Music Video maker and self professed "Fashion Victim" who is hoping to apply Rationality to problems and decisions in my life and career probably by reevaluating and likely building a new set of beliefs that underpins them.
I'm confused, is the death to discomfort comparison based on the cumulative experience that the loved ones and friends of a person who has died might experience in grief and despair that someone they cared about died? Or are you suggesting that a death is a superlatively uncomfortable event for the individual who is dying?
I can't see a way of making discomfort to death fungible, at least partly because to experience discomfort requires someone to continue on living.
Does "normie" crossover with "(I'm) just a regular guy/girl"? While they are obviously have highly different connotations, is the central meaning similar?
I tend to assume, owing to Subjectivism and Egocentric Bias, that at times people are more likely to identify as part of the majority (and therefore 'normie') than the minority unless they have some specific reason to do so. What further complicates this like a matryoshka doll is not only the differing sociological roles that a person can switch between dozens of times a day (re: the stereotypical Twitter bio "Father. Son. Actuary. Tigers supporter") but within a minority one might be part of the majority of the minority, or the minority of the minority many times over. Like the classic Emo Phillips joke "Northern Conservative Baptist, or Northern Liberal Baptist" "He said "Northern Conservative Baptist", I said "me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist..."" itself a play on "No True-Scotsman".
I'm not sure what actually constitutes the Renaissance? Is just an art movement, or does it describe the totality of what was happening in European courts at the time? Is it just a propagandistic term? However two major trends that are associated with it - linear perspective paintings, and the rediscovery of Greco-Latin Literature both are at least partly indebted to developments in the Middle East.
The Book of Optics by Ibn al-Haytham appears to be particularly important in the developments of painting and the understanding of how light transmits. It contains a rejection of the emission theory of optics (rays come from the eyes) in favour of the intromission theory that light bounces off of objects before entering the eye. And translated into Latin in the late 12th century. I would surmise that it had at least an influence in the popularity and use of Linear Perspective in Renaissance Art.
Greco-Latin Literature was preserved, albeit in various translated forms, across the Islamic World and highly popular. As Wikipedia puts it:
The line between Greek scholarship and Arab scholarship in Western Europe was very blurred during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period. Sometimes the concept of the transmission of Greek Classics is often used to refer to the collective knowledge that was obtained from the Arab and Byzantine Empires, regardless of where the knowledge actually originated.
It is important to note that like the Renaissance itself, this was not some single catalytic moment, but both serial and parallel transmissions that happened over a number of centuries. Most interestingly at first these texts arrived in Europe being translated from some intermediary language like Syriac or Arabic. A Greek classic may have reached early modern Europeans only after being translated into Latin, then Syriac, and back into Latin.
Andalusian scholars began translating from Islamic sources from at least the early 10th century. Gerard of Cremona (1114-1187) set out to learn Arabic so he could read Ptolemy's Almagest and later translated works of Aristotle, Euclid, Jabir ibn Aflah and Al-Khwarizmi. The Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) eventually facilitated Dutch scholar Willem van Moerbeke coming into contact and translating works of Aristotle, Hero of Alexandria, and Archimedes.
I assume these developments culminated in the artistic trademarks of the Renaissance.
This study seems relevant here. It explores the idiomatic difference, from a Embodied Cognition standpoint, between the metaphor of "difficulty is heavy" and "difficulty is solidity" (and the inverse: easy = light). It is not the only literature on embodied cognition I recall to make the connection between difficulty and the physicality of lifting an object.
With this cross-linguistic study, we have come up with some findings regarding the status of two primary metaphors, “DIFFICULTY IS WEIGHT” and “DIFFICULTY IS SOLIDITY,” through both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of their linguistic manifestations in English and Chinese. While the linguistic findings do support the validity and applicability of the two primary metaphors in both languages, their linguistic manifestations, however, vary considerably in degree across and within language boundaries.
Ning Yu & Jie Huang (2019) Primary Metaphors across Languages: Difficulty as Weight and Solidity, Metaphor and Symbol, 34:2, 111-126, DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2019.1611725
Could you give a concrete example, the only one that comes to mind is the hipster paradox that someone who to all appearances is a hipster never admits or labels themselves as a hipster?
Does an Agentic AGI possess a different, and highly incorrigible, list of attributes compared to say - an Ethical Altruist trying to practice "acting more agentically?"
I ask because the whole word 'agency' in these parts is one I've struggled to wrap my head around - and I often wonder if tricker archetypes like Harpo Marx are agentic? Agency seems to have clear meaning outside of Lesswrong -
" the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power : OPERATION"[1]
the ability to take action or to choose what action to take[2]
Further confusing me, is I've been told Agency describes acting with 'initiative' but also been told it is characterized by 'deliberateness'. Not simply the ability to act or choose actions.
This is why I like your attempt to produce a list of attributes an Agentic AGI might have. Your list seems to be describing something which isn't synonymous with another word, specifically a type of agency (outside definition of ability to act) which is not cooperative to intervention from its creators.
“Agency.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agency. Accessed 9 Apr. 2024.
"Agency." Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus. Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/agency Accessed 9 Apr. 2024.
Note: I've only just realized all my suggestions are from actual film directors. No theorists or critics.
Subject of filmmaking, the best textbooks are Jerry Lewis's (yes, glavin) The Total Filmmaker which being transcribed from lectures he gave at USC around the time that George Lucas was a student it presents a soup to nuts overview of the nuts and bolts of screenwriting, principal photography including camera coverage, directing actors, editing and post production. Including some of the most salient observations on the avant-garde artistry of Stanley Kubrick/2001:A Space Odyssey I have read anywhere. It is a highly practical treatise, including tips such as how to develop mnemonics to remember shots, or how to balance the self-criticism of being a performer-director, or why you should leave an extra frame between a cut from an A to B camera.
Surprising to an outsider, but not surprising to those who know how much Lewis longed to be taken 'seriously' not much of the book is about comedy and there is a very simple reason for this - because the technical information is much the same irrespective of tone or genre.
While Lewis avoids explicating a 'theory of comedy' he does have some salient observations such as "the snowball is always thrown at the top hat, not the battered fedora". It also introduced me to what has become a mantra for me
Who is doing what to whom?
Every time I write a scene, make an edit, direct someone I ask myself this question.
I would rate it above Vsevolod Pudovkin's The Film Technique especially for beginners. Pudovkin's book is still great, as Stanley Kubrick opined in a 1969 interview with Joseph Gelmis
“The most instructive book on film aesthetics I came across was Pudovkin’s Film Technique, which simply explained that editing was the aspect of film art form which was completely unique, and which separated it from all other art forms.”
I'm inclined to agree. In the book Pudovkin gives the example of a rally or parade down the street and describes all the different types of camera coverage that could be used to frame the events that take place within it. Pudovkin was also clearly a great observer of the innovations of storytelling that were happening in Hollywood at the time and internalized the way to produce a good climax.
Kubrick compares Pudovkin's book to the essays and in particular the book The Film Sense of his contemporary Sergei Eisenstein (the Battleship Potemkin) and I'm inclined to agree that the latter's work is much more opaque and preoccupied with a prescriptive use of juxtaposition to create a visual equivalent of Marxist Dialectic whereas Pudovkin's book I felt was much more Descriptivist and observational of technique.
That being said I found the most illuminating explanation of Eisenstein's theories wasn't the Film Sense at all but an essay found in Grierson on Documentary by John Grierson. Grierson was a propagandist for the British Empire, including Canada, and was instrumental in setting up the documentary industries. He manages to describe the importance rhythm in Eisenstein's theories with much more lucidity than any translator of Eisenstein ever has.
The go-to text book in most Film Schools is of course Michael Rabinger's Film Techniques and Aesthetics. When I studied documentary film my supervisor pointed us to Rabinger's other book "Directing the Documentary". While my memory is foggy I remember Directing the Documentary being a fine book on the topic, discussing many of the practical (and interpersonal) difficulties a documentary filmmaker may face.
I could name many other useful or practical books (especially Judith Weston's Directing Actors), but I've tried to restrict this comment to all-encompassing textbooks on the techniques and aesthetics and practicalities useful for film directors.
Sometimes it means "you're incorrectly predicting worse average/median outcomes than is true"
That is the sense it is being used in though. What is it about my post that caused you to assume otherwise? And, how can I determine if my predictions are biased to be worse than the truth, and by what degree?
What's interesting about those examples is the domestication of the Horse and the mass production of the motor vehicle have changed the (intuitive?) intelligibility of distance, perhaps in a way that is not comparable to our interpretation of heat? But also that both are measured in days which implies rest and sleep.
"Babbling Better" this is a work in progress -and still requires more thinking
In short - need a methodology or at least heuristics for identifying the "right problem" to solve, and noticing when one is solving the "wrong problem". Better problem framing leads to better and more focused answers to questions and hopefully eventual resolving of problems. I've come across two techniques: The Five Whys to understand problems better, and using adverbs of manner to babble more constructively.
So far:
It is easy to babble, babies do it. It is still quite easy to babble comprehensible but wrong sentences, such as LLM hallucinations. Your pruning is only as good as your babble.
With regards to problem solving, low quality babble doesn't contribute to resolving the problem. For example, let's say the problem is "camera autofocus doesn't focus on eyes" a low quality "babble" answer might be "Burn a stick of incense and pray to Dionysius". The acts themselves are feasible and the sentence is comprehensible. But any desired change in the camera's autofocus performance will be pure coincidence.
Yet, sometimes low quality babble appears to be high quality babble because we simply are not solving the right problem but it appears to be perfectly suited for the problem. Especially if incentives are involved.
My hunch is that to babble better not only do you need better methods of babbling, but you need to better understand what goals you are trying to babble towards. And that requires better understanding of why the problem is a problem.
5 Why's on yourself: Asking "why I think this is a problem?" to at least 5 levels
Not to be mistaken for the Burger joint. The "Five Whys" technique was apparently invented at the Toyota Corporation as a system for uncovering the root causes of production faults.
The choice of "why" falls into broader pattern which takes me back to documentary filmmaking and interviewing: you learn more through open ended questions, usually those where the key interrogative is "why" or "how" than through close ended questions. These, as Wittgenstein pointed out, basically seek to affirm or negative a proposition or conditional: "Do you like him?" "Is he still there?" "Would you call that green or turquoise?".
If I am a manager or investigator, trying to ascertain the cause of a fault on a production line, open ended questions make sense since I will not be in possession of all known or knowable facts.
This still holds if I am a novice or just someone enquiring to an expert for help in achieving some goal. If I ask an experienced cinematographer "how would that scene be light?" even if they don't know specifically, they have a large body of experience and knowledge that would mean they could probably make useful guesses on how to replicate the effect.
If i intend on asking for advice from an expert, I can't give them the responsibility of figuring out the kind of help I need. The better I can define the problem myself the better and more informative the question I can ask them. Be too vague about your problem and you can only hope to get generic responses like "be confident".
It seems ridiculous though, doesn't it? Socratic or even from Yes, Minister: Why should I ask myself open ended questions if I don't know what I don't know? While I may not understand the problem, what I can do is at least explain why it's a problem and how I see it. And one effective way to do that I've found is to use the Five Whys Technique.
It is often exceedingly difficult to know what the right problem to solve is, what we may have a better chance of defining is why we perceive it as a problem and why we expect it to cause conflict.
To - Do: add more techniques to my arsenal to better defined problems... the step before babbling
Adverbs and Creativity?
Strategically EfficaciouslyProductively BabblingI have recently come across a technique for higher-quality babble, at least for creative purposes. It is as simply as employing a Adverb of Manner to modify a verb. This is a minor variation on a technique used to allow mime artists to create a character - you take a situation or process like "make breakfast" and do it with an attitude: happy, hungover, lovelorn.
It is surprisingly easy to come up with scenarios and even stories with arcs - goals, conflict, and comedic pay-offs complete with a character who has distinct mannerisms - by just cycling through adverbs. Compare these three adverbs: grumpily, overzealously, nervously.
These scenarios appear to "write themselves" for the purposes of short pantomime bits. This is the exact type of technique I have spent years searching for.
To do - Does this technique of better babbling through adverbs of manner apply to non-creative applications? If not then develop methodology or at least heuristics for identifying the right problem, noticing a "wrong problem"