Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1557Re: Martians & Venusians

Expand Messages
  • Michael Lacy
    Aug 27, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      This got me thinking about some of the limitations of HumanML and I
      thought I'd share with you all:

      1.) HumanML will be nothing more than another "language" for humans
      to use in order to communicate with each other. Some people
      communicate in English, others through music...the point is that
      groups of people communicate with one another through a common
      understanding of a universally accepted language within the group of
      people the person chooses to communicate with.

      2.) Using this new language, people will still be able to express
      irony, simile, and metaphor in their interactions with others, the
      true meaning of their statements manifesting themselves indirectly
      into a human understandable format, obscuring the truth of their
      feelings behind a safe allusion to a story outside of themselves.

      3.) The more universal the language, the more powerful it will be. On
      one level, HumanML is just another communication medium for people to
      learn to express themselves through. On another level, it attempts
      to capture the true feelings of a person and express them with the
      subtlety and directness that face-to-face interaction brings. Think
      about having a conversation with someone else. There are so many
      perceptual clues as to how that person feels, a rolling of the eyes,
      a crossing of the arms across the chest, a heavy sigh. The big
      challenges I see are:

      (a) how to come up with a set of semantics and syntax to capture
      these non-verbal gestures in their full detail without trying to
      elaborate every possible variation of every possible feeling; and

      (b) how to get people to feel safety in expressing their true
      emotions and feelings to other human beings, something we have been
      notoriously bad at for several thousand years.

      I think the challenge we face here is less of a technical problem as
      it is a human, cultural, societal dilemma...and that's how to get
      people to communicate authentically, with an understanding for other
      people's point of view, and actually care about what they are
      communicating instead of resorting to their unconscious defenses and
      spewing their isolated, judgmental views of the world.


      --- In humanmarkup@y..., Niclas Olofsson <gurun@a...> wrote:
      > Walter Hucal wrote:
      > > Ok, MAYBE I am posting this to the wrong discussion group, and
      maybe I
      > > should post it to the Don Juan website instead...
      > Hehe, mabye, mabye not. A techie point of view.
      > Question: Who is responsible for providing the correct translation.
      > sender or the reciever. I take it that Gray puts a lot of the
      > responsability on the reciever. How does a HumanML processor work?
      > is just out of my brain, probably wrong, but it does intrests me.
      > just for discussion purposes...
      > First scenario: The translation is on the sender side. "No one
      > translates by the Venusian agent to correct emotion "Need
      > Recieving side (the martian agent) handle this and because it's a
      > venusian, a special venusian, it translates to actions "hug | give
      > flowers | listen ..." and into a state of loving. Now, what would
      > if this message, the event, from the vinusian wasn't interpretered
      > from someone special? The martian would falsle trigger actions like
      > "reject | turn-away | get Scared ..." and perhaps put the martian
      > into a state of embarrassed or perhaps even hostile. Since the
      > agent is listening careful to state changes on this particular
      > it would perhaps recieve a rejecting event back.
      > Second scenario: The translation is on the receiving side. At point
      > zero, the martian agent knows nothing but martian interpretations.
      > does recognize venusian events and handles accordingly. No
      > is made other than based on historical data. After a while the
      > agent learns to react differently to different venusians, or
      perhaps it
      > even treats them all the same (what a disaster in its self:).
      > Third scenario (the combination). Venusian agent does translation
      > on who the receiving agent is. It means that the agent isn't
      exactly in
      > a broadcasting mode, but rather holding a session with the martian
      > agent. The venusian agent learns to adjust it's events based on
      > from 1) the venusian pilot, 2) the martian agent. The martian agent
      > learns that some events sent by venusian agents need further
      > to get the expected result. It learns that "I love you" doesn't
      > should put it into a state of "loving". Exactly how it learns this,
      > be based on feedback from the venusian agent or it's pilot I guess.
      > Scenario 1 and 2 builds into simple transision maps. Scenario builds
      > into a neural network I guess...
      > At least you know you have succeeded when the two agents start
      > :-)
      > Cheers,
      > /Niclas
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic