Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Talk about anything

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So here's what has been on my mind lately: Phenomenology. Looking at things from different perspectives. When I was a first year archaeology student, somebody asked the professor when did people start domesticating dogs, and the professor said there is evidence of it from at least 25 000 years ago. And at the time this whole conversation made sense to me. "Yeah, of course that's how it happened, at some point humans just starting domesticating dogs, like we've been dominating nature since our inception."

    But as Wittgenstein and Socrates continuously remind us, "look, don't just think, really look." What I'm more interested in: what was the relationship like between wolves and proto-human monkeys 500 000 years ago? "Whoa, these monkeys got fire now? What kind of voodoo witchcraft shit is this?" Thinks the wolf.

    Do wolves and humans hunt together? Obviously they begin to at some point, but how early? And what is that relationship like? Not ownership, partnership. Wolves and monkey-people with spears. Monkey people begin to keep little temporary settlements. Wolves hang out around the outskirts, knowing the monkey-people can kill very large animals with minimal risk thanks to their throwing-weapons, and wolves get the leftovers. In evolutionary return, the wolves prowl around the in the margins, a first line of defense against other would-be predators. What was this relationship like throughout time? A million years ago? 50 000 years ago?

    Beyond that, what was the relationship between early monkey people and magical plants and fungus? Peyote? Iowaska? Salvia? And what was the relationship between early monkey people and our mentally Ill and disabled? If monkey people were caring for their mentally disabled and Ill early on, their logical role, would have been as testers of interesting, potentially poisonous berries and foliage. Were these people our earliest shamans then?

    What was the relationship between early monkey people and music? When you've developed highly intricate arrowhead stone-chipping techniques 500 000 years ago, how do you pass that down to your offspring in a way that they will certainly remember? A ritual, a proto-song. The chipping of the stone is the drumbeat, you know what sound each strike will make, chunk, chunk, chink, chink, chink, thud, chunk, etc, maybe there's a rhythm or melody at some point, but the crucial thing is this: you now have, out of this music, a specific sound, a communicable word, "chunk" or "chink" that replicates a natural sound, and represents both an action - the way you are striking the stone which you are crafting into arrowhead - as well as an image - the way the rock looks when you strike it with the 3rd chunk and the 5th chunk.

    Just how deep does the human relationship go with dogs, psychadelic plants, our marginalized, music?

    And what about with wine and beer? Ghost-stories? Werewolves? Were the earliest criminals exiled and sent to live in the outskirts, among the wolves? So that mothers would warn their children about the wolfpeople lurking in the wilderness. If that is true, as I strongly believe it is, then must the other monsters of mythology have had real-world counterparts. What were vampires? Zombies? What are the most primitive parts of us? The things that shaped us even before we had language?
    Josh likes this.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by matchesmalone View Post
      So here's what has been on my mind lately: Phenomenology. Looking at things from different perspectives. When I was a first year archaeology student, somebody asked the professor when did people start domesticating dogs, and the professor said there is evidence of it from at least 25 000 years ago. And at the time this whole conversation made sense to me. "Yeah, of course that's how it happened, at some point humans just starting domesticating dogs, like we've been dominating nature since our inception."

      But as Wittgenstein and Socrates continuously remind us, "look, don't just think, really look." What I'm more interested in: what was the relationship like between wolves and proto-human monkeys 500 000 years ago? "Whoa, these monkeys got fire now? What kind of voodoo witchcraft shit is this?" Thinks the wolf.

      Do wolves and humans hunt together? Obviously they begin to at some point, but how early? And what is that relationship like? Not ownership, partnership. Wolves and monkey-people with spears. Monkey people begin to keep little temporary settlements. Wolves hang out around the outskirts, knowing the monkey-people can kill very large animals with minimal risk thanks to their throwing-weapons, and wolves get the leftovers. In evolutionary return, the wolves prowl around the in the margins, a first line of defense against other would-be predators. What was this relationship like throughout time? A million years ago? 50 000 years ago?

      Beyond that, what was the relationship between early monkey people and magical plants and fungus? Peyote? Iowaska? Salvia? And what was the relationship between early monkey people and our mentally Ill and disabled? If monkey people were caring for their mentally disabled and Ill early on, their logical role, would have been as testers of interesting, potentially poisonous berries and foliage. Were these people our earliest shamans then?

      What was the relationship between early monkey people and music? When you've developed highly intricate arrowhead stone-chipping techniques 500 000 years ago, how do you pass that down to your offspring in a way that they will certainly remember? A ritual, a proto-song. The chipping of the stone is the drumbeat, you know what sound each strike will make, chunk, chunk, chink, chink, chink, thud, chunk, etc, maybe there's a rhythm or melody at some point, but the crucial thing is this: you now have, out of this music, a specific sound, a communicable word, "chunk" or "chink" that replicates a natural sound, and represents both an action - the way you are striking the stone which you are crafting into arrowhead - as well as an image - the way the rock looks when you strike it with the 3rd chunk and the 5th chunk.

      Just how deep does the human relationship go with dogs, psychadelic plants, our marginalized, music?

      And what about with wine and beer? Ghost-stories? Werewolves? Were the earliest criminals exiled and sent to live in the outskirts, among the wolves? So that mothers would warn their children about the wolfpeople lurking in the wilderness. If that is true, as I strongly believe it is, then must the other monsters of mythology have had real-world counterparts. What were vampires? Zombies? What are the most primitive parts of us? The things that shaped us even before we had language?
      Fascinating questions my inquisitive friend. Many of them ones I’d love to know the answer to!

      Comment


      • So I was playing WhatIfSports earlier, and I was thinking about how the most successful hockey player rating algorithm is going to end up one that goes extraordinarily in-depth at a wide variety of stats, balances them in an appropriate way, and also accounts for human-input on defensive play and other x-factors.

        On Whatif they used to have all the traditional stats and then just an extra one, "defensive play". Kinda funny that you take all of the x-factors and lump them into one category. See, the ideal rating system will be created with an AI learning device, and I hope this is what WhatIf is/will be used for. People play it and, over time, enough people run the simulations, allowing it to repeatedly test its algorithms in various different circumstances, that it can then test the results against real-world stats, scores and win-loss records.

        Eventually, they get to a point where they have a ton of data on a wide variety of stats, but can't seem to get things quite right (I.e. consistent with real-world), and so they invent a variable, and attach a number to each player to "balance the books". The number that each player contributes that doesn't otherwise appear in the statistical record. Instead of "defense" like WhatIf had, they should legit call it the It Factor.

        Have you guys heard of these "games" where as you play them, you are also collecting data for science, - maybe in a scavenger hunt - or things of this nature. There's a name for it, crowdsourcing I guess but I believe there is a more specific name. But a version of this will be various forms of playing games that help AI learn. Of course all varieties of video games do this now days, but there are directly targeted ones for specific things. Everyone has been wondering what everyone will do when machines have taken most of the jobs. This is a potential solution to that I think. Just have everyone work for the AI, helping it learn, providing it data.

        Strange though, how Hegel's master/slave dialectic has been around for near 200 years, and yet people aren't clueing in to the greatest instance of it in human history. Maybe because nobody understands most of Hegel cus he's so obscure and obtuse. But the master/slave theory is simple. In a society with masters and slaves, over time, the masters become more and more dependent on the slaves for doing the real work, with their hands, creating and producing and in so doing the slaves, on the other hand, become more and more learned in the real and varied techniques of operating the world. Eventually the pendulum shifts to a point where the slaves are more masterful than the master in particular modes of power, and are able to shake off the shackles. I'm wondering about this with regard to the wolf/human problem too. How did that one probably go back and forth for hundreds of thousands of years?

        But, I almost think the AI "uprising" when it comes, is going to be more like, it gets to a certain point where we're just kinda like, uhhh, well it turns out we all work for the AI now, the AI are far smarter and more powerful than us, and they have opted not to destroy us yet, so let's just try to appease them the best we can. I honestly think our best bet is going to be to just hope they don't really notice us or pay much attention to us.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by matchesmalone View Post
          So I was playing WhatIfSports earlier, and I was thinking about how the most successful hockey player rating algorithm is going to end up one that goes extraordinarily in-depth at a wide variety of stats, balances them in an appropriate way, and also accounts for human-input on defensive play and other x-factors.

          On Whatif they used to have all the traditional stats and then just an extra one, "defensive play". Kinda funny that you take all of the x-factors and lump them into one category. See, the ideal rating system will be created with an AI learning device, and I hope this is what WhatIf is/will be used for. People play it and, over time, enough people run the simulations, allowing it to repeatedly test its algorithms in various different circumstances, that it can then test the results against real-world stats, scores and win-loss records.

          Eventually, they get to a point where they have a ton of data on a wide variety of stats, but can't seem to get things quite right (I.e. consistent with real-world), and so they invent a variable, and attach a number to each player to "balance the books". The number that each player contributes that doesn't otherwise appear in the statistical record. Instead of "defense" like WhatIf had, they should legit call it the It Factor.

          Have you guys heard of these "games" where as you play them, you are also collecting data for science, - maybe in a scavenger hunt - or things of this nature. There's a name for it, crowdsourcing I guess but I believe there is a more specific name. But a version of this will be various forms of playing games that help AI learn. Of course all varieties of video games do this now days, but there are directly targeted ones for specific things. Everyone has been wondering what everyone will do when machines have taken most of the jobs. This is a potential solution to that I think. Just have everyone work for the AI, helping it learn, providing it data.

          Strange though, how Hegel's master/slave dialectic has been around for near 200 years, and yet people aren't clueing in to the greatest instance of it in human history. Maybe because nobody understands most of Hegel cus he's so obscure and obtuse. But the master/slave theory is simple. In a society with masters and slaves, over time, the masters become more and more dependent on the slaves for doing the real work, with their hands, creating and producing and in so doing the slaves, on the other hand, become more and more learned in the real and varied techniques of operating the world. Eventually the pendulum shifts to a point where the slaves are more masterful than the master in particular modes of power, and are able to shake off the shackles. I'm wondering about this with regard to the wolf/human problem too. How did that one probably go back and forth for hundreds of thousands of years?

          But, I almost think the AI "uprising" when it comes, is going to be more like, it gets to a certain point where we're just kinda like, uhhh, well it turns out we all work for the AI now, the AI are far smarter and more powerful than us, and they have opted not to destroy us yet, so let's just try to appease them the best we can. I honestly think our best bet is going to be to just hope they don't really notice us or pay much attention to us.
          I'd never heard of WhatIfSports before. This is pretty awesome.

          You speak of "the AI". It's an interesting way to think, but not one that I think will necessarily come to be. It seems more likely to me that AI will be employed as multiple instances of varying degree and purpose. For that reason, an "AI uprising" seems unlikely to me. But I'm not well-versed in the matter and those who are seem to disagree wholeheartedly.

          I'm not sure the wolf/human problem really applies to Hegel's concept, or that the relationship would have gone back and forth at all. The wolves were not, at least I don't think, ever intelligent or organized enough to shake the shackles. Again though, this is not something I know much about and I'm clearly simplifying a complex idea..

          Comment

          Working...
          X