[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup] Digest Number 173
(Forward from old Discussion List -- YahooGroups.) RKT ----- Original Message ----- From: <humanmarkup@yahoogroups.com> To: <humanmarkup@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 6:41 AM Subject: [humanmarkup] Digest Number 173 > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> > Get VeriSign's FREE GUIDE: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Learn about using SSL for serious online security. Click Here! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/KYe3qC/I56CAA/yigFAA/2U_rlB/TM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > To unsubscribe send an email to: > humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > There are 6 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. Re: Martians & Venusians > From: "Michael Lacy" <michael_lacy@yahoo.com> > 2. Physical Description > From: Sudhakar Gorti <Sudhakar.Gorti@Sun.com> > 3. RE: Re: Martians & Venusians > From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> > 4. RE: Physical Description > From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> > 5. Re: Martians & Venusians > From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> > 6. Re: Physical Description > From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:45:00 -0000 > From: "Michael Lacy" <michael_lacy@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: Martians & Venusians > > 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. > > -mike > > --- 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. > The > > sender or the reciever. I take it that Gray puts a lot of the > > responsability on the reciever. How does a HumanML processor work? > This > > is just out of my brain, probably wrong, but it does intrests me. > So, > > just for discussion purposes... > > > > First scenario: The translation is on the sender side. "No one > listens" > > translates by the Venusian agent to correct emotion "Need > attention". > > 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 > happen > > if this message, the event, from the vinusian wasn't interpretered > as > > from someone special? The martian would falsle trigger actions like > > "reject | turn-away | get Scared ..." and perhaps put the martian > agemt > > into a state of embarrassed or perhaps even hostile. Since the > venusian > > agent is listening careful to state changes on this particular > martian > > 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. > It > > does recognize venusian events and handles accordingly. No > translation > > is made other than based on historical data. After a while the > martian > > 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 > based > > 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 > feedback > > from 1) the venusian pilot, 2) the martian agent. The martian agent > > learns that some events sent by venusian agents need further > processing > > to get the expected result. It learns that "I love you" doesn't > always > > should put it into a state of "loving". Exactly how it learns this, > must > > 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 > fighting > > :-) > > > > Cheers, > > /Niclas > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:21:16 -0500 > From: Sudhakar Gorti <Sudhakar.Gorti@Sun.com> > Subject: Physical Description > > > Hi, > Is anybody interested in physical description/characterstics of human beings? > Let me know! > > Thx- > Sudhakar Gorti > Architect > Sun Microsystems, Inc. > Tel:917-320-9692 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:52:20 -0500 > From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> > Subject: RE: Re: Martians & Venusians > > From: Michael Lacy [mailto:michael_lacy@yahoo.com] > > >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. > > HumanML applications may be used by machines. Universal acceptance is > another way of saying, valid by reference to the contract in > effect over the communication or simply, validatible message types. > > >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. > > Yes or machines as noted above. Nothing about HumanML constrains > actions or intent. People who need allusion can have it. Mystery > has it's place in language. > > >3.) The more universal the language, the more powerful it will be. > > Actually, the reverse is typically true. The power of language comes > in identification of a domain and valid use. Some say math is a > universal language but it takes a lot of ingenuity to get another > person to go out using just math. It is doable but there may be a > better language for that. "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker." > > >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. > > It is unlikely we can capture true feelings. In fact, it would > be hard to prove it if we did. We can enable someone to express > more depth of feeling than :-) should they need to do that. > > >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. > > Look at it this way. You walk into a room and a person sitting at > a table is rolling their eyes, sighing heavily, hugging their chest, > and their face is beet red. You inquire, "Are you mad at me?" They > reply, "No! What made you think that?" You say, "Your demeanor." > They say, "I just swallowed a red pepper!" You say, "Oh!". > > That is one kind of application of HumanML: to confirm a communication > means what you perceive it to mean given some set of observable clues. > (The table setting was a clue, but in the context of sensitivity > about this person's feelings, one can "misinterpret".) This is called > in behavioral science, superstitious acquisition. One infers a meaning > but it is purely inference and because one might react angrily, the > other person, being both pepper-uncomfortable and embarassed, sees > the anger, reacts even more angrily, and now the anger is real but > after many exchanges, no one remembers the initial event... and frankly, > no one cares. And that is the crux of the problem, for sure. > > >(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 > > Yes. Not possible. We will depend on application language designers > (eg, the genre designers) to capture these and use HumanML correctly > as a means for example, using an RDF ontology, to interpret the gesture. > > >(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. > > Can't do it. They may learn by practice to get rid of insecurity, > but we can only build a trail to the stream, not make the horse drink. > > We can't make them care once they are in motion. We can provide a > way for them to find their way back to the water. We assume going > into this that some people already care and that is how we got together. > > There were quite a number of markup based hypertext systems that > predated HTML and were better designs. HTML thrived on simplicity > but mostly because the applications were free and so was the network. > > HumanML is a two dollar truffle. It is more expensive than lifesavers, > but left on the right desk for the right reason, quite enjoyable and > sets a nice mood for the day. As long as one isn't too ambitious to > get a smile for it, or expect a reward, the act is sufficient. Even > then, if you put it on my desk, it has to be sugarless. Context counts > and that includes the inner emotions of the person it is sent to. > > "The gift lovingly given, when one shall say > 'Now must I gladly give!' when he who takes > Can render nothing back; made in due place, > Due time, and to a meet recipient, > Is a gift of Sattwan, fair and profitable." > > Given an agent, we might control all of that. Given a real person, > we can't. That is why we don't use HumanML to model people although > we can use it to create messages and record observations. We can > use these to create models that represent real people as long > as we are careful to denote when we are talking about something > the model does vs something the person feels. We can make a > Bugs Bunny behave quite humanly but we can never make a person > believe Bugs is human. > > Len > http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard > > Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. > Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:55:27 -0500 > From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> > Subject: RE: Physical Description > > Yes. We have some of those in the current schema. > We have not decided how detailed that needs to be, > but there are applications that depend on physical > descriptions. See my last post on identity. > > Len Bullard > Intergraph Public Safety > clbullar@ingr.com > http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard > > Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. > Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sudhakar Gorti [mailto:Sudhakar.Gorti@Sun.com] > > Hi, > Is anybody interested in physical description/characterstics of human > beings? > Let me know! > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:41:55 -0700 > From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> > Subject: Re: Martians & Venusians > > How soon can we phase the yahoo list out? This bouncing around and > keepng track, or trying to remember to keep track when all I want to > do is organize my thoughts for a reply is driving me crazy! > > It also tells me I'm doing one or two dozen things too many! sheesh! > Such are the benefits of getting home a bit early. I already sent one > reply to the wrong list, but at least I caught this one. > > Okay, back on track: > > At 5:45 PM +0000 8/27/01, Michael Lacy wrote: > >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. > > Uh, did anyone suggest it was meant to be more? > > >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. > > Yup. It won't change that. > > >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: > > HumanML is not a medium. The Internet is a medium. TV and radio and > newspapers are media. HumanML is a markup language. Don't conflate > it. It does not attempt anything. People do that stuff. > > >(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 > > These are objectives for applications not languages. > > >(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. > > This is a very instructive post. It allows a lot of clarification for > newcomers. HumanML can't get people to feel safer in expressing their > vulnerabilities, it can allow them to do that by intrinsically giving > tacit permission--saying, in essence, HERE'S A LANGUAGE. YOU CAN > EXPRESS FEELINGS IN THIS LANGUAGE (among other things), and the > unspoken inference is that it's okay to do that. Or, to be more > accurate, it allows application builders to do that. > > >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. > > Absolutely. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it take > a bath. What we can do is make a language that explicitly improves > fidelity of human communication in digital information systems if > used. That's not spewing, per se, although it can be used for > spewing, and if that's what someone wants or needs to express a > little more explicitly, so be it. > > It's up to people to use it and demonstrate that fidelity in all its > senses just makes more common sense, is more cost effective, more > beneficial, and easier than the current state of affairs. > > >-mike > > > <snip--loved the planetary gender analysis> > -- > Rex Brooks > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth > W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com > Email: rexb@starbourne.com > Tel: 510-849-2309 > Fax: By Request > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:00:07 -0700 > From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> > Subject: Re: Physical Description > > Hi Sudhakar, > > That would be me, but I'm not home and I can't respond more fully. > It's just an accident that I stumbled on this post cuz I was looking > for something to show someone on Yahoo. We are conducting official > business now on the oasis list, the public comments list > humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org. > > We have a web page on the OASIS site. It details how to subscribe to > the list. I got involved with HumanMarkup initially to drive > VRML/Wed3D-X3D -H-Anim avatars. I am currently building a knowledge > base in medical supplies and I have already done some work in medical > and sports/exercise illustration in 3D, and I am also involved with > the H-Anim working group. > > I will get back to you later this evening. > > Ciao, > Rex > > >Hi, > >Is anybody interested in physical description/characterstics of human beings? > >Let me know! > > > >Thx- > >Sudhakar Gorti > >Architect > >Sun Microsystems, Inc. > >Tel:917-320-9692 > > > > > > > >To unsubscribe send an email to: > >humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > -- > Rex Brooks > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth > W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com > Email: rexb@starbourne.com > Tel: 510-849-2309 > Fax: By Request > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC