Pages

Showing posts with label Gatekeeper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gatekeeper. Show all posts

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Google Search Charcters: Eliza and The Wayback Machine

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard

Now this quote above by Soren is not just an application, to a point of view, but of an idea about what we can funnel through and forward using the connective links as an Wayback machine, as to living our lives forward.

This is a perspective that Plato has in terms of the the analogy of the Cave but of what one looks at while knowing behind them is the sun. It's potential in terms of information. If that information is all pervasive, exists around us not only in terms of data transmission then what relevance to information may be gleaned as to understand the person them self, their search of life, as to looking Wayback as a choice to voice, and then to move forward?

Concrete things easily settle the option to conclude any search and to understand that such a way forward has been concluded and any future relevance based on the amount of Wayback information accessibility the avatar will give. Currently such an algorithm is beening built into the Gatekeepers program currently designed by Google?

Example of ELIZA in Emacs.
ELIZA is a computer program and an early example of primitive natural language processing. ELIZA operated by processing users' responses to scripts, the most famous of which was DOCTOR, a simulation of a Rogerian psychotherapist. Using almost no information about human thought or emotion, DOCTOR sometimes provided a startlingly human-like interaction. ELIZA was written at MIT by Joseph Weizenbaum between 1964 to 1966.
When the "patient" exceeded the very small knowledge base, DOCTOR might provide a generic response, for example, responding to "My head hurts" with "Why do you say your head hurts?" The response to "My mother hates me" would be "Who else in your family hates you?" ELIZA was implemented using simple pattern matching techniques, but was taken seriously by several of its users, even after Weizenbaum explained to them how it worked. It was one of the first chatterbots in existence.
 ***

Eliza, computer therapist

This javascript version of ELIZA was originally written by Michal Wallace and significantly enhanced by George Dunlop.

***
Okay I think you've made the connection now? You understand how an avatar may be used to supplant Google's search engine,. An activation by voice as too defining statistical relevance to the questions in mind and what lies at the edge of our current research? For those Quantum gravity researchers this is important. Keeping abreast of all the data out there.

Chiseled and honed to Plato's likeness I would have preferred Raphael School of Athen Image of Plato  but for yourself according to  your theme? Google Search characters can come in all shades given the algorithm lines placed underneath the image of the face.

Remember this has nothing to do about truth but is more the understanding that statistics are used in order to classify search functions as too popularity and Eliza's name was chosen for now...becomes a select programming feature that has to be married to a virtual image or face, that becomes the future of our Google search functions?

So by name and chosen avatar, the personal features become a method by which Google Search characters become automatic according to the depth of the algorithmic world created by one's personalization features selected.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Plato’s Cave Study: Does Bullshit Truly Baffle Brains?”

”Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favor of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position."-Bertrand Russell

Of course the title is borrowed as most things here in this blog........so thanks to the one  from whom it originates and thanks for the quotation. Also thanks to Bee for her Blablameter Some Fun can be taken seriously.

I mean I did offer Sokal as a example of what may be engendered "as a voice of reason" to see that we had all been baffled by such arrangement of words as to think this new subject on Quantum Gravity is somehow being spoken too? Maybe you didn't get that?;)


This is a photograph by the artist Michael Najjar, and it's real, in the sense that he went there to Argentina to take the photo. But it's also a fiction. There's a lot of work that went into it after that. And what he's done is he's actually reshaped, digitally, all of the contours of the mountains to follow the vicissitudes of the Dow Jones index. So what you see, that precipice, that high precipice with the valley, is the 2008 financial crisis. The photo was made when we were deep in the valley over there. I don't know where we are now. This is the Hang Seng index for Hong Kong. And similar topography. I wonder why. Kevin Slavin: How algorithms shape our world

For me it is a question too, about what is set as the basis as "a pattern that exists" that has been written by code.  To set in motion "a causation of events that have smeared out the contributing algorithm which is set now as the "global event that catches our attention"....or,  those that become highlighted in origination,  as to what one should or could become aware of once they"ve actually awoken to the reality of these patterns in life.

The event in society is a mountain and the metaphor that has been so eloquently described contains some relevance to the high's and lows in life. Some people's dreams about life and the surmountable, or about that way with which we may discribe the landscape of possibilities.

For me it was always about potential and the constraints that could be applied to thinking(the relevance of the reservoir Wayback) and where in this basis is Google as a contributor to such methods but to classify and count,  based on popularity, numbers of hits, etc,  as to the truth of the story that is written? In this case it is about statistics, not about truth?

It about encouraging the many possibilities, as to what shall be funneled down through some youthful mind, as to some concrete thing, as an idea from that potential to be disperse throughout society as an ideal, to then become pervasive throughout our culture?

How many ebooks have been cataloged and where is Wayback to think the developmental of the internet has been considered as a voice that has been attached to this reservoir and hence revealed this idea? A Google search engine then emanating from a virtual avatar to create a link to this vast reservoir of potential as to display concrete things?

"If the price of avoiding non-locality is to make an intuitive explanation impossible, one has to ask whether the cost is too great."

-David Bohm et al. “ Physc. Rep. 144, 321” (1987)

Okay Google, I have set before you, a challenge. Instead of a page that demonstrates a search feature as a main page, then change this to be represented by an virtual avatar who will lead you to these vast reservoirs of possibility? "Speak" your mind then and the Wayback becomes "your synapse" to the global thinking mind...... To have culminated in a set of info particulates "that are combined" to make this idea funnel into a wo/man to reset society? A holographic realization of all the components which help to make this world view.

The origins of technology was not in 1829, but was actually at the beginning of the Big Bang, and at that moment the entire huge billions of stars in the universe were compressed. The entire universe was compressed into a little quantum dot, and it was so tight in there there was no room for any difference at all. That's the definition. There was no temperature. There was no difference whatsoever. And at the Big Bang, what it expanded was the potential for difference. So as it expands and as things expand what we have is the potential for differences, diversity, options, choices, opportunities, possibilities and freedoms. Those are all basically the same thing. And those are the things that technology bring us. That's what technology is bringing us: choices, possibilities, freedoms. That's what it's about. It's this expansion of room to make differences. And so a hammer, when we grab a hammer, that's what we're grabbing. And that's why we continue to grab technology -- because we want those things. Those things are good. Differences, freedom, choices, possibilities. And each time we make a new opportunity place, we're allowing a platform to make new ones.Kevin Kelly on how technology evolves

In no way is this to make slight of, or,  imply things about Google. My thoughts are to advance society not by the creation of the algorithms but to idealize the access to information.

See Also:

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Who Are The Gate Keepers?



***

The Lawful Access Legislation: Does it Really Criminalize Linking & Anonymity? by Michael Geist

Wednesday May 11, 2011
The government's plans to include lawful access provisions within its omnibus crime bill has attracted mounting attention in recent days as many commentators express concern that the legislation could create criminal liability for linking to content that incites hatred and for using anonymous or false names online. The concerns started at the Free Dominion site and have since spread to Brian Lilley at the Toronto Sun and Jesse Brown's blog at Maclean's


As I have argued for a long time, there are many reasons to be concerned with lawful access. The government has never provided adequate evidence on the need for it, it has never been subject to committee review, it would mandate disclosure of some personal information without court oversight, it would establish a massive ISP regulatory process (including employee background checks), it would install broad new surveillance technologies, and it would cost millions (without a sense of who actually pays). Given these problems, it is not surprising to find that every privacy commissioner in Canada has signed a joint letter expressing their concerns.