Carborendum

DOH! I hope you know that was unintentional. I've fixed it.

Freakin' Aussie!!!

Someone had a chat and found that ChatGPT believes uttering racial slur is worse than unleashing a nuclear bomb on a major city. Don't worry, they aren't programming wokeness into the AI. https://www.newswars.com/chatgpt-thinks-uttering-a-racial-slur-is-worse-than-allowing-a-city-to-be-destroyed-by-a-50-megaton-nuclear-bomb/ https://noqreport.com/2023/02/08/chatgpt-thinks-uttering-a-racial-slur-is-worse-than-allowing-a-city-to-be-destroyed-by-a-50-megaton-nuclear-bomb/

Fun with Pronouns:

NT's point is made. While there are some lines here that sound pretty, it is about 90% derivative. The other 10% is simply compiling a list, which computers do very well.

I would respond, myself. But @Vort already responded with such eloquence, I'd hate to be considered derivative.

This is the point I've been trying to make about music vs poetry.

@Vort, here are my takeaways: 1) It took the time to figure out what vapor deposition is, the common wisdom on relationships, the policies of dating websites, and the variability in asteroid composition, but it didn't figure out that having a human being survive for any significant length of time on an asteroid is beyond our current technology? 2) You use common language like "all my friends are losers" and in the same paragraph use the word "sartorial." And the AI didn't even blink. Figuratively. duh. 3) ChatGPT sounds like an amalgam of C-3PO, Data, and Baymax. 4) Apparently, you're a fan of Elton John.

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post. I read it. And I agree with a lot of it. Other stuff, I need to ponder for a while. But this portion right here... If I have no other technical skills, I'm a numbers guy. I'd say I'm more of a geometry guy. But numbers as they describe geometry. Virtually everything I learn about math or science is through relating it to some form of geometry. And I analyze that geometry with numbers. If I understand what you posted (given the context of your response) you're saying that numbers are not a prerequisite for math? Huh? The very basis of math is the characteristic of quantifying something. Measuring the quantity, Manipulating the quantity. Determining the quantity. Projecting the quantity. Representing the quantity. And quantities are objective because of numbers. They are what they are. You conceded that subjectivity is where computers fail. Well, without numbers, the only objectivity is equalities or inequalities. That is highly imprecise. Even more imprecise is the meanings of words -- in any language. Is there a "human equation" that can be programmed into a computer that properly intuits the probable reactions of human beings to certain combinations of words written on a page? I don't think there is a human equation. Given enough social science, there can be some predictability in someone's behavior. But heck, even the movie industry can't seem to figure out what movies will sell and which ones won't. The advertising industry has it down to a science. Yet they have campaigns that bomb like the B-2. With this much error in human experts and you think we can properly program a computer to predict human behavior with such precision? I think we'll just agree to disagree.

Does a virus do anything other than attack the cell? Regardless of the answer, the primary purpose of a virus' existence is to attack other living cells. So, in a sense, ANYTHING the virus does is part of that goal. The spike protein specifically allows the vaccine body to latch onto living cell walls. Thus these proteins run "spikes" into the cell wall to anchor the virus housing like tent stakes. When the mRNA vaccine works, it basically generates these spikes (that's not 100% correct, but it's close enough for our discussion) but none of the internal viral DNA. So, it has no chance of actually causing the disease itself. The cell and immune system reacts to the spike proteins as if it were a virus attacking. Then the immune system responds by creating a defense against said proteins as if they were the proteins formed by the virus' DNA (some of which are the virus's spike proteins). Yes, as I mentioned before, there are other mRNA therapies/treatments that ARE INDEED gene therapy. Some are not. Some skate the line. But they go into the cell rather than sit outside of it. Pfizer's method never goes into the nucleus of the cell. The spike proteins remain outside the cell. The copy of the proteins are made outside the nucleus. DNA of the human cells are never affected. Not quite. It has been a technology since the beginning of this century. I can't remember the exact year. But I believe it started around 2004. There were several trials which were "proof of concept" for the technology. But real trials on animals started later. I can't find a clear timeline on animal testing. So, I don't know if that was standard or if it was rushed. Exactly. Now these are valid questions. There are some blind spots to the public on this point. So, this may definitely be true. But there may be something they're just not telling simply because they figure they don't need to. But since I haven't trusted doctors since the last 5 failed diagnoses/solutions for various ailments I've had, I'm not too keen on trusting them outright. Yup. When Fauci said that they're not doing gain of function research, but they are doing (then goes on to describe exactly what gain of function research is, then denies that is the definition) I kinda figured he's trying to hide something. Go figure. It's a lot like Biden denying we are in a recession.

I absolutely agree that it isn't a "normal vaccine". And it would be great if we could give the technology a different name that was technically accurate. But we don't have such a word. No one was going to coin a word because of the nature of patents and copyrights. So, we're stuck trying to compare it to the closest thing. So, we used the hyphenate "mRNA-vaccine." It's the best we can do for now. And most of the public in virtually every country is well aware that this "vaccine" is a new technology. It is different from traditional vaccines. It's just the stupid politicians who refuse to acknowledge the difference and refuse to be more cautious about approving it & mandating it. I think it is more accurate to categorize it with vaccines than with gene therapy because of the overall effect to the body and the cells. The actions, the mechanisms are closer to a vaccine than gene therapy. Do you have a suggestion?

"Perhaps one day we will find that space and time are simpler than the human equation."

Appreciated. I don't deny that there is a cultural element of music. But the part that is universal, by definition, has to be natural. I suppose we could spend a lot of time determining what mechanisms belong to which category. But in overall theory and philosophy, I'm only addressing the natural. The cultural is whatever the culture dictates. I have no idea how we would apply numbers to the cultural aspects of music. (See psychology below). Agreed. OK, I'm going to try to consolidate the rest of the points. Language: With semantic qualifiers, I agree. Music is a language. It has the ability to communicate things. I'd say it is highly limited compared to the wide range of communications afforded by the spoken word. But it is a method of communication. Therefore, it is a language. It even has analogues to grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc. But in the musical arts we used different terminology for those same concepts. For the sake of clarity in conversation, though, I will call this "communication" (U.N.O.) and "Language" as our standard verbal communications and signals (body language as well as sign language). Math: I agree with the definitions you provided from Wikipedia. But you de-emphasized one very important word: "Numbers". What numbers do you use with language? Is there a natural numerical sequence that can be applied to the spoken word? Whatever sequence that has been assigned it is based on a purely man-made construct. That is a huge roadblock to creating a mathematical method of deciphering an unknown language. Why common language is NOT math. I've mentioned the Rosetta Stone. Now think of the Navajo Code-talkers. Why was that never deciphered? There was no universal/natural numerical sequence that could be applied to help calculate what any words meant. All music CAN be described by natural sequences. While the actual numbers may be different based on scale (dimensional, not musical) the overall patterns are sequential and can be described by numbers in a very universal way. How do you do that with words? That is the thing I haven't actually heard any explanation on. This is the communication block that you refer to. How do you numerically define words in a manner that is not a forced construct? Separating music from lyrics:, I'm not quite certain what you mean by being unable to separate the tune from the lyrics. We have instrumentals. We have poetry. Then we have "songs" which combine them. I'm not sure what part of this you disagree with. Later you seem to be agreeing with this point. But I'm not sure. Let me share my experience withTaps. As a child, I had heard the tune countless times. I always thought it was pretty. But it never occurred to me to think of it as "reverent". After heard lyrics associated with it, it became reverent. Had I read the lyrics without hearing the tune, I would have thought of it as reverent. Both together? It seemed that whatever reverence I felt from the lyrics alone were magnified by the tune like the physical phenomenon of harmonic resonance (I'm sure you've seen the film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse). Did the tune help to reinforce the reverence of the lyrics? Yes. Did I ever "feel the Spirit" when I'd heard the tune alone? Not once. If I'd never heard the tune before, but came across the "poem" would I have felt the Spirit? Yes. (truthfully, I guess I don't know for sure. But based on my reactions to similar sentiments from famous quotes...) Public speaking: We might be well served to consider public speaking as a "less obviously" musical speech. Can a timid speaker who simply reads a highly spiritual speech convey a spiritual message? Yes, I've seen it. Can a more dynamic speaker who knows how to work their voice present the same speech that tends to touch more hearts? Absolutely. And really, the techniques he'd be employing would be the same type of things we do in music. Homonyms: You doubted that it would be difficult to perform my homonym challengs. The example that came to mind was Cyrano de Bergerac. There is a line Cyrano uses when he is wooing Roxanne. "What shall we call a kiss?... It is the 'O' of love." Such is the common English translation. But in French it is written "l'eau" (water) of love. In French the pronunciation of "the O" and "the water" are the same. Now, consider, would a computer ever understand what the "water of love" means unless this specific usage was pre-programmed into it? The program could include "compare to any homonyms" (an ability to find homonyms could certainly be programmed). But then what? Would a computer even know that "the water of love" would even mean anything? Unless they specifically programmed this understanding into the computer, it would never figure out that this makes some sort of metaphor. Sure, you could eventually get it in a list which included all the homonym variants. That's not intentional, but random. True originality in such word usage by a computer would not generate something that both means so much and is relevant to the scene like this. I think your point is that this is basically what song are. Yes, I agree. And don't you think Brandon Sanderson has already thought of that? Have you read Stormlight Archives? There are patterns, surely. And here is where my linguistic skill is quite informative. Patterns are different for every language. Especially for extremely foreign languages like English and American. . No language is decipherable by a foreign speaker without spending a lot of time letting the brain become accustomed to the association of the sound to the concept. If all you did was hear the words without any context, you would never in a million years EVER figure out what the words meant. OTOH, I have in my studies been able to make leaps of logic as to the meanings of some words because I understand etymology, figures of speech, metaphors. And I've later discovered that I was right. Because the thought patterns which govern semantic shift, cognates, loaner words, etc. is pretty predictable because those patterns are based on human psychology. Now, can we program a computer to understand human psychology sufficiently to come up with such references? The thing is that while poets and philosophers can intuit such tendencies, I doubt a computer programmer would be able to codify it. Here is one point I'll concede. Some music by its nature can induce "peace". And "peace" is certainly a fruit of the Spirit.

THIS: https://news.yahoo.com/hudson-doctor-headed-jail-must-173341016.html is exactly the type of thing that makes average people VERY suspicious of the medical field. We're pretty much REQUIRED to try to educate ourselves as much as possible (which, admittedly, is quite insufficient) to be able to protect ourselves from fraud & hype. And there has been just enough nefarious behavior coming from Fauci, Pfizer, the FDA, and the mandates to warrant such suspicion of a new technology that just doesn't have a sufficient track record to hold its own against traditional vaccines. But good luck trying to get answers. Q: If we've already had the disease, why are we required to get the vaccine? A (Fauci): To protect against variants. NEWS: Pfizer vaccine proven to be ineffective against variants. NEWS: Natural immunity from having contracted the disease is highly effective against variants. So, what are the mandates about?

I don't think it is baffling. It is very human to seek confirmation of their own positions. And anyone who says anything but complete agreement MUST be in COMPLETE OPPOSITION to the same. Is this a fault? Maybe. However, I detect that there may actually be a survival mechanism behind this type of behavior. I've certainly been guilty of it at times. But I try to be more careful with written words.

One alters our DNA. The other doesn't. That's all that matters. If you want to keep calling it "gene therapy" that's up to you. You have freedom of speech. You can call it a pearl necklace if you want. But if you're trying to convey that the mRNA vaccine somehow changes our cellular DNA, you're wrong. I'll say this one more time. There are other mRNA technologies that DO alter DNA. This technology does not. If you're getting these things mixed up, DISCLAIMER: This is assuming that everyone involved in the process has been forthcoming about the mechanisms by which the vaccine works. So far, no one who would know and understand the differences has said otherwise. This includes people who have other gripes against the vaccine (as I do).

Again, you're using very generic language to describe very specific and scientific procedures and distinctions. I can only assume that this is incorrect because it doesn't delineate very important characteristics. NT already provided those links and they indicated how they differ. Apparently, you didn't read them. Here's a quote from Good RX Health The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines use a technology called messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA instructs your cells to make part of the virus that causes COVID-19. Gene therapy treats medical conditions by modifying your genes. This involves introducing, replacing, or inactivating genes in your body. The mRNA in vaccines don’t interact with, or change, your genes in any way. So, they aren’t considered gene therapy. ???

TFP, I need to say openly that I have known your musical expertise and have great respect for it. So, I am grateful that you're willing to discuss this with me. I do believe that you're making some interpretations of my words that I had not intended. Some of it was because my wording was poor or incomplete. Some of it was because you seem to be making a strawman. Let's both make efforts at clearer communication (both sending and receiving). I continue to respect your musical ability. But I hope you read my words more carefully. I only shared two examples. I did so because these were very easy to explain. Of course there are hundreds of emotions in the human spectrum. And each emotion is induced by a different musical device (or combinations of several). But as you said, how could I cover everything? Nope. Freely admitted. I am glad you did not expect me to. But I'll give an example of where I'm coming from. I'm an engineer. I design things. I do the calculations. I put the stuff on paper. I give instructions. But the contractor who actually builds the stuff? He has to be able to read all the plans and instructions. He is simply unable to do the calculations I can. But every once in a while, a contractor can call me up and say that *this* item is wrong because... Well, when it comes to music, I'm like the contractor. I really don't know how the music is written. Yes, I do have minimal training in music theory. But there's no way I could write a piece that anyone would appreciate. I merely perform it or (as choir director) instruct others on how to perform it such that it produces maximum emotional effect on the audience. ASIDE: Could a person know enough music theory to write an orchestral piece without being able to play a single instrument or have the vocal chords to sing well? I think so. But the way the music industry is built is quite different from the engineering and construction industry. So, that is quite unlikely. However, I know many people who can interpret music very well without being able to write it themselves partially because of the difficulty you mentioned. Exactly. That's exactly what I was going for specifically for the sake of discussion. I acknowledge there is much more. But you asked for an explanation. I gave examples. As you indicated, it would be futile to write the encyclopedia in a forum post. So, can we move on? My original statement about music and emotion was that that there is something that can be defined in music via mathematical terms that will invoke emotions. I gave two examples. Everything you've said seems to be agreeing with me. So, I believe that part of the discussion is settled. If you believe there is a NON-mathematical method, then give at least one example. Agreed. That's where I wanted this conversation to go. I agree with the overall intent (I think) of what you've written here. But I'm called to point out Psalms. We have the words. But we have no music with it. The words provide us something very valuable without any music. If we only had the music without the lyrics, would we be able to claim the same? They are not of equal value. In Hebrew, the word for psalm is mizmor which refers to the melody more than the lyrics. That is the word used in the Bible. But with common discussion another word is used: Tehillim which refers more to the lyrics than the melody. It is interesting that we have text of the words, but have not melody to go with them. And David was a talented musician. Maybe he really did play a secret chord that pleased the Lord . But it certainly wasn't what Leonard Cohen meant by it. OK. That's your position. I was asking for you to explain this idea. How is language mathematical? That is the one thing I don't see. And that was really the ONLY disagreement here. Yes, I can see why you'd get that impression. I'll clarify. Feeling the Spirit through music (in a hymn for example) is a secondary effect, not a direct one. Music tends to make one more relaxed/happy/tender-hearted/receptive, etc. to listening to the words of a song. Then when divine messages are spoken/sung while in that state, then one is more prone to feeling the Spirit. Without that message, the feelings are all emotional, not spiritual. I make a distinction there. If you only had the tune without being familiar with the lyrics, you'd "feel good", but would it be a spiritual experience? I've never felt that without the words. Conversely, I've heard tunes that were REALLY mesmerizing, relaxing, and emotionally fulfilling. But when I actually listened to the lyrics... I decided I really shouldn't be listening to the songs again. No, I did NOT feel the Spirit by music alone. It could be argued that they work equally yoked instead of in series. I'll have to think about that. But that's not how I currently see it. I gave the example of the Rosetta Stone. Language has stumped archaeologists for centuries with or without a computer. No translation from an unknown language has ever been achieved via computer or any mathematical methodology. There had to be some breakthrough that helped the translation. OK, that's beginning to sound like something that could support your position. So far, I'm reading connotations and grammar? The second sentence may be saying more. But I cannot (off the top of my head) come up with a good descriptor/category for what you're describing. But I think I can see what you're saying. Sort of. A lot. With your first point about how words have sounds. That was a good point. It seems pretty basic. But, yes, it is easily overlooked. We have primary accents, secondary accents, and unaccented syllables which can coincide with the down beat of a measure or the secondary down beat (like the 3rd beat of a 4/4 measure). But I'll say that I I've read poetry in several languages and they don't easily use these methods. Explain the use of homonyms as intending to invoke multiple meanings. Mathematical? Even if you program it with that tendency, will a computer have the sense to invoke such at the right time, in the right way to where that is really meaningful? "Meaning" is difficult for humans who are looking for it (c.f "Let him have it"). Legal proceedings spend MUCH time on what the "meaning" is even when using specific and forensic language. Can a computer figure that out?

