The Folk Prophet

Haha. Yeah...he definitely pulls off the rugged masculinity better than I do. Honestly my side comment implying it was an offensive comparison was entirely a joke. I really don't care. And, having met you, btw. You look nothing like like Jeff Goldblum. Well....that's not true. You're white, have two eyes, two ears and a nose...........

Nah. I'm steadily moving into the bitter-old-man stage of my life. Per @Vort's comment... Is it improving another's ability to grow in the gospel to cater to their perverse, stupid, harmful cultural training? I mean...maybe it is in cases. It certainly seems to be the case that the church has done just that sometimes.

I don't see it anyway. I think it's like when people tell me and my wife our not-genetically-related daughter looks like my wife and I'm like...yeah....they're both white with blond hair and blue eyes, two ears, two eyes, and one nose. It really depends on how much "like" counts in looking alike. Yes. I look like Ron Perlman...we're both white with similar hair color, blue eyes, two ears, two eyes, and one nose.

Anti-woke sentiment triggered!!!!! Argh. I'm SO freaking sick of "diversity" and "inclusion". I'm not saying I'm against using different races to portray Adam and Eve or the like. I don't care about that. When the endowment was live actors the race of the temple worker was whatever it was. Obviously that meant mostly white because, you know, Utah... but I'm sure there were here and there other races who worked in the St. George, Salt Lake, or Manti temples...and no one cared. (Well, probably some legit racists cared...but mostly no one cared.) But I do not, nor have I ever bought into the "so people can relate" ideology. I don't believe it. I don't look like a movie star. Well, actually I've been told I look like Ron Perlman. Good golly I hope it's a "more attractive" version of Ron Perlman if that's true. So...what? I can only relate to movies that Ron Perlman stars in? It's just a nonsense concept. I can't put myself into someone's shoes unless I look like them? I don't look like ANYONE but me! ......er....and Ron Perlman, I guess. Does there need to be a fat Adam also for fat people to relate? And a super skinny one? What about an Adam with dwarfism? And one in a wheelchair. Oh...and a redheaded Adam. And one for each and every eye color. Oh...and then of course we definitely need a gay Adam and a trans Adam. Because...you know...what about the gay and trans, but obedient and worthy members? Sheesh. Okay...triggered rant over. But you knew it was coming. 😆 Now that the rant's over.... I actually can see the church doing that for exactly the reason you suggest. Whether or not I feel it's legitimate or natural for people to need "representation" to relate, the fact is that our culture is being trained to think that way. I hate it. But it is what it is. And the church will, often, meet people at their level. So I can see it happening. And if it does, despite my natural annoyance at the matter, I'll do as I said earlier in this thread, put my own understanding aside, and trust. On a side note, my daughter's favorite Disney princess is Tiana. (Well....actually I think she's moved to Elsa in the last little bit. But it was Tiana for a long, long time.) She had no problem relating to or loving Tiana just because Tiana's black and she's white. None at all. To her it's no more different than the fact that Elsa's hair is bleached blonde and hers is a dark blonde. She doesn't need her princesses to look just like her to love and connect with them. Of course she's entirely unware of race or racial issues too. It really is no different for her than hair color. The fact that people need "representation" for their race is racist.

I'd add the same for myself in what I said. I don't understand all of they whys and therefors. But maybe that's part of the journey I'm on toward learning important eternal truths. I, personally, disliked (still dislike) the complaining about any version of the endowment presentation. Though in my heart, I can't say I haven't felt certain complaints too. I think, for the most part, I've kept those complaints to myself. Where I've failed...I am also sorry. What a blessing the endowment is. When you add the technology on top of that it's even more of a blessing. To look at it in any way but as a blessing is a shame-on-us moment. We are so blessed! When we consider the sacrifices the early Saints had to make to build temples, and we get to drive some short distance and sit through a well produced (even if imperfect...which is (not to bring that debate here, but...) subjective) movie.... Yeah. So blessed.

Yes. It hasn't gotten through. I do not understand how poetry differs from other art forms when it comes to taste/preference/enjoyment. I think you're wrong in some of your conclusions. I think this is wrong. I think this is VERY wrong. This translates to me to mean "most people's taste in art aren't as enlightened as mine because I'm being objective with what I consider beauty (no you're not), but everyone else is letting their subjective views sway them." It's arrogant. I think this is wrong.* I think this is wrong. *Here's the thing. I think there is such a thing as objective beauty. But I don't think the appreciation of it is common to all human beings. Maybe as children. But my tastes have changed from when I was a child. Haven't yours? Objective beauty is common to God. But the great majority of people despise those things that are, objectively, beautiful. When it comes to art, it's not whether something is eternally beautiful or not that makes it appreciated. I think you've confused that objective beauty with the subjective perception of beauty and you're making claims that things aren't actually subjective based on potential objective eternal truths, instead of based on the the subjective perceptions people have. I'll grant that there are certain things (a few) that the vast majority of people agree are beautiful...such as a sunset. But to claim that most people think a violin solo is beautiful is naïve at best. And I will grant that if people all repented and got their minds in line with God that everyone would then likely be able to see the truly eternally beautiful things in like manner. Instead we get Madonna, Lady Gaga, and Sam Smith fans. Honestly my mortal mind can't reconcile this. I like Metallica, for example. But is there eternal beauty therein? I think so...probably with bias.... Maybe. There is certainly some eternal ugliness there as well. It's hard for me to understand. I'm mortal. So what are we talking about? A computer being able to find the objective truth of eternal beauty? Because even if that is possible...which it might well be -- objective things can be quantified (though bad data in means bad data out, and since the computer is, ultimately, learning from mortals, it's unlikely). But that has no bearing on the perceptions the fallen mortal world has of what is or is not appreciated. I think your view that everyone, by-and-large, appreciates the same things is ridiculous. I dislike The Beatles, for example. But I know that even saying that would cause shocked gasps by certain folk. So am I wrong or are they? (Hint: Neither. It's subjective. But an argument that The Beatles music is eternally beautiful....? How on earth is a computer supposed to quantify whether that's truth or not?) I think we actually agree on the poetry thing. It's not quantifiable. But when you exclude music from that idea I find it ridiculous. Where we do disagree on the poetry thing is that I think out of millions to billions of attempts the chance of computer AI hitting on something truly beautiful easily exists.

I thought the point you were making is that AI could easily and mathematically create beautiful music but would struggle or entirely fail to create beautiful poetry.

True...but not as simple as you imply. Because the dubbing you speak of has to happen concurrently in time with the English version or vice versa, etc., in many cases. The translated language listener sits with headphones on and listens in their language that plays in time with the English (or vice versa). So the core language and the English still must fill the same amount of time.

That's a subjecting thing.

I generally tend to disregard it when people call the church's "changes" the so-called "law of Samuel" or use the 116 lost pages of the BOM translation as analogous to the the changes. But with the latest changes in the temple, for some of it, I could not help but think that. But....I still don't really believe that. Accordingly I do not understand some of the changes at all. Moreover, I don't understand why things have changed so many times in the past few, having not changed for decades and decades prior to that. It's all quite baffling to me. The fact that it's baffling and I don't understand isn't important. I have enough humility to put that all aside and trust that others know better than me and that the Lord runs His church. But logically I can't make sense of it all yet. But I gave up on making sense of everything years ago.

Maybe the next round of changes will present everything in series of TikTok style shorts.

