TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 90

Thread: Who are you?

  1. #51
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by qolelis View Post
    @icemann & Sulphur:
    I'm going off-topic now, but I got curious about where that quote really comes from. I can see a couple of different, and equally probable, possibilities:
    1. Steven Wilson came up with it himself and then recorded someone else saying it (for example Janeane Garofalo).
    2. Someone else came up with it (for example Janeane Garofalo) and then Steven Wilson borrowed it.
    3. Someone else said it in some other setting (in a movie, on stage etc...) and then Steven Wilson sampled it.

    The only conclusion we can draw -- from the information presented in this thread -- is that it's not Steven Wilson saying it in the song. That's clearly someone else. Could be Janeane Garofalo; the two sound kind of similar. We still don't know the source of the quote, though -- unless someone else has information they haven't presented yet.

    On-topic:
    This post represents one part of who I am.
    Let's crunch that down to what we know for sure: read the interview I linked, or heck, just read the quote from the interview I posted in that same post, and draw your own conclusions. I did the sourcing already, I'm just beyond amused anyone addressing it hasn't actually checked it out.

  2. #52
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Be curious which colours you all see there. Blue and gold for me.

  3. #53
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    That's... not... blue? Likely white in shade picking up reflected purple... or is that my peripheral picking up and transferring the surrounding purple of the forum? Light purple trending toward blue if it isn't either of those things. Certainly not blue. To me. See? How are you going to code that? Is uncertainty even a codable (codeable?) concept?

    And yeah, sort of a tawny gold.

    Edit: It's actually part of my job to pick color. You have to consider face which is dead on and flop which is from the side. Each car paint has a different set of colors and in often incremental grams which seem to add nothing but do. There is dry mica which rises in paint to dominate the upper layer though gram wise it is much less than the wet colors. And that's not even considering tri-stage which is a deep layer and a clear layer over it with some color in it then a true clear. There are about six different metallics with differing coarseness and you have to have a particular amount of strata separating resin added to make it do right. Also you have to spray from the right distance to get the metallic to lay down right. Too far and it drys enough in the air to make it dull and stay in the top layer. Then too some paint is night and day from sunlight into shade. There are banks of flip books with thousands of color tints just in any color. Even looking up a color is a nightmare. First there is the code which is in different places on different makes of vehicle then there are variants of that color depending on factory and year though it is all supposed to be the same color. Usually you try the standard and only resort to the alternates if it is too different to blend which is done by fanning the spraygun sideways at the end of a run. Blend agents can burn a fuzz line in but mottle the texture of metallics and then some folks ground a vehicle to make the metallics stand up for a better match. Annnnnnnd I've gone on so long I forgot why I started. I've hardly scratched the surface though. You have no idea. You think white is white and black is black.
    Last edited by Tocky; 25th Jun 2020 at 01:07.

  4. #54
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    For a second I pondered whether everyone might actually think I was difficult. I decided that my interactions made this generally unlikely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    I hope you're taking the piss, dema because "cyberrealism" sounds like "I'm 14 and this is deep".

  5. #55
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Kolya's got a point about NLP. I took a look at it because it's something that people keep going on about (at work, people have spent actual money on being certified practitioners), and while it does trade in (apparent) surface-level validity, the underlying ideas behind it get more and more unreal as you dive into it. I don't know if it makes everyone condescending, but what I do know is that it's widely decried as a pseudoscience founded on shaky principles, where what it calls itself alone is a fucking misnomer.

  6. #56
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    That's... not... blue?
    When you get down to wavelenghts and stuff, it is undoubtedly blue. But due to the way the photo is taken, for a lot of people, their brain makes assumptions about the dress in such a way that makes them unable to see it as anything other but white and gold. Some people actually switch and start seeing different colours after a while, though apparently people are more likely to switch to the true colour of the dress than vice versa.

  7. #57
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Hahaha, nice. I usually enjoy to read dema's intelligent posts. He touched on a pet peeve of mine there and I still have trouble believing he's being entirely serious. However I'm sorry about the tone.

  8. #58
    I was so confused at first because in my field, NLP is short for Natural Language Processing...

  9. #59
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Haha, yeah, that tends to happen. Dude walked up to me once and said, 'Hey, you know we use that in our learning algorithm?' And I'm like, 'Really? You cracked cognition in machine learning?', and we both just stared at each other in confusion for five seconds.

  10. #60
    Member
    Registered: May 2000
    Location: state of quantum entanglement
    I had that too a few years ago, raph. When I first heard about NLP-the-pseudoscience.

    Back to the topic: yes, I have in fact had a deep, hard look at myself on several occasions, including having gone to an isolation retreat for that very purpose. I still wish I hadn't, and these days whenever I hear people say how great practising mindfulness is for everything (either it has become something of a fad or I've somehow ended up surrounded by people who are into such stuff), I inwardly go "Yeah, right". That's all I will say about this on teh Intarwebz.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    Let's crunch that down to what we know for sure: read the interview I linked, or heck, just read the quote from the interview I posted in that same post, and draw your own conclusions. I did the sourcing already, I'm just beyond amused anyone addressing it hasn't actually checked it out.
    "Nah, man, your personal perception of the world is totally wrong. I came up with that quote. They all stole it from me. I want my money and I want it now. I could link to this article where I interview myself for proof, but, nah, you just have to google it yourself; I'm not your babysitter."

  12. #62
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    All right, jokes aside, just to clarify: I think that's a very down to earth take on the phenomenologist equation, which is something I read up on only because I saw Dark Star when I was a teenager and it tickled me hard. (Anyone who hasn't seen Dark Star -- well, it's not aged well, but it's still got one of the best endings to a sci-fi comedy known to man/).
    I'm surprised we haven't discussed that film before. Or maybe it's discussed extensively in one of the "what are you watching" megathreads which means I would have missed it. The first and only time I watched it was late at night when I was over-tired, a bit depressed, and had insomnia, and that turned out of be the perfect mood for it. It failed as a spoof, but works in other ways and inspired Alien. I thought it was interesting that you brought it up in the context of this discussion, because the only time I get philosophical is when I'm isolated with too much time on my hands, just like the characters in the film.

    Quote Originally Posted by raph View Post
    I was so confused at first because in my field, NLP is short for Natural Language Processing...
    Me too! In fact it was your post that made me Google it to see what Kolya was talking about.

  13. #63
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by qolelis View Post
    "Nah, man, your personal perception of the world is totally wrong. I came up with that quote. They all stole it from me. I want my money and I want it now. I could link to this article where I interview myself for proof, but, nah, you just have to google it yourself; I'm not your babysitter."
    Let's not kneejerk. Jasmine Walkes is credited on the wikipedia page, and on Wilson's own page for the album. It takes all of 5 seconds to verify it. Contrast: is there a movie with that quote? No one's provided that information. Is that Janeane Garofalo? No one's provided proof of that beyond saying 'yeah that's totally her!' based on an impression of her from a single movie.

    Now if you want to have a philosophical argument over what truth is relative to how you experience reality, that's fine. But let's not use this specific instance of stupidity as a pro forma argument to prove it, yeah?

    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    I thought it was interesting that you brought it up in the context of this discussion, because the only time I get philosophical is when I'm isolated with too much time on my hands, just like the characters in the film.
    It does hark back to what Gray was talking about, doesn't it? We're all basically stuck at home and have nothing to do in the small hours, ergo this thread's genesis. Phenomenology by itself is extremely interesting to me, and not just as a vehicle for a great story. What dema said reminded me about the other sort of related (epistemological) discussions we've had here a long time ago.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 25th Jun 2020 at 08:33.

  14. #64
    See, that wasn't so hard, was it!?

    The quote itself? I'm not overly impressed. Everything that can be said has already been said.

  15. #65
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Say, wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke that said that?

    I'm just impressed that the old adage of it taking 10 times more work to disprove bullshit than to come up with it keeps being true. I would think someone questioning a fact would be interested enough to independently verify it themselves, but hey, what do I know.

  16. #66
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    Quote Originally Posted by Marecki View Post
    yes, I have in fact had a deep, hard look at myself on several occasions [...]. I still wish I hadn't
    If ever asked to look at yourself, don't.
    ~Bob Dylan

  17. #67
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Read my latest book- I'm okay: The rest of you just suck.

