In article <931296614.625.91 at news.remarQ.com>, "Gary Forbis" <forbis at accessone.com> wrote:
>Bloxy,
>At times you're a hard nut to crack.
Well, if you still have any interest,
that is good enough.
If you say: hey, this stuff is boring as hell,
then we have a "problem".
>Here I agree to a degree with what I believe to be both your and Sergio's
>positions.
>My comments will be brief and tangential.
>Bloxy's <Bloxy's at hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7lrknh$jqv$1 at its.hooked.net...>> In article <3781235b at news3.us.ibm.net>, "Sergio Navega" <snavega at ibm.net>
>wrote:
>> >Only after that we will be able to "propose" new
>> >methods and algorithms to enhance biological intelligence with
>> >functionally equivalent
>> "Functionally equivalent" is a definition, inapplicable to intelligence.
>> It is the same absurd view of the world, based on a model
>> of giant sucking machine.
>> Unless you can show that the playfulness, art, beauty,
>> love and plenty of other aspects, are functional,
>> there is no way to reduce intelligence to a function of ANY kind,
>> as most exciting aspects of intelligence seem to be quite
>> "useless" from the standpoing of maximization of the rate os sucking.
>I don't know what one looks for when attempting to see the beauty in the
>dance.
The most "rediculous" thins is that the dancers themselves don't know.
It is some kind of grace, that seems to "descend on you"
once in a while, and you start literally flying.
This Russian Nejinski dude surprised physicists on more than one
occasion. They said: It can not be. This defies the laws of gravitation.
This dude can not jump so high and so far, given all the parameters.
They knew it is not a trick, but they were literally bewildered by it.
But once it happens you KNOW.
No marvin minski can "prove" ANYTHING to them.
They'll just laugh at this fool, who knows no mystery
[of life].
>Do choreographers talk of "functionally equivalent" moves? I don't know.
There simply is no such a notion in choreography.
That would be literally destroying the whole art of it.
>Maybe there are times a choreographer will indicate a stumble so as to draw
>attention to the movement surrounding it.
And another "rediculous" thing is that quite often those
geniouses just somehow stumble into it.
Initially it looks "rediculous", "impossible", or even
"insane", but then ...
> If so, can I take your use of
>"sucking"
>as something like a stumble within the movement, that is a way to draw
>attention
>to the surrounding text?
No, the meaning of "sucking" is in reducing the scope
to the point of purely functional level
for the purpose of "maximization" of gain,
or fame, or blame, or what have you.
So, once you reduce the intelligence to the point of functional
machine, all you have left is sucking,
and maximization of the rate of sucking.
There are roots of it.
It is based in fear [of survival],
conviniently programmed into the people's brain,
by those, the least productive, and most exploitive.
Not much harmony in it.
It is mostly a dissonanse.
And this is the biggest calamity to date.
We came to the point, where there is nothing left,
but purely functional level
any place you look.
Deadly trip indeed.