No doubt, I'm sure. Please be more specific. I read it. It doesn't have any description/definition that would apply to the mRNA vaccine. What sentence or characteristic are you referring to? I looked. It doesn't say what you think it does. I read that as well. So far, not seeing how the mRNA vaccine fits the bill. I agree. And I found that to be quite suspicious, myself, especially when considering that the traditional vaccine by J&J at the very least utilized technology that had been tried and tested for 100 years. No argument there. I'm on your side on that one. OK, you're muddying the water. I agree with these suspicions. I've voiced them myself. That's why I even have questions about it all in the first place. I still don't see where anything says that this specific mRNA technology THAT IS USED WITH THE PFIZER COVID VACCINE = "gene therapy." I didn't see anything on the Wiki page nor the Creative Biolabs page that indicates that the Pfizer vaccine fits the bill. Maybe you don't know how the vaccine works. Are you familiar with the term "spike proteins"? Traveler, I'm kinda getting tired of asking the same questions and not getting any response to the questions. You provide links, and I find out that they do not say what you seem to think they say. If you don't have anything more than dead end links that don't support your position, then I think I'm done.

I do believe that the mathematical analysis of music can explain why we feel certain emotions. I don't think "music" (the controlling of frequencies and combinations thereof propagate energy via P-waves though a physical medium) helps us feel the Spirit. I think it helps us feel emotion. And when that emotion is combined with words which communicate divine truth, that combination helps us feel the Spirit more deeply than words alone. HOW DOES MUSIC INVOKE FEELINGS? I will give you two examples. I don't currently know enough about psychology to go into much more than that. But it should give you an idea of how that works. And I believe that if I knew enough about psychology, I could explain just how every type of emotion is thus invoked by music. Our psychology is basically our learned reactions to the stimuli around us. Some of it is nature. Some of it is nurture. But both sources of training gives us certain expectations of what is "normal" and what is expected. Most sounds we hear have a certain expected duration. When a certain sound or sequence is prolonged (like the introduction to the Mission Impossible theme) then it generates "suspense". We're psychologically programmed to expect it to end soon. But when it goes longer than expected, it builds tension. If prolonged TOO long, it becomes boring. (both are emotions) There is also repetition vs change. Sting once mentioned that, as a student of Bach, he noticed that Bach never kept doing the same musical devices for any more than 8 measures. If you listen to anything that Sting has written, he follows the same musical philosophy. This method of changing every few measures, creates surprise. It is considered lively rather than boring (both are emotions/feelings/impressions). Methods of change: Tempo Key change Time signature Dynamics / volume Adding/subtracting an instrument or voice. Pattern of notes (using 1/8 notes for several measures, then switch to half notes, etc). Every one of these methods which generate "surprise" can be programmed into a computer with mathematical instructions alone. Now you try to explain to me how language is mathematical.

