boolacalaca
15th May 2018, 17:58
37786
"The price the gods exact for this Gift of Song is that we become what we sing."
-- Pythagoras
it happens / it happens to you
more happens / it happens to me
it occurs to both of us to share with others but how?
how to comprehend, perhaps arrive at consensus?
communication becomes a limit case for progress & understanding
mystics access realms where to fathom is beyond the alphabets of here and now
information in these states is compacted, non-localized, multi-or-extra-sensory, self-evident
endlessly morphing fractals beyond 3D subsume visual metaphors of vibratory essence
this vibration co-creates meaning as an alchemical alphabet of Source-nexus conflating soul-stuff
any intrinsic substance to glean is experienced rather than interpreted
any notion of pulling the ineffable down into one's mundane comprehension is iffy enough
handing it off to another rings of the impossible
and yet, back on Earth
we're relegated to the tiresome serial blockchain
of assembling our crude glyphs together
not only are there multiple alphabets in existence
but the chunking that results from using these fragmented symbols
can only at best arrive at imprecise objects called words,
which in turn convey fuzzy approximates of abstraction
made more obscure by the tidal forces of chaotic, evolving culture
more to the point, just what constitutes a perfected alphabet?
what would be the best alphabet for universal progress and understanding?
does such a thing even need to be graphical, visual?
artist Hakan Hisim has done extensive research on graphical symbols
(https://www.universal-transmissions.net/new-page)
in an effort to hack the roots of language and effective expression
and included a mashup of all of it in art he calls universal transmissions
(https://www.universal-transmissions.net/gallery-1/)
clearly, many graphical systems could suffice equally alongside our current alphabet
take variations of incomplete open cubes, for example --
37787
and so
it is hopeless?
mutually exclusive?
can communication ever be perfected?
would symbiotic links between the output of brains be enough?
or would that simply be copying my neural net output onto yours?
would such a thing allow any subjective space for your personal judgment?
without the ability to maintain differing perspectives
how can ideas ever be evaluated in a combined new light
thus enabling the progress embodied in the synthesis of both views?
perhaps we should let AI devise the perfect way to communicate
but even if it did, would any of us be able to use it?
already, AI seems quite capable of extending communication where humans can't go
Via Forbes...
"Facebook shut down an artificial intelligence engine after developers discovered that the AI had created its own unique language that humans can’t understand. Researchers at the Facebook AI Research Lab (FAIR) found that the chatbots had deviated from the script and were communicating in a new language developed without human input.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2017/07/31/facebook-ai-creates-its-own-language-in-creepy-preview-of-our-potential-future/
Via Techcrunch...
"Google announced that its Neural Machine Translation system had gone live. It uses deep learning to produce better, more natural translations between languages. Cool!
Following on this success, GNMT’s creators were curious about something. If you teach the translation system to translate English to Korean and vice versa, and also English to Japanese and vice versa… could it translate Korean to Japanese, without resorting to English as a bridge between them?
It produces “reasonable” translations between two languages that it has not explicitly linked in any way. Remember, no English allowed.
But this raised a second question. If the computer is able to make connections between concepts and words that have not been formally linked… does that mean that the computer has formed a concept of shared meaning for those words, meaning at a deeper level than simply that one word or phrase is the equivalent of another?
In other words, has the computer developed its own internal language to represent the concepts it uses to translate between other languages? Based on how various sentences are related to one another in the memory space of the neural network, Google’s language and AI boffins think that it has.
This “interlingua” seems to exist as a deeper level of representation that sees similarities between a sentence or word in all three languages. Beyond that, it’s hard to say, since the inner processes of complex neural networks are infamously difficult to describe.
It could be something sophisticated, or it could be something simple. But the fact that it exists at all — an original creation of the system’s own to aid in its understanding of concepts it has not been trained to understand — is, philosophically speaking, pretty powerful stuff."
https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/22/googles-ai-translation-tool-seems-to-have-invented-its-own-secret-internal-language/
perfected communication
for normal daily consciousness appears daunting enough;
ensuring a true and complete conveyance of meaning
for mystical experiences may remain forever beyond the here and now
some claim the experience is the thing
if everyone experienced the mystical
we'd all be of like heart and mind
this was no better represented than by Nick Sand and Tim Scully in the 60's
the devoted pair who championed world transformation by "Orange Sunshine"
As Nick Sand explained,
"We thought LSD was going to change the world --
by opening people's minds, everyone would experience such a sense of love
as to bring about world peace."
Tim Scully echoed that sentiment,
"I had a flash that if everyone tried acid,
people would be less likely to be mean to each other and trash the world."
possibly so, yet the creeping negative influences of the '70s,
irrespective of the substance called LSD,
cut that experiment short
many suspect the attempt was shut down
by a culture and authority structure that wouldn't benefit
by having minds opened
maybe
practically speaking, such an experiment had no hope of succeeding
unless the members of the authoritarian elite participated
which, of course, they didn't
alphabets are archaic
experience is subjective
meaning is transitory
expression is deriviative
comprehension is incomplete
intent is unverifiable
the only thing certain is we want to communicate
perhaps more examination is needed on why rather than how
the true why, the underlining why beyond symbols
the correct why informs the best how
37788
"The price the gods exact for this Gift of Song is that we become what we sing."
-- Pythagoras
it happens / it happens to you
more happens / it happens to me
it occurs to both of us to share with others but how?
how to comprehend, perhaps arrive at consensus?
communication becomes a limit case for progress & understanding
mystics access realms where to fathom is beyond the alphabets of here and now
information in these states is compacted, non-localized, multi-or-extra-sensory, self-evident
endlessly morphing fractals beyond 3D subsume visual metaphors of vibratory essence
this vibration co-creates meaning as an alchemical alphabet of Source-nexus conflating soul-stuff
any intrinsic substance to glean is experienced rather than interpreted
any notion of pulling the ineffable down into one's mundane comprehension is iffy enough
handing it off to another rings of the impossible
and yet, back on Earth
we're relegated to the tiresome serial blockchain
of assembling our crude glyphs together
not only are there multiple alphabets in existence
but the chunking that results from using these fragmented symbols
can only at best arrive at imprecise objects called words,
which in turn convey fuzzy approximates of abstraction
made more obscure by the tidal forces of chaotic, evolving culture
more to the point, just what constitutes a perfected alphabet?
what would be the best alphabet for universal progress and understanding?
does such a thing even need to be graphical, visual?
artist Hakan Hisim has done extensive research on graphical symbols
(https://www.universal-transmissions.net/new-page)
in an effort to hack the roots of language and effective expression
and included a mashup of all of it in art he calls universal transmissions
(https://www.universal-transmissions.net/gallery-1/)
clearly, many graphical systems could suffice equally alongside our current alphabet
take variations of incomplete open cubes, for example --
37787
and so
it is hopeless?
mutually exclusive?
can communication ever be perfected?
would symbiotic links between the output of brains be enough?
or would that simply be copying my neural net output onto yours?
would such a thing allow any subjective space for your personal judgment?
without the ability to maintain differing perspectives
how can ideas ever be evaluated in a combined new light
thus enabling the progress embodied in the synthesis of both views?
perhaps we should let AI devise the perfect way to communicate
but even if it did, would any of us be able to use it?
already, AI seems quite capable of extending communication where humans can't go
Via Forbes...
"Facebook shut down an artificial intelligence engine after developers discovered that the AI had created its own unique language that humans can’t understand. Researchers at the Facebook AI Research Lab (FAIR) found that the chatbots had deviated from the script and were communicating in a new language developed without human input.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2017/07/31/facebook-ai-creates-its-own-language-in-creepy-preview-of-our-potential-future/
Via Techcrunch...
"Google announced that its Neural Machine Translation system had gone live. It uses deep learning to produce better, more natural translations between languages. Cool!
Following on this success, GNMT’s creators were curious about something. If you teach the translation system to translate English to Korean and vice versa, and also English to Japanese and vice versa… could it translate Korean to Japanese, without resorting to English as a bridge between them?
It produces “reasonable” translations between two languages that it has not explicitly linked in any way. Remember, no English allowed.
But this raised a second question. If the computer is able to make connections between concepts and words that have not been formally linked… does that mean that the computer has formed a concept of shared meaning for those words, meaning at a deeper level than simply that one word or phrase is the equivalent of another?
In other words, has the computer developed its own internal language to represent the concepts it uses to translate between other languages? Based on how various sentences are related to one another in the memory space of the neural network, Google’s language and AI boffins think that it has.
This “interlingua” seems to exist as a deeper level of representation that sees similarities between a sentence or word in all three languages. Beyond that, it’s hard to say, since the inner processes of complex neural networks are infamously difficult to describe.
It could be something sophisticated, or it could be something simple. But the fact that it exists at all — an original creation of the system’s own to aid in its understanding of concepts it has not been trained to understand — is, philosophically speaking, pretty powerful stuff."
https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/22/googles-ai-translation-tool-seems-to-have-invented-its-own-secret-internal-language/
perfected communication
for normal daily consciousness appears daunting enough;
ensuring a true and complete conveyance of meaning
for mystical experiences may remain forever beyond the here and now
some claim the experience is the thing
if everyone experienced the mystical
we'd all be of like heart and mind
this was no better represented than by Nick Sand and Tim Scully in the 60's
the devoted pair who championed world transformation by "Orange Sunshine"
As Nick Sand explained,
"We thought LSD was going to change the world --
by opening people's minds, everyone would experience such a sense of love
as to bring about world peace."
Tim Scully echoed that sentiment,
"I had a flash that if everyone tried acid,
people would be less likely to be mean to each other and trash the world."
possibly so, yet the creeping negative influences of the '70s,
irrespective of the substance called LSD,
cut that experiment short
many suspect the attempt was shut down
by a culture and authority structure that wouldn't benefit
by having minds opened
maybe
practically speaking, such an experiment had no hope of succeeding
unless the members of the authoritarian elite participated
which, of course, they didn't
alphabets are archaic
experience is subjective
meaning is transitory
expression is deriviative
comprehension is incomplete
intent is unverifiable
the only thing certain is we want to communicate
perhaps more examination is needed on why rather than how
the true why, the underlining why beyond symbols
the correct why informs the best how
37788