  18. #68
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by raph View Post
    I was so confused at first because in my field, NLP is short for Natural Language Processing...
    Same.

    I guess I can elaborate for old Nick's sake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    I hope you're taking the piss, dema because "cyberrealism" sounds like "I'm 14 and this is deep". [...] Good luck with your top down cultural movement.
    First thanks for the luck. (And it's one "r", cyberealism, but that's ... not really important.)

    Yes, the version I gave was the version for 14 year olds. That's probably fair to say.
    This is a gamer forum so, you know, I didn't want to over-do it.

    A more accurate version would be ... well let's just say the four core neurophysiology textbooks I want to capture are 1200, 1100, 700, and 600 pages, respectively. (That's 3,600 pages, and that's the short version! Each chapter averages cites to 50+ articles apiece.) So it doesn't really lend itself to bumper sticker treatment. So in that respect, any bumper sticker treatment is taking the piss whatever it says, I won't disagree with you there.

    To respond to a few specific things though:

    * The punchline isn't that we're code per se, it's what the code is. It's definitely not psychobabble NLP! More like my old stomping ground of computational neuroscience, which I first studied in the '90s.

    * I don't want to mechanize humans. If anything, it'd look more like humanizing (the right kind of) machines to me. I've always said if a theory doesn't capture everything that's mystical and magical about a human soul, it's not there yet. But I do think it's important that humans are a natural part of this universe. I don't like the idea that some part of us is floating in 5th dimension ectoplasm, as if we're aliens to this universe and not responsible for what we do here. To me that implies a computational part (but I don't like the term mechanical either).

    * And as for humanizing machines, I'm in the camp that thinks human-like AI are right around the corner, just as a function of processing power. And we should prepare ourselves for what they may have to say.

    But anyway, if you allow me a slightly better shot at it (I said from the start I'm not sure the best way to package this stuff):

    So the parietal lobe crunches the world into neural maps of a narrative flow which carry possibilities of action in them that the executive part latches on to, which is to say in human terms language and the self blossom out of people's everyday experiences with the world. We yearn to interact, with the world and with each other, and if that yearning is given the ability to organize itself, with a little bootstrap help from mommy and daddy, it self-organizes into language, and then through language we recognize meaning in ourselves and our world, what they are, but also what they're not but could be. And that same yearning pushes us to try to re-make them into what we hope they could be. And then love and hate, ebullience and grief, vocation and politics happen. Maybe that's a little better.

  19. #69
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    But I do think it's important that humans are a natural part of this universe. [...] To me that implies a computational part

    Computation doesn't seem to follow out of existing in the natural world. Care to elaborate?

    And as for humanizing machines, I'm in the camp that thinks human-like AI are right around the corner

    I'm in the other camp, that thinks human-like AI requires human-like experiences which require a human-like body, which is very far off, if at all being researched.

    So the parietal lobe crunches the world into neural maps of a narrative flow which carry possibilities of action in them that the executive part latches on to, which is to say in human terms language and the self blossom out of people's everyday experiences with the world. We yearn to interact, with the world and with each other, and if that yearning is given the ability to organize itself, with a little bootstrap help from mommy and daddy, it self-organizes into language, and then through language we recognize meaning in ourselves and our world, what they are, but also what they're not but could be. And that same yearning pushes us to try to re-make them into what we hope they could be. And then love and hate, ebullience and grief, vocation and politics happen.

    This possibly seems to miss the aforementioned physicality of the human experience as well. It certainly lacks the revelatory part that you vaguely mentioned. How does this give you an army?

  20. #70
    SShock2.com
    Member

    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: The land of ever sideways rain
    This thread didn't exactly go in the direction I expected, but it got us discussing things I hadn't thought of in a long, long time, so I suppose it's served its main purpose: stuff to distract us while we're all stuck indoors with too much time on our hands.

    I'm gonna have to go back and read a few things back, I don't think I've ever taken a Myers-Briggs test. But I have taken a Voigt-Kampff test.

  21. #71
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray View Post
    But I have taken a Voigt-Kampff test.
    Did you pass ?

    "My mother ? Let me tell you about my mother !!"

  22. #72
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    Fred Maddden, in Jabberwocky (Summer/Autumn 1988), calls attention to a chapter titled "Popular Follies of Great Cities" in Charles Mackay's classic work, Extraordinary Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds (1841). Mackay tells of various catch phrases which sprang up suddenly in London. One such phrase was "Who are you," spoken with emphasis on the first and last words. It appeared suddenly, "like a mushroom . . . One day it was unheard, unknown, uninvented; the next day it pervaded London. . . . Every new comer into an alehouse tap room was asked unceremoniously 'Who are you?'"
    In "Who Are You: A Reply" (Jabberwocky, Winter/Spring 1990), John Clark points out that Carroll owned Mackay's book and probably heard the question shouted at him when it was a short lived London rage.

  23. #73
    SShock2.com
    Member

    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: The land of ever sideways rain
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    Did you pass ?
    Have I been 'retired' yet?

  24. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    Say, wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke that said that?
    Exactly, someone has already said that as well. I conveniently forgot to give credit. Part of why I stopped writing in general was realizing I had nothing to say, nothing new to add to anything. I'm trying to get past that, though. Maybe some things are worth repeating!? Maybe I should stop overthinking and just say shit...

    I'm just impressed that the old adage of it taking 10 times more work to disprove bullshit than to come up with it keeps being true. I would think someone questioning a fact would be interested enough to independently verify it themselves, but hey, what do I know.
    I think the mistake you made was just posting a link to a relatively long article, in which only a small part was relevant to what you wanted to prove, expected everyone to not have anything else on their plate, and then got a little mad that none read it. A perhaps more efficient approach could have been to also quote the small part you especially meant for us to read (along with posting the link for those who want to read more)!? \_(ツ)_/

    Anyway, the mystery is solved now, so thanks.

    On the subject of what the thread was originally about:
    I am filtered me and I am unfiltered me. While I feel it's better to show you who I am instead of trying to tell you who I am -- which would probably just lead to me trying to come off as better than I am -- although that would mean showing the actual unfiltered me, who is the one who gets all the fun and excitement, but also gets filtered me in trouble -- and also takes a lot longer, maybe even a whole lifetime something something Kirkegaard oh yeah. Filtered me is boring as all those fucks you grow in your empty fields yo. Yeah, I should just say shit...

  25. #75
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    Computation doesn't seem to follow out of existing in the natural world. Care to elaborate?
    [...]
    I'm in the other camp, that thinks human-like AI requires human-like experiences which require a human-like body, which is very far off, if at all being researched.

    [...]
    This possibly seems to miss the aforementioned physicality of the human experience as well. It certainly lacks the revelatory part that you vaguely mentioned. How does this give you an army?
    Alright, at a minimum, if humans exist in the natural world, they are products of natural forces. Once a person has conceded that, the rest is just packaging, no?

    There are neural models that aren't computational. They tend to be dated now, and I'm more impressed with the computational ones. But anyway it's an empirical question, so there's no sense in rooting for one over the other because of what we want.

    In a weak sense, though, I think any simulation of any physical system is computational, so that's why I phrased it that way. Actually the closest analogy to a brain I've seen around is modular synths with patch cables, but that's probably for another post.

    As for the human body part, my starting point, what the parietal lobe is up to, is exactly embodiment. Everything floats on the modalities of a person experiencing and acting in the world. So having a body in the world is front and center. I mean the bot I'm making is an avatar walking around in a simulated world, but when his "feet" "touch" "the ground", or in that video of the mouth, when the "tongue" "touches" the "roof of the mouth", it gives haptic feedback. The design has to let that guy feels himself embodied in that world. So I completely agree with you on that part.

    Just on the last part, don't underestimate the power and seduction of human yearning.

    But my gig is an invitation not a demand, anyway. People that get it or are curious can come along for the ride, and people that don't are under no obligation to care.

    I think I've got something here, and I see myself as something of a ring leader for it, if that's some insight into who I am.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •