clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) (02/07/88)
in article <161@blic.BLI.COM>, inspect@blic.BLI.COM (Mfg Inspection) says: > > decision to write what I did. Ignoring the facts in favor of maintaining a > pet theory is arrogant and specious and bad research. However, it was rude > of me to point that out, and I apologise. This comes in a very fairly written answer, and surely Mr. Nakashima would appreciate it. For myself, thank you, for the integrity. And I apologize for harshness, sincerely. > Even the implication, my own inference if you prefer, that one group is over- > all superior to another is repugnant [...] This is interesting, and maybe it matters much to 'ai', among other things. I'll by the way try to keep from referring too closely to currently read thoughts of Czeslaw Milosz (Nobel poet, writing from California*), which seem provoking over a similar area. Perhaps a place to start might be with trying the idea that even all 'high' cultures may be more oriented to their least common denominator than we commonly consider. And then that even among the 'educated' of us, the tendency is for most persons to reflect less than the deepest wisdom of their background(s)' best accomplishments. With such an attitude, we could see that a young Asiatic's arrogation of universal views might be completely analogous to a young Westerner's apparent egocentrism. It seems too that in neither pole of culture do many escape the bounds of such first steps; rather turn right at the first surprise. >> Perhaps there is something really different about the organization of >> information from generality to heuristics, as it is done in the east. > > No argument. But the farmer/hunter premise is invalid. Yes, it seems it is. You point out truthfully, one can learn through criticism, and certainly this person gave the opportunity for that. What I wonder, is how much more can be learned from wiser reflection, from those who are wiser in the moment. And how much we stifle, by insisting on the 'rational (or it's surrogate semantic, scientific' as the grounding point. None of us learn well or easily this way, except as a skill, at least I personally believe. It is, simply, a skill. Perhaps the 'common man' is truly foolish to refuse learning it better. But why does he? Perhaps kind, is right. >> Perhaps this is interesting to someone doing creative work. Even in >> the positivist side of ai technology. > > The 10% inspiration is laudable, but the 90% perspiration is required to > make the difference between day-dreaming and research. I know, I am a day- > dreamer and diletante; [continued below] Well, I'm probably far less a properly educated researcher than you. In fact, I guess my specialty is simply making things work. As an example, at present an actually successful natural language system. It's built from an awareness of some things through poetry, and a patterning of a total environment, so that a technology can accomplish a goal. I'm informed that the technology is crude. Is the thought? Is this important? Because the results are there, and they are there specifically because of a very practical approach, which conciously, though 'vaguely' considered a wide field of need and usage. I can tell you right now that the method wouldn't be of any interest to mathematical thinkers who want to know 'how' to do such a thing. And I (most sincerely) laud them on their particular accomplishments I can and have used. I also suspect one reason it works is that I was pretty concerned that it make the lives of those who use it, more interesting. Really. > knowing this forces me to research ideas before offering them [...] Here we're to the crux of concern, other than cultural relativism. Certainly great accomplishment, through scientific orthodoxy. And clearly enough, shouting through the words of anyone steeped only in that, great pain. Being wrong probably isn't sin. Yet it seems the sheol of a pervasive worldview. Those who thought this way best, from the previous and turn of the century in several cultures, proved directly how insufficiently right they were. Japan as a special example, bought the premise, and followed them. The destruction was nearly complete. The destruction few of we Americans realize in Europe alone, within families and neighborhoods, where there were those 'right' on both sides of menace, I think was the worst. > critics helped me improve a lot of my work. Once one rubs away the first > stings of criticism, it can feel good to follow a more effective path. Yes, and in East or West, or as a recent movie Marxist has it, North and South, don't you understand.(!) But what if we considered wrongness, simply relative. Something we will always, and can be with sensual pleasure, in balance with. In this newsgroup, there have been so many of the ancient 'angels on heads of pins' discussions. I think for the most part, sincerely, for people want to come to grips, discover a Rosetta for some human accomplishment, so we can make tools to help us go further with it. And admittedly, some do truly seem just to want supremacy of ego. I'll leave this with a consideration for anyone who feels they do art, or knows others who seem to. Are any of the accomplishers less than a kind of ruthlessly practical, working in the very stuff of their dreams? Are any of them rational scientific, yet do they have any trouble understanding what that is, and their relationship to it? And are their materials (and accomplishments) ever less than the whole cloth of vagueness, which we are without question aware contains both usefulness, and an amount of sure truth? Maybe serious students of extending human futures ought to pay serious attention to the methods of such persons, and the nature of the happiness in such lives. A violin makes happy, is hard to play and build, is technology. If we use ourselves even partly in making other machines, let's try towards doing as well. It's my thought for the day, and I apologize. Do you see? Clive Steward * the book of essays is 'Visions from San Francisco Bay', tr. 1975, 1982, Czeslaw Milosz, Farrar/Straus/Giroux
inspect@blic.BLI.COM (Mfg Inspection) (02/11/88)
In article <6689@drutx.ATT.COM>, clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) writes: > in article <161@blic.BLI.COM>, inspect@blic.BLI.COM (Mfg Inspection) says: > > > > decision to write what I did. Ignoring the facts in favor of maintaining a > > pet theory is arrogant and specious and bad research. However, it was rude > > of me to point that out, and I apologise. > > This comes in a very fairly written answer. > For myself, thank you, for the integrity. And I apologize > for harshness, sincerely. Thank you for offering intelligent criticism, not so much harsh as challenging. Apparently, my posting was not entirely clear and you gave me the opportunity to clarify it somewhat. Writing is a poor medium of idea exchange; it is better at providing information. We are all "victims" of our cultural conditioning from time to time, but the real test is when we attempt to go beyond and try to understand the positions of other. Again, there is no one perfect culture, mine or anyone else's, ex- cept subjectively. Cultural conditioning and its ramifications are probably essential as part of the study of AI. Please. Creativity needs no justification. All I am writing is that when there ARE quantitative facts available, they should not be ignored in favor of the beauty of a creative thought. Creativity and scientific method are neither interdependant at all times nor are they mutually exclusive. By no means do I insist on the rational in every discussion, only when the rational is applicable.