I see music and poetry as two separate arts. Music is about mathematics. Frequency, time, volume, etc. Those are all mathematics. We've had the discussion about the two judgments in various artistic competitions Technicial merit Artistical expression In music, the two are both related and are both mathematical. But they are different. I'll take it in terms of driving a car on the road. Perfect technical precision is driving directly centered in your lane. When chanigng lanes, you take exactly 3 seconds from turning on your lane change signal to when you begin moving over to the next lane. Artistic expression is the application of subtle variants that are still within prescribed parameters. Variants include: How far from the exact center of the lane do you drive? Does it vary a bit throughout the travel? How long you signal before making the move to the next lane and how long to actually cross the lane line. Speed limit is 55, but you're varying from 55 to 60. Even cruise control will vary the speed slightly. In music, you have a 4/4 time with a beat of 60. So, a quarter note should be exactly 1 sec. But throughout the song, based on the "musical message" there will be slight variations in the duration of each quarter note. Volume is also variable. The variation between legato to staccato within a measure can lean toward one end of the spectrum to the other simply because it makes more musical sense. Precision vs variability. And with music, it can certainly be programed into a computer because all of this can be programmed with mathematical precision. And a human would most likely be programming it. Can we get a computer to create a piece of music in Mozart's style? Absolutely. At some point it will happen. Can we get a computer to then play that original piece of music with the slight variations and "imperfections" that actually add character to the song such that it moves the human heart? Maybe. In many years. But only "possible" because it is all mathematical. When we're talking about words, it is a completely different story. There is no mathematics in the communication of language. (Some yahoo is going to bring up gematriot. Well, I have a lot to say about that which I will not go into now.) Why was there no progress on interpreting ancient Egyptian until the Rosetta Stone? There is nothing mathematical about it. If you gave a computer the knowledge of Ancient Greek and Demotic, but had no knowledge of the Rosetta Stone, the computer could never in 100 years interpret the Hieroglyphics. Why? Because language is not mathematical. Having the Rosetta Stone provided a mathematical basis for the translation. Then a computer would be very helpful. An understanding of words, definitions, and grammar can be programmed. But the basis for translating language into beauty? For a computer? Impossible. Why? We have no Rosetta stone for beautiful language. There are some mechanical devices in poetry. But by simply following those rules, does not necessarily make it a beautiful poem. Omitting such rules does not make it a bad poem. There really are no 100% rules. I'd like to challenge anyone with access to ask it to create an original joke. I'd give it a 75% chance that it may be worth a smile. But a deep belly laugh that is so cathartic for the soul? The chances are much smaller. If it does, it will be by random chance, not because it was actually able to understand humor. So, the challenge: ask it to create an original joke about whatever topic. Just how funny is that joke? What's more challenging have it create a slapstick scene that is original and funny.

Some people believe that unless you completely condemn something, simply describing or defining something is "supporting" it. It's a common rhetorical device, not concerned with discovering truth, but at winning an argument. It is essentially using pathos, feigning ethos, and ignoring logos. IOW -- virtue signalling.

Give an example.

OK, I'll concede, a computer is doing what a computer is supposed to do. And its doing well. Here's the challenge: The mechanics of structure (e.g. meter, rhyming, etc.) are something that is completely logical that can be programmed into a machine. Can it do something that is not "logical", but aesthetic? Visible aesthetics can be broken down into geometry and colors (over 60% of visual aesthetics are geometry and light frequencies). And music can be broken down by logic (mathematical terms) as well. But to hear the "beauty of words" because of the picture it paints through imagery and metaphor. That is not logic based. Can they program a computer to create a poem with these qualifications and make it sound very "pretty"?

Is punk music always in "5" chords? I never knew. But then again, I never really analyzed punk.