> can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound of bouba,
> but a person can.

There's nothing inherently "curvy" about bouba. It's just an
accidental of our programming. Intelligent aliens may have completely
different aesthetics, although there may be commonalities if it could
be shown that thinking a particular way has survival value. For
example, there is a correlation between symmetry and beauty because
(it is speculated) asymmetry is associated with disease, and your
genes won't do as well if you choose a diseased mate. But other
aesthetic preferences probably have no rational basis.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:18:52 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb  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.
>> > 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
>>
>> Yup, I see this as further evidence that the brains is a kludge --
>> btw, this is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict.
>> Computational structures get reused through some path of least
>> resistance. I imagine some abstract pattern matching algorithm that is
>> shared by both the auditive and visual channels.
>
>
> It's not an abstract pattern matching algorithm, it is a concrete aesthetic
> affinity. There are quantitative algorithms which can be derived a
> posteriori, but they are skeletal and meaningless without the capacity to
> appreciate the sensations which they correspond to.

But they are quite clearly there. So, under your theory, why is that the case?

> A machine or a
> computation has no capacity to appreciate the difference between soft and
> hard, pointed and curved, it can only measure the degree to which some
> pre-defined criteria of those conditions is satisfied. That is not at all
> the same thing.
>
> Craig
>
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >> 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-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.
>> > 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.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread meekerdb


On 7/16/2013 2:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:44:20 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 7/16/2013 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:18:09 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 7/16/2013 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?


I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between 
the
phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating 
either
of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some 
arbitrary link
being provided programmatically. This suggests that there exists within 
human
experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations which are synthetic 
a
priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A computer can't tell that 
there
is anything inherently curvy about the sound of bouba, but a person can.


Sez you.  I think you're just suffering from a failure of imagination.


You say failure of imagination, I say success avoiding the pathetic fallacy.


And success in stroking your ego that wants humans to be special.


Humans are special to humans. Something that cannot be said of machines.

Consider this. If I were to try to invent the polar opposite of God, what would 
it be?

God = Anthropomorphic, intentional, conscious, aesthetic, moralizing, 
miraculous.

Computation = Mechanemorphic, unintentional, unconscious, anesthetic, amoral, 
prosaic.

Wouldn't you say that the symmetry is remarkable?


I don't see anything remarkable about you making up a lot of negative assertions about 
computation for which you don't even have an argument, much less a proof. Nor about you 
sticking together a bunch of human attributes and tagging the conglomerate "God". 
Theologians have been doing that for millenia.



In both cases, there is an originator whose origin is unquestioned.


Sez who?

The difference is that the former is like us, only superlative in every qualitative 
measure,


Like us?  Does God like sex, beer and rock&roll?  Did God eliminate smallpox?  
polio?

while the latter is like inanimate objects, utterly devoid of all qualitative measure. 
What is it that God super-signifies and computation de-signifies?


Like you, I see that anthropomorphism is a psychological defense mechanism, but unlike 
you I see that the simple reaction against it is not necessarily the antidote (like 
throwing liquid nitrogen on a burn is not an improvement).


The Anti-god of Mechanism substitutes the opposite kind of vanity - the arrogance of 
false humility. To witness all things as a pure vessel of skeptical clarity, capable of 
self-compensating for all flawed perceptions and cognitive bias. Self-importance merely 
pivots to self-insignficance as the ego then identifies with the objectifier of the self 
rather than the self directly. It's a psychological compensation strategy, one which I 
think would bear out neuroscientifically.


??

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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Craig Weinberg 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  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.

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.

> 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.

> 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, 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.

All the above comparisons can be seen to require "just" number relations,
where "just" is irreducibly huge.

> 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.

> 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".

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.

May your duck find gold in those waters. 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
>>> .
>>> 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 r

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:44:20 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 7/16/2013 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:18:09 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 7/16/2013 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?  
>>>  
>>
>> I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between 
>> the phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating 
>> either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some 
>> arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there 
>> exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations 
>> which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A 
>> computer can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound 
>> of bouba, but a person can.
>>  
>>
>> Sez you.  I think you're just suffering from a failure of imagination.
>>  
>
> You say failure of imagination, I say success avoiding the pathetic 
> fallacy.
>  
>
> And success in stroking your ego that wants humans to be special.
>

Humans are special to humans. Something that cannot be said of machines.

Consider this. If I were to try to invent the polar opposite of God, what 
would it be?

God = Anthropomorphic, intentional, conscious, aesthetic, moralizing, 
miraculous.

Computation = Mechanemorphic, unintentional, unconscious, anesthetic, 
amoral, prosaic.

Wouldn't you say that the symmetry is remarkable? In both cases, there is 
an originator whose origin is unquestioned. The difference is that the 
former is like us, only superlative in every qualitative measure, while the 
latter is like inanimate objects, utterly devoid of all qualitative 
measure. What is it that God super-signifies and computation de-signifies? 

Like you, I see that anthropomorphism is a psychological defense mechanism, 
but unlike you I see that the simple reaction against it is not necessarily 
the antidote (like throwing liquid nitrogen on a burn is not an 
improvement).

The Anti-god of Mechanism substitutes the opposite kind of vanity - the 
arrogance of false humility. To witness all things as a pure vessel of 
skeptical clarity, capable of self-compensating for all flawed perceptions 
and cognitive bias. Self-importance merely pivots to self-insignficance as 
the ego then identifies with the objectifier of the self rather than the 
self directly. It's a psychological compensation strategy, one which I 
think would bear out neuroscientifically. 

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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread meekerdb


On 7/16/2013 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:18:09 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 7/16/2013 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?


I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between the
phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating 
either of
them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some arbitrary link 
being
provided programmatically. This suggests that there exists within human 
experience
purely aesthetic, elemental associations which are synthetic a priori 
rather than
arrived at mechanically. A computer can't tell that there is anything 
inherently
curvy about the sound of bouba, but a person can.


Sez you.  I think you're just suffering from a failure of imagination.


You say failure of imagination, I say success avoiding the pathetic fallacy.


And success in stroking your ego that wants humans to be special.

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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread meekerdb


On 7/16/2013 1:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:21:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 7/16/2013 12:51 PM, Craig Weinberg 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  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. There is nothing implicitly visual about a sound unless an
interpreter makes that connection.


But there's something inherently abrupt about how you form "kiki" with your 
mouth
and inherently rounded about how form "bouba".


Inherent only if you can appreciate the aesthetic experience of having a mouth.


You might as well say 3 is bigger than 2 only if you appreciate the aesthetic experience 
of one number being bigger than another. You've reduced your argument to meaninglessness.


A machine would have to be told what round is and how it relates quantitatively to both 
optical shapes and audio data.


Not if the machine evolved to operate so that making "k" sounds required abrupt motions 
and making "o" sounds didn't and the machine was aware of this functioning.


It has no sense of round on its own or how it would apply literally to a shape but 
metaphorically to the sound related to that shape.



If there were, then watching an oscilloscope of a song playing would be the 
same as
hearing it. 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.


Who says a computer can't be a sensible interpreter?


If it could, then it would program itself.


So did you program yourself to make your mouth work the way it does?

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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:18:09 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 7/16/2013 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?  
>>  
>
> I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between 
> the phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating 
> either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some 
> arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there 
> exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations 
> which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A 
> computer can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound 
> of bouba, but a person can.
>  
>
> Sez you.  I think you're just suffering from a failure of imagination.
>

You say failure of imagination, I say success avoiding the pathetic fallacy.

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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:21:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 7/16/2013 12:51 PM, Craig Weinberg 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  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. There is nothing implicitly visual about a sound 
> unless an interpreter makes that connection. 
>
>
> But there's something inherently abrupt about how you form "kiki" with 
> your mouth and inherently rounded about how form "bouba".
>
>
Inherent only if you can appreciate the aesthetic experience of having a 
mouth. A machine would have to be told what round is and how it relates 
quantitatively to both optical shapes and audio data. It has no sense of 
round on its own or how it would apply literally to a shape but 
metaphorically to the sound related to that shape.

 If there were, then watching an oscilloscope of a song playing would be 
> the same as hearing it. 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. 
>
>
> Who says a computer can't be a sensible interpreter?
>

If it could, then it would program itself.

Craig
 

>
> Brent
>
>  They imply no intrinsic quantitative equivalence to each other without 
> one. What color is even? What flavor is randomness?
>
> 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.
>>> 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-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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3204/6496 - Release Date: 07/16/13
>
>
>  

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread meekerdb


On 7/16/2013 12:51 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 > 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. There is nothing implicitly visual about a sound unless an interpreter makes 
that connection.


But there's something inherently abrupt about how you form "kiki" with your mouth and 
inherently rounded about how form "bouba".


If there were, then watching an oscilloscope of a song playing would be the same as 
hearing it. 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.


Who says a computer can't be a sensible interpreter?

Brent

They imply no intrinsic quantitative equivalence to each other without one. What color 
is even? What flavor is randomness?


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
.
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.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3204/6496 - Release Date: 07/16/13



--
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread meekerdb


On 7/16/2013 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?


I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between the phonemes of 
'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating either of them with the curvy 
figure or the pointy figure without some arbitrary link being provided programmatically. 
This suggests that there exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental 
associations which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A 
computer can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound of bouba, 
but a person can.


Sez you.  I think you're just suffering from a failure of imagination.

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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:18:52 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb 
> > > 
> 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. 
> > 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 
>
> Yup, I see this as further evidence that the brains is a kludge -- 
> btw, this is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict. 
> Computational structures get reused through some path of least 
> resistance. I imagine some abstract pattern matching algorithm that is 
> shared by both the auditive and visual channels. 
>

It's not an abstract pattern matching algorithm, it is a concrete aesthetic 
affinity. There are quantitative algorithms which can be derived a 
posteriori, but they are skeletal and meaningless without the capacity to 
appreciate the sensations which they correspond to. A machine or a 
computation has no capacity to appreciate the difference between soft and 
hard, pointed and curved, it can only measure the degree to which some 
pre-defined criteria of those conditions is satisfied. That is not at all 
the same thing.

Craig


> Telmo. 
>
> > 
> >> 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. 
> >> 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-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. 
> > 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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread Craig Weinberg



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 
> > 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. 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. 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. They imply no intrinsic quantitative equivalence to each other 
without one. What color is even? What flavor is randomness?

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.
>> 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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent 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"?  
>

I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between the 
phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating 
either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some 
arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there 
exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations 
which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A 
computer can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound 
of bouba, but a person can.

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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-16 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb  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.
> 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

Yup, I see this as further evidence that the brains is a kludge --
btw, this is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict.
Computational structures get reused through some path of least
resistance. I imagine some abstract pattern matching algorithm that is
shared by both the auditive and visual channels.

Telmo.

>
>> 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-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.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-15 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb  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.
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


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-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.

Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

2013-07-15 Thread meekerdb


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"?


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-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.

39 matches

Mail list logo