Toonbots message board: editorial cartoonists

Michael Wed Oct 10 18:20:10 2001 Re: editorial cartoonists > "Editorial cartooning attracts idiosyncratic personalities. Summing > up complex issues in simple drawings requires curiosity, an appetite for > news, a bountiful gift for free association and the killer instinct of an > assassin." I think "the ability to draw" might also be rather important, although my prosthesis will eventually make progress again. I *can* draw with a pen, you know. I just don't have time.

mouse Thu Oct 11 13:25:57 2001 Re: editorial cartoonists drawing, schmawing - you could _hire_ someone to draw if you got desperate enough. the ideas, though - that, you have to supply yourself. sorry, kid, still think you have the mental equipment to be an editorial cartoonist. (you don't _have_ to be one, of course. think of this as the results of one of those aptitude tests, that tell you that you're perfectly suited to be either a nuclear physicist or a coal miner.) (this one is saying you are suited to be either an editorial cartoonist or butch)

Michael Thu Oct 11 23:23:12 2001 Re: editorial cartoonists > drawing, schmawing - you could _hire_ someone to draw if you got desperate > enough. the ideas, though - that, you have to supply yourself. No, no, you're wrong here, mouse, sorry. By "drawing" I mean really not the ability to push a pencil, but the ability to cast complex ideas visually. That's *hard*. I think I could develop it given the time and effort. Then again, I could probably be a kung fu artist, too. > (this one is saying you are suited to be either an editorial cartoonist or > butch) Ha. "The killer turns suddenly, knife flashing."

Jenn Fri Oct 12 07:46:11 2001 Butch That's funny. When she said 'butch', I thought, 'big tough guy on a motorcycle in black leather and denim.' I found that concept entirely too amusing. Not that I'm not saying you couldn't /be/ butch, Michael. It'd just probably break the stairs again if you tried to get a motorcycle down them.

Michael Fri Oct 12 12:16:20 2001 Re: Butch > That's funny. When she said 'butch', I thought, 'big tough guy on a > motorcycle in black leather and denim.' I think I'll have to settle for medium-sized tough guy on a Harley in black leather and denim. > It'd just probably break the stairs again if > you tried to get a motorcycle down them. This is my wife's lifelong ambition: to be a Nobel prizewinner in theoretical physics, and get invited to lectures, and to show up on a Harley and drive it down the steps of the lecture hall. I love that woman.

mouse Fri Oct 12 13:32:11 2001 prostheses >> I think "the ability to draw" might also be rather important, although my prosthesis will eventually make progress again. > By "drawing" I mean > really not the ability to push a pencil, but the ability to cast complex > ideas visually. so...wait....you're saying the toon-o-matic is a sort of prosthetic _brain_??? man, no _wonder_ it is taking you so long to perfect it. this is so cosmic -- and here i thought you were merely trying to perfect a tool to more quickly implement _your_ thoughts, and, you know, actually physically just 'draw' them (yes, yes, i know, you have spoken of this, but i never really _believed_.....) but why do you want a prosthetic brain, anyway? (and why do i keep flashing back on monty python skits? --- altho, wait, now the bot's comments make sense -- _he's_ the test case with the cheap prosthetic brain!) ((and boy, do i really wish i could actually remember the dialog well enough to start quoting it))

Michael Fri Oct 12 20:27:10 2001 Re: prostheses > so...wait....you're saying the toon-o-matic is a sort of prosthetic > _brain_??? ... You're getting too good at finding my slipups, mouse. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." My favorite quote, if only I could remember who said it. Ultimately, yes, I'm very interested in exploring visual and creative thought in general, in the context of cartoons. Very, very interested. (See http://goosie.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/michael/) But for now, I'd be happy if I could satisfactorily represent a two-dimensional field of vision in an essentially one-dimensional medium (XML, as proxy for language in general). The Toon-o-Matic has brought home to me the profound difference between linguistic and visual thought and I'm *still* not sure what to do about it. The fact that nobody else in the world knows, either, doesn't help much. So the Toon-o-Matic is my prosthesis for drawing in a low-level, pencil-pushing sense, but there's also a middle-level, layout intelligence that I'm aiming for in the middle term, and the high-level cognitive abilities that I consider "editorial cartooning" in the real sense are probably not someting that will be automated any time soon, but I hope that the Toon-o-Matic will illuminate them. As Hofstadter says, if artificial intelligence were easy, it would be really disappointing that we were so shallow. On the other hand, he hopes he'll live to see it. So he's torn. (I love being able to quote a Known Person, and then append in the bibliographic entry "Personal conversation". Hee.)

mouse Sat Oct 13 14:59:53 2001 Re: prostheses ok - took a couple readings (hey, it's saturday morning, i only just got up) -- but now i see where you are coming from (altho now i have to give up my image of you walking around with a computer strapped to your head *sigh*) and (*sigh* again) - now you've given me something _else_ to start reading up on. i had thought of ai research mostly as something that was working towards making autonomous landers for mars or the like (actually, i haven't really seriously thought about it much at all) -- hadn't really thought of it as a tool to investigate human intellectual processes. interested to see one of the areas of research is comprehension and invention of jokes.....in a way, i think i would be a little sad to see that one figured out -- one likes to think the spark of whimsy is not something that can be caught and analyzed. which brings me back to editorial cartooning - as i recall, one of marlette's criteria is 'free association'. of course the thing that makes a great cartoonist is not merely free associating, but being able to pick out the one association that makes a point, which ties back into 1) knowlege of current events and 2) some feel for the current culture and finally 3) a point of view on the part of the artist. the first one you could get a computer to do probably better even than humans can (just plug it into a 24-hr news stream); the second you could probably manage (plug it into a selection of internet sites like People (shudder)). the third though -- wonder how you do that? in a person, it is (i think) the culmination of life experience -- which to a certain extent depends on the milieu in which one finds oneself. with an ai, guess it would depend on which input sources you plugged it into -- which leads one to wonder if one truly can control the development of liberals and conservatives by limiting the information available to people. clearly various totalitarian governments have tried this -- but i'm not sure how truly successful they have been. (people, after all, can act or lie - tell you one opinion, while actually holding another). ok, obviously i could ramble on with this forever, and first i need to at least make a stab at actually learning something about the subject -- gee, thanks michael! (oh - and it was emerson (r. waldo))

Michael Sat Oct 13 18:17:41 2001 Re: prostheses > (altho now i have to give > up my image of you walking around with a computer strapped to your head > *sigh*) Although when implants become available I will be signing up first. > and (*sigh* again) - now you've given me something _else_ to start reading > up on. Sorry. > i had thought of ai research mostly as something that was working > towards making autonomous landers for mars or the like (actually, i > haven't really seriously thought about it much at all) -- hadn't really > thought of it as a tool to investigate human intellectual processes. > interested to see one of the areas of research is comprehension and > invention of jokes.....in a way, i think i would be a little sad to see > that one figured out -- one likes to think the spark of whimsy is not > something that can be caught and analyzed. Well, mouse, there's analysis and there's analysis. If you ask me (and if you ask anybody else in CRCC) this process of "analysis" is really the illumination of the beauty of cognition, not its reduction to dry facts. Dry facts are what we hate in mainstream cognitive science. If you ask me, the science of cognition should improve our ability to think, right? The study of humor should make us funnier. Otherwise it's a waste of time. This stuff is *fun*. Approaching it any other way is folly. > (just plug > it into a 24-hr news stream); It's that "just" which is the sticking point. > the second you could probably manage (plug > it into a selection of internet sites like People (shudder)). I think that having it participate in message boards would be far more effective. > the third > though -- wonder how you do that? Well, it's my private conviction that given the "just" and the "plug", this part would be almost trivial. If you have a system capable of understanding language -- not "processing" it, but truly *understanding* it -- then you have a system capable of drawing cutting parallels, imbued with humor. In other words, an understanding system will have to be profoundly human. But give me a couple decades to work out the details. > -- which leads one to wonder if > one truly can control the development of liberals and conservatives by > limiting the information available to people. Well, DOY! > clearly various totalitarian > governments have tried this -- but i'm not sure how truly successful they > have been. (people, after all, can act or lie - tell you one opinion, > while actually holding another). You need to read Chomsky and other American dissidents. Under totalitarianism, you know what the propaganda is -- it's whatever the state says, and it's explicit. In America, things are more subtle. According to Chomsky, the propaganda here is what *isn't* stated. It's the frame of the argument, the unspoken assumptions. His example is the Vietnam-era debate between "hawks" and "doves". The hawks said we needed to be fighting in Vietname; the doves said it wasn't practical. What was unspoken in the media was the assumption that we had a right to invade Vietnam in the first place. Interesting indeed. He's done similar analysis of media "coverage" (read: non-coverage) of the actions of our allies in Central America; these terrorist regimes have killed a hundred thousand people in the last couple of decades, have starved their populaces, have done everything except to say they're not our allies. They're one good reason we don't agree with the UN position on human rights. We're the world's biggest violator, by proxy. None of this information is readily available publically. Oh, it's documented by the UN and even by our own State Department. But it's never covered in the press or in editorials. So whether you can create liberals or conservatives by restricting their information? Yes. You can. > (oh - and it was emerson (r. waldo)) Thanks! I'll forget that within weeks.

mouse Sun Oct 14 18:25:26 2001 more lengthy political discussion > Sorry. 's ok - right now i'm on _fellowship of the ring_ (which is _also_ your fault but more soothing) -- i just add it to my list of stuff to get into when the mood strikes me..... > the science of cognition should improve our ability to think, > right? The study of humor should make us funnier. that's......an interesting perspective. but then i am to a great extent one who is satisfied with just trying to understand people. actually _improving_ the beast....a worthy quest, but most days i simply dispair. (on which note - i tend to think what we need to know is how to get people _to_ think, period - even if they do it badly, it would be better than not doing it at all.) > I think that having it participate in message boards would be far more > effective. so essentially learning culture by interacting with it? and do you think message boards yet represent the whole spectrum of people who, say, still read newspapers? of course, i mostly read yours and chopping block's, so i'm _clearly_ not with the mainstream. still - an interesting idea..... > In other words, an understanding > system will have to be profoundly human. yes...but will it have a point of view? (i know real humans whose viewpoint changes with every person they talk to - and some of them are actually well informed) (just wishy=washy) > But give me a couple decades to work out the details. ok - if you insist! you'll have to give me some cites on Chomsky. i would argue that one's awareness of the existance of propaganda stems from whether or not one remembers a period _before_ the regime. Adults can (in the privacy of their own minds) assess what they hear today with what they knew before. If you start with the kids, though.....I read an article in the NYTimes (my favorite propaganda source) about schooling in the Pakistanian....madrassas? - anyway, the fundamentalist Islamic schools. They are starting with young kids, and those kids hear only what they are fed, and appear to believe it without question. (the young of course start out believing their elders without question). the Khmer Rouge did similar things, as did Hitler, with the Hitler youth. -- So - if you could keep a kid like that totally unaware of any viewpoint until adulthood - would they be able to identify propaganda? Could they reassess their opinions, based on new information? I don't know if anyone has ever followed those kids up. The only totalitarian regime I can think of that has lasted long enough to cover >1 generation is China - but I don't know how completely they have managed to control information there. > His example is the > Vietnam-era debate between "hawks" and "doves". The > hawks said we needed to be fighting in Vietname; the doves said it wasn't > practical. What was unspoken in the media was the assumption that we had a > right to invade Vietnam in the first place. this is why i need cites - hate to admit i'm that old, but i remember a lot of discussion on whether we should be there. maybe not in the media - but _people_ were certainly thinking about it. > We're the world's biggest violator, by proxy. yeah *sigh* - this is what primarily worries me about the current actions -- whether the government is paying any more attention to who it's in bed with _this_ time than it has before. > So whether you can create liberals > or conservatives by restricting their information? Yes. You can. see if you can dig up a map of the 2000 presidential election results (you know, one of the ones that is all red in the middle and all blue on the coasts). do you really think the distribution of available information is also that ... disjunct? available info is part of it -- but is it _all_ of it? > Thanks! you're welcome.

Eric Schissel Sun Oct 14 18:58:26 2001 Re: more lengthy political discussion I know you asked Michael and not me, but... Well, as to Chomsky, there are some 'introductions' out there to his general POV which I haven't read and can neither recommend for nor advise against, but I'm not sure you could particularly go wrong by reading 'Necessary Illusions' and/or 'Manufacturing Consent' (the latter co-authored with Edward Herman- was going to say the former, too, but a quick search disabused my faulty memory of the notion.) He's written on a number of topics but that's where, if (the same faulty) memory serves, he addresses the propaganda model in question most directly and expands on it.

Eric Schissel Sun Oct 14 23:47:41 2001 Re: more lengthy political discussion I also recommend having a look at the Chomsky Archive ( http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky ) which has some articles and interviews specifically on this subject. (Disclaimer: some of the material in the archive was transcribed into electronic format by yours truly, which does not, I believe, affect my decision to recommend it as a source.) -Eric Schissel

mouse Mon Oct 15 12:48:40 2001 Re: more lengthy political discussion hey, i'll assimilate info from anywhere - thanks!

Michael Tue Oct 16 00:36:34 2001 Re: more lengthy political discussion > hey, i'll assimilate info from anywhere - thanks! The site Eric mentions also links to an "annex" which has lots of online Chomsky text, along with several up-to-the-minute (well, -month anyway) analyses of "the events". Me, I'm on the sidelines. I'm burnt out. The gov't is evil. I'm just taking advantage of the Fed's low, low rate to refinance my rental house at 7% (hee, hee, thanks, Osama bin Laden!) Anybody remember that Saturday Night Live commercial ca. 1982 or so, with the old folks eating catfood and saying, "Thank you, Ronald Reagan!"? That was funny!

Michael Mon Oct 15 10:18:54 2001 Re: more lengthy political discussion > so essentially learning culture by interacting with it? and do you think > message boards yet represent the whole spectrum of people who, say, still > read newspapers? of course, i mostly read yours and chopping block's, so > i'm _clearly_ not with the mainstream. still - an interesting idea..... But you don't learn culture by *reading* newspapers. Interaction is essential. I agree that reading news would be an essential part of assimilating culture, but not sufficient. > yes...but will it have a point of view? Who knows? > They are starting with young kids, and those kids hear only what they are > fed, and appear to believe it without question. Have they visited any American schools? > the Khmer Rouge did similar > things, as did Hitler, with the Hitler youth. And so does every country in the world. Including America. > this is why i need cites - hate to admit i'm that old, but i remember a > lot of discussion on whether we should be there. maybe not in the media - > but _people_ were certainly thinking about it. That's exactly what Chomsky was saying. The people thought about it, and the government lost support for the war -- but none of that discussion was in the media, ostensibly the watchdog of a democratic society. I'd say the debate over Vietnam was democracy in *spite* of media, essentially. > yeah *sigh* - this is what primarily worries me about the current actions > -- whether the government is paying any more attention to who it's in bed > with _this_ time than it has before. Of course not. > see if you can dig up a map of the 2000 presidential election results (you > know, one of the ones that is all red in the middle and all blue on the > coasts). do you really think the distribution of available information is > also that ... disjunct? available info is part of it -- but is it _all_ of > it? Nah, can't be all of it. It's more complicated than that.