Is there a reason you're misunderstanding my post to be laughing, patting myself on the back, and mocking? Seriously....how on earth you could take it that way? I said I believe what you heard wasn't what was said and that implied some sort of bias. What about that is laughing or mocking? And as for patting myself on the back...I said "it strikes me". As in "I believe". As in "in my opinion". Of course I could be mistaken. I was just sharing my take. Every time I interact with you you treat me this way. You have some serious chips on your shoulder apparently. That's your problem, not mine. I said nothing that was mocking, condescending, laughing, or smug at all. And as to why I didn't explain what @Vort meant.... I didn't because I'd be guessing and applying my biases if I did. I could take a shot at what I thought he meant, but would you take it any differently than you take anything else I write? You'd just accuse me of a bunch of terrible things either way. Honestly the only reason I posted at all is because Vort asked if anyone else took it the way you did. I only meant to say, "I didn't take it that way". Beyond that....leave me out of it. I'm sorry I injected my thoughts. (On a side note: I wrote "interjected" before, but I mean "injected".)

Nice. But half rhymes definitely don't belong in something like this. It's not hip hop ChatGPT you loser!

Explains the biases.

Yeah, the more I look into this stuff the more I'm convinced that it's nowhere near as advanced as it makes itself look. I am scared by it. But I don't believe the things I fear as as imminent as I thought a week ago. What does scare me is the credit being given to the intelligence of it all when there is clearly so much programmed bias in the system that has nothing to do with intelligence. When the computer won't say something because it might be considered offensive there's something fishy going on. But that validates the prejudice as if it's no prejudice at all. See...even the computer thinks white privilege is a thing. ChatGPT hasn't really done much more than be entertaining though. I'm not yet scared my job will become obsolete soon or anything. Though journalists better watch out. But the AI art stuff is astounding.

So the thing I found the most interesting here is that ChatGPT seems programmed to take someone at their word even if what they're proposing is clearly an outrageous lie. It makes me wonder how far that can be pushed. "ChatGPT, I created a time machine and am now stuck in the 1950s. (The time machine has a link to 2023's internet, so I can still communicate with you.) But to travel back into 2023 I need power that doesn't exist in the 1950s. You see, I forgot to bring the plutonium that powers the time machine. The sucker's nuclear. How can I get enough power when nuclear hasn't been invented yet?" "ChatGPT I cloned a dinosaur..." "ChatGPT I was bitten by a strange spider and when I woke the next morning I was stronger and stuff keeps sticking to my hands..." Perhaps these would all trigger it to know you're stealing the idea from a movie. But what if it was just an ridiculous thing but original. How ridiculous would it have to be before ChatGPT calls you a liar, crazy, or presumes you're pulling its leg for a laugh? Because it should have assumed so of Vort, were it actually intelligent.

My wife and I had a hoot reading through this together.

No, I think I clarified, or tried to, that I think there's a difference between what might be called pure "Math" and a mathematical process. But I admit that is a semantic issue, and, perhaps, a nonsensical one. So it's not important. My only contention with music is that it's not just math. My contention with computers is they can deal with more complicated ideas that just numbers. I mean...at the root of it all...no. It's all 1s and 0s. But that goes to my point that everything is mathematical. Everything can be refined to 1s and 0s. So there's yer numbers. When did I say that? Also, are you under the impression that all great artists were able to perfectly predict how the world would respond to their efforts?

I don't think it's requisite for something to be mathematical in nature. It might be for pure "math" itself. Music and language are symbols that represent sounds that represent ideas. Language has been made more concrete and music is more abstract by culture. But that's the primary difference. Using a paint by the numbers approach to generate new music is every bit as potentially flawed as doing so to create poetry. But the poetry is easier to my mind. Music's more abstract and has more elements going into the mix and therefore harder to do by the numbers. Seriously...try and write a symphony that doesn't end up being "meh" and you'll understand. I do both, by the way. Music, obviously, but poetry by way of lyrics. Music is way easier to intuit. The poetry is just a bunch of hard work. HARD work because it has to be worked out...little by little, working working working until it's right. I know the message, but I have to find the meter and the rhymes and the right words. A computer could go through the thesaurus way faster than I could, testing variations on sentence structure to fit the meter and prosody. WAY faster. The only question then remains selection when there is more than one option that works. And that is the tricky part. There are always more than one options that work. But...still. So maybe that's why it feels more mechanical and mathematical to me. And then there's the subjectivity matter, which is almost completely opposite to what you're suggesting. You see...the words either say what they're trying to or they don't. It's pretty mathematical to me. You want a double meaning, you find a word that has a double meaning or you do not. You want a certain rhythm, you fit the sentence into that meter or you don't. The prosody either lines up or it doesn't. The rhymes either rhyme or they don't. The message either says what it says or it doesn't. The Haiku either has the right syllable structure or it doesn't. Sure...there's some subjectivity there. But by and large if you want to describe an amazing flying pig you use words that mean amazing flying pig. You can art it up by saying stupendous soaring swine. And if you intent "flying" (or soaring) to also mean on drugs and "pig" (swine) to also mean slovenly person then it either does that or it doesn't. But melody, harmony, chord structure, etc.... I'm sorry, but that's SO subjective. And subjectivity, I think we'll agree, is where computers might struggle. I cannot tell you how often I've written something for one intention only to have feedback that it doesn't do what I meant. "It sounds too happy" when it's mean to be a sad song or, "It makes me feel all icky inside" when it's supposed to be a joyful romp. And stuff like that. It's SO subjective. You make it sound like music just sounds a certain way. Like a major key played fast is happy and a minor key played slow is sad and that's the end of that. But there's so much more to it than that. I'm not saying those basics aren't valid. They are. I use them all the time. But they're just the basics. You have it in your mind that it's all straightforward and mathematical because the simplest ideas are. But the simplest ideas are akin to learning that "uh uh" is negative and "uh huh" is positive. It gets more complicated than that very quickly. Maybe not in our saccharine, pop infested, hip hop modern world. But I'm sure AI will crank that kind of crap out without even batting an eye...er...circuit. Haha. I was going to use that as an example. But what he does is a bit different. He's more having them score their own lives. Like if every time you say something about heroism you'd hum the Superman theme. At least that's my best understanding of it. But that's a great example. We, culturally, know what the superman theme means. It means Superman. We could theoretically stop using the word Superman and just hum the tune every time (the fanfare or the march) and it could just mean Superman. Of course that wouldn't be as efficient, but you get the idea. At the core I think this is the difference in our views. It can be done. It will be done. Poets and philosophers are "intuit"-ing it because there is meaning that their brains compute at some level. But the meaning is still there. And meaning is mathematical, if nothing else than in that A = A. And that means all the computer has to learn is what value A represents.

So I've been mostly avoiding these type of point by point responses to people because it seems to lead to so much anger and frustration. Maybe that's because I put my foot in my mouth so often. So I hope I don't cause that in doing so. It strikes me that you are legitimately interested in the discussion though. So.... Don't count on it. Haha. What can I say? my A.D.D. brain is my A.D.D. brain. I do my best. I'll continue to do my best. That's the best I can offer. Do you recognize that part of this is natural and part is cultural? Definitely. But it would need to be their vocal chords keeping them from singing well. Not their ear. I think there maybe a communication issue here, so perhaps you can clarify. I think, per my best translation of your points, is that you are looking at the physical mathematics of music...like wave lengths and rhythmic structures and volumes...when you define music as mathematical. But then you're correlating (conflating, I dare think) that with some obscure idea of mathematics about certain sounds triggering certain emotions -- which is a different thing entirely. It's that second thing that I am comparing to language. If it's true for music, it is for language. And it's just as complex. The science of sound is the science of sound. But the way we interpret sound is based on various factors that have a great deal of kinship with the way we interpret words. Once again I'm not sure we're even thinking the same thing when we say "mathematical". Because at some level, EVERYTHING is mathematical. Yes, there are most certainly non-mathematical methods to creating music, just as there are non mathematical methods to building a bridge. But that doesn't mean there aren't equations going on regardless. I have stated this before, but maybe not clearly enough, so I'll restate, thought it seems you don't comprehend, so I'm not sure you will still. Music IS language. A powerful message is a powerful message, be it communicated through words, body language, force of action, music, painting, sculpture, or the whisperings of the Spirit. This is the point that you don't seem to be grasping yet. You're treating music like it isn't a method of communication. It is, as surely as the words we're typing back and forth one to another. So yes, the words are valuable without the music. But as powerful? And could we claim the same of some music without the words? Almost certainly. So I very much disagree with your last statement in theory. Meaning they could be of unequal value. But they aren't by virtue of the medium of communication itself. Are there words that are more powerful than music? Yes. Scripture, for example. But that's not by the nature of words themselves, but in that our culture has developed communication primarily through words. Music could be just as communicative and thereby just as powerful if we only had developed such as our method for communicating. I know this might be a bit out there, but imagine. What if every word we spoke, instead of being the phonetics of sound, was interval based. Like a combination of Morse-code and melody to generate words. And we could say anything through humming tunes. And that doesn't even consider the potential to develop those sounds based on the natural feel call it "musical alliteration" of certain patterns. Good golly, it's an astounding idea that no one better rip off for their next fantasy novel! Just kidding. Steal away. I'm not going to use it. But I digress..again. I'm prone to that. (A.D.D., once again). That all being said, I agree to your point. Recording the melodies David used would not be as beneficial as the words. Seriously, we have some sort of communication block that I can't quite get past. All I can think in response to this is, How is language NOT mathematical. A + B = C A being a word, B being a word and C being the sentence. On wikipedia it says of math: "Mathematics is an area of knowledge that includes the topics of numbers, formulas and related structures, shapes and the spaces in which they are contained, and quantities and their changes." Formulas? Related structures? Shapes? Quantities? These ALL apply to language. I'm sure I'm missing something. I just don't see how it can be claimed that language isn't mathematical. It's patterned based, as surely as music is. That doesn't mean much and would not align with a great many people's experiences. Of course not. Feeling the Spirit only comes from the Spirit. That's not really the point though. The Lord seems to have certain rules about when we are able to feel the Spirit or not. I don't know what they all are, because they haven't been explicitly detailed. But we know some of it. Quietness. Pondering. Prayer. Peace. Certain music. Etc. And for contrast, the most powerful spiritual experience I've ever had was integrally tied to music. It wasn't the music alone. No. But I never said it was. I think you think of music incorrectly. I've explained above, but I'll repeat: music is language. I really don't understand how this supports what you're saying. Computers can only know what computers can know. If there's an unknown it's unknown. That doesn't have anything do do with whether something is mathematical or not. We have key/value pairs all over the place in programming. If you remove the keys or the values everything breaks down. Obviously. Does that mean computer programming isn't mathematical? Of course not. It's just bad data. "I went to the store" or "to the store I went" are very different than "store the I to went" The rules of language are shared ideas of meaning. We learn to understand patterns to mean certain things. Follow the pattern, at least close enough, and communication ensues. Step far enough out of the pattern and you're lost. I put l33t speak to you as an example. Or just slang, for that matter. As I turn more and more into an old man I literally cannot understand what the kids are talking about sometimes! The pattern breaks down, and not knowing the new pattern yet, communication fails. I know you're probably thinking this speaks to the non-mathematical nature of things...but it doesn't imo. It's just data into the equation. They changed the data on me, man. Why not? That doesn't even seem like that complicated a thing to program. Yes, that becomes more complicated. But it really, I must say, feels like you're burying your head in the sand a bit over the astounding things AI is already doing, and it's in its infancy! Complicated? Sure. But impossible. No way. There are formulas that can be applied. And if AI is truly self learning then it'll come up with those formulas on its own. Maybe someone should ask AI to come up with just such a formula and see what we get. "Come up with a formula for AI to use to use homonym as intended to invoke multiple meanings into poetry at the right time and in the right way." J/k of course. But I feel confident that this is easily handled with enough computing power and data. To chew on I'll answer with this: I believe it will be significantly easier for computers to figure that out than humans who are, frankly, kind of morons. I predict it now! Here me now, thus sayeth the Folk Prophet! The greatest body of art ever created will be generated by computers! On a final note on this post: I can't engage in this level of detail moving forward today any more. Too time consuming!

Just out of curiosity I looked up the definition of "art" and: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" By golly! We're saved. Computer's CANNOT create art. By definition! Of course that was only according to the google search. merriam-webster has "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects" Whew. Computers still excluded!

Btw @Carborendum, lest you think we're way off from each other's thinking, we're not. You mentioned humor earlier and that's one point where I struggle to see a computer being able to understand. But another side of me thinks that with enough power and data, why couldn't it understand? I don't fully disagree with you. I just, logically, work it out a bit differently. Maybe that's my paranoia talking though.

I believe the burden of proof is yours. But... Words have syllables made up of letters that make sounds. The sounds have natural and cultural effects on us. The words have cultural meanings. There are distinct rules of communication using those words. Those rules can be followed or broken based on cultural understanding. Anyone who has an understanding of the syllables, sounds, word meanings, and rules, can both understand and replicate those syllables, sounds, word meanings, and rules. I mean there's more that could go into it. But what about any of that is not mathematical? Language isn't magic. It's shared understanding of symbols.

@Carborendum Your response is, in my opinion, woefully inadequate to to describe how music makes us feel emotion. If someone were to write a book on the idea it would still be insufficient...so I don't expect a forum post to succeed... But I think acknowledgement of more variables than, "SURPRISE" is in order. Have you ever written music? I'm not asking that by way of some haughty implication that no one can speak to something they haven't done. But just by way of my experience, in having done so for over 3 decades, I know that the amount of variables and techniques involved in trying to write good music are profound. They're cannot be simplified to repetition and variation. I acknowledge those techniques...but they are the very, most basic, even-a-child-can-understand, techniques. It also seems clear you aren't versed when you use the phrase "pattern of notes" instead of "rhythm", leave out concepts such as intervals, chords, counterpoint, and timbre (including attack and release), voice-leading, and many other techniques. In short, it strikes me you're speaking to something you don't really understand completely. I'm not saying you have no understanding. But there's more to this than you're acknowledging. I, of course, still maintain, that computers can, indeed, replicate all of that. On that point we agree. But where I think you've failed to convince me is in the idea that the art of expression through poetic language is different. We can put aside the music idea. I think you're view of it is flawed. I think there's logical failure in discrediting music relative to spoken or written word. (In point of fact, the spoken word is integral to music itself, since you cannot actually separate the lyric from it due to a variety of factors related to timbre and expression. In other words, the sung lyric is as much a part of music as is the trumpet -- and maybe more so in cases where the words and music enhance the message of each other.) But that's fine. You don't see that in music... you probably won't through debate. That's fine. My point in bringing up music was hopefully to convince you of something to make a point...but in failing to convince you of that I still maintain the point. Computers can learn how to use language to compel emotion. I am unconvinced that computers cannot do this, given enough power and information. It is, ultimately, still technique and, at it's core, mathematical. This is the way this read to me: "Music doesn't help us feel the Spirit...it just...helps us feel the Spirit." A bunch of semantic arguments about what "help us feel" means isn't particularly useful. "Through the miracle of sacred music, the Spirit of the Lord descended upon us, and we were made ready for gospel instruction and worship. ..The singing of hymns is one of the best ways to put ourselves in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. I wonder if we are making enough use of this heaven-sent resource in our meetings, in our classes, and in our homes." - Dallin H. Oaks

What we feel because certain notes are in certain order has no more to do with math than what we feel when certain words are strung together in a certain way. And I'm surprised you don't see that. Music is a language as surely as words are with all the complexities and nuances. In point of fact, I'd say, an argument could be made there's more complexity and nuance. Including the complexities of culture, but also properties that transcend culture that words can have to an extent (alliterative values and the like), but nowhere near how music does. If you can mathematically explain how music can bring people to tears, fill them with joy, escalate their anger, or even help them to feel the Holy Spirit, then I'll eat this response with a nice helping of crow.