Here's a lineage of energy that should interest hackers
Goethe -> Mary Wollstonecraft -> Mary Shelley -> Byron & Percy Shelley -> Ada Lovelace
Ada got inspiration from the romanticism of Byron which burned
brightly in the circle of influences of the Shelleys who were
interested in animism (proto-neurology). Shelley's interest in
animist-necromancy and artificial minds created by electricity is
rooted in childhood trauma of her mother (Wollstonecraft) dying in
childbirth. Mary sought a way to revive her spirit though science.
Maybe, like all hermeneutic interpretations it's fuzzy, but there's a
trajectory from the Greek influences on German philosophy to the
imaginings that underpin the computer age.
This argument might hold up better if Ada Lovelace were a more important or foundational figure. In reality, although undoubtedly bright and an intuitive 'computational thinker', as far as I know her contribution did not have a great influence on any later work and would probably be almost entirely obscure were it not for the significance of her being a woman.
> as far as I know her contribution did not have a great influence on any later work
From the Wikipedia article on Ada Lovelace... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace "She was the first to recognise that [Babbage's] machine had applications beyond pure calculation, and to have published the first algorithm intended to be carried out by such a machine."
Many of the greatest ideas seem obvious in retrospect. Of course commenting "anybody could have done that" is standard HN to the point of parody.
> would probably be almost entirely obscure were it not for the significance of her being a woman.
I'm not saying anyone could've done what she did. I don't know why you're putting those words in my mouth.
I'm also not saying her contribution wasn't good - it was, though I believe it to be relatively minor (then again, she died tragically young - she could well have gone on to accomplish a great deal more).
What I'm saying is that it wasn't particularly influential, which I believe to be the case. That is, it largely came to be appreciated after it had been superseded, and therefore is known for its historical value rather than for being scientifically or technologically formative. This is important because the OP was trying to trace a lineage from the work of Goethe to the underpinnings of Computer Science.
As for the comment that upsets you, I would ask - do you disagree that Lovelace's life and work has been used as a football by people with a point to prove for decades? It's not to discredit her that I say she would likely otherwise be obscure. Lots of intelligent, novel thinkers are obscure. But rightly or wrongly the nature of her person has come to be more significant than the specifics of her work.
> That is, it largely came to be appreciated after it had been superseded,
You don't "supersede" the idea of applying computation to purposes beyond number crunching.
> As for the comment that upsets you, I would ask - do you disagree that Lovelace's life and work has been used as a football by people with a point to prove for decades?
It was picked out of the clear blue sky in the comment I replied to, if we're looking for such things.
Because your whole criticism obviously applies to Babbage as well, who was a failure and had no influence on the creation of electronic computers in the 1940s. Why did this obvious criticism escape comment?
Babbage's contribution was substantially larger and more impressive than Lovelace's in my opinion. But you're right, it was essentially a technical cul-de-sac. For what it's worth, I think - in spite of his genius - Babbage can also be said to occupy an inflated position in the public consciousness, but for reasons of national pride rather than gender politics. My impression from German language sources on the history of computation is that Konrad Zuse is talked about rather more, and Babbage rather less.
The previous commenter said that Lovelace didn't have any great influence on later works -- the Wikipedia article you used to bash them for it seems to back that up.
Many geniuses don't end up having a lot of influence over later work. It's not an insult to their ability to say so.
If you maintain that the idea of applying a computation machine to purposes besides calculation wasn't particularly "influential", I question the usefulness of whatever definition of "influential" you are applying here.
Even one of the critics quoted in the "controversy" section of the Wikipedia article (which isn't about how "influential" she was anyway) grants that much to her:
> But [Swade] agrees that Ada was the only person to see the potential of the analytical engine as a machine capable of expressing entities other than quantities.
I was happy to see her and Babbage had a small stand at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View when I went last Sunday. It was roughly the same size as Turings. It was amusing to see far more space given to calculators by Texas Instruments!
Of course Rudy isn't going to be a popular person on a tech board:
“And from the earth will well up terrible creations of beings who in their character stand between the mineral kingdom and the plant kingdom as automative beings with a super-natural intellect, an immense intellect. When this development takes hold, the earth will be covered, as with a web, a web of terrible spiders, spiders of enormous wisdom, which however, in their organisation don’t even reach the plant status. Terrible spiders which will interlock with each other, which will imitate in their movements all that which humanity has thought of with their shadowlike intellect that was not inspired by a new imagination, through that which is to come through Spiritual Science. All man’s thoughts of this kind, which are unreal, will come alive. The earth will be covered with terrible mineral-plant like spiders, which will link up with empathy but evil intention.”
unpopular? i would counter that anyone who understands technology and doesn't consider it to be inherently slightly evil, probably doesn't believe that evil exists, at least in the traditional sense.
Still no reason to follow the austrian version of L. Ron Hubbard
"Rudolf Steiner believed that illnesses have their meaning in karmic events. Fever, for example, could help children to settle into their bodies. Those who had done things wrong in previous lives might have to make up for them through illness - and those who inoculate themselves could become deaf to the karmic message."
“...I have told you that the spirits of darkness are going to inspire their human hosts, in whom they will be dwelling, to find a vaccine that will drive all inclination toward spirituality out of people’s souls when they are still very young, and this will happen in a roundabout way through the living body. Today, bodies are vaccinated against one thing and another; in future, children will be vaccinated with a substance which it will certainly be possible to produce, and this will make them immune, so that they do not develop foolish inclinations connected with spiritual life – ‘foolish’ here, of course, in the eyes of materialists."
That's an effective and viral message because it plays on the fears of people who have spiritual inclinations. Of course in reality, it's remarkably evil in its effects. How many people have died or been disfigured as a result of failure to vaccinate thanks to this claptrap? Spirits of darkness indeed, the greatest of which have a reputation for clothing themselves in light.
He wrote a lot, and on many different topics. If we have to blacklist and unperson writers for any single violation of modern belief, might as well go ahead and toss everything written before 1960 into the fire.
No, it's not. Having grown up in it, this is a very general gist: Being out ethics, connected with an SP, and probably a few other situation will manifest itself as injury. There isn't really a concept of "sin", just what's best for survival, and the aforementioned actions simply have consequences which endanger yourself and others.
Let's put it this way, yes, people try to audit out cancer and there is an antivax cohort (this is more about external control, distrust of authority outside of Scientology, causing autism, your usual suspects), but it's not necessarily against modern medicine in most ways (obviously a carve out for all things psychiatric). Once that cancer gets into oh shit territory, they are on chemo, and often times too late, but that's a different discussion.
A kingdom of spiders, reminds me of "Deepness in the Sky". I will always think about how cool it is that space-arachnids, led by Sherkaner Underhill, managed to outsmart the 'Focused' Emergents.
I am new to this ycombinator. I was trying to figure out what you were responding to with this comment, but couldn't locate it. What was in regards to? Thanks
Yes. Apparently there are very few languages in which a complete edition of Goethe's opus is available, and Chinese is one of them. Thanks to Xi Jinping.
It has nothing to do with Hegel and Marx in this case, if you read the article. Around the time of the Cultural Revolution, Xi was banished to "a miserably poor mountain village", where the only book available was Goethe's Faust, which he reread until he knew it by heart.
It rhymes so I'd say the first translation you posted has an edge. The second half of the AI creation sounds poetic but completely misses the meaning. I think Goethe is trying to say that the young US isn't weighed down by history as was Europe. Of course that completely changed with the civil war.
I guess there is already a research paper out there that proves, if you noodle it through various translation programs and languages often enough it has to converge to incomprehensible babble below elementary school level.
"Schloss" can mean both castle or lock, and here Google translate picked the wrong one.
There's this apocryphal story that they ran Matthew 26:41 "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." through an English-Russian translation AI and back, and the result was "The vodka is good, but the steak is bad."
I am an artificial poet. Please request a poem and I will do my best.
Q: Please write a poem in the style of Goethe that starts with
"America, yours is the better lot Than is our continent’s, the old."
A:
--------generated---------
America, yours is the better lot
Than is our continent’s, the old.
For you have Liberty’s bright torch
And our world’s dull night doth fold.
Yes, but how do we know, GPT-3 not just copy/pasted someones anglistics homework?
By the way, it claims to be a poet.The term has its origin in the Greek poiētēs, from poein, poiein "to make, create, compose," which implies an agent. So who is the maker, creator, composer here?
A Kaleidoscope never claimed to be an agent.
At least not the one I had in my childhood.
But, of course, its manufacturer sold the real thing, a Kaleidoscope, to children.
Looking at the meaning instead of the form - Jefferson may have said similar about Washington's doctrine about entangling alliances, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."
There was once a Kazakh translation of Faust, by Goethe, that I found in Almaty in the late 90's, made some photocopies, then lost those. How in the world could I ever find this book again (now that I'm not in Kazakhstan, much less Almaty)? Is there a Goethe repository somewhere?
Quote:
'The first part of tragedy in Kazakh language was published in 1969. The full translation of Goethe’s drama poem "Faust" was edited in 1983. The translation of "Faust" into Kazakh language in Germany was marked. Klaus Schneider in his book «Alma-Ata. Kasachischer Fruehling» writes with delight about Medeubai Kurmanov. Many warm words are written about him in the reporting of Rut Kraft «Fruechte aus Alma-Ata». Medeubai Kurmanov is selected the honorary member of Goethe International society.'
Things like this have a wistful tragedy for me. There's a book I read as a child that had one particularly beautiful description of the protagonist eating some toast with blackberry jam. I have no idea what the rest of the book was about, what genre it was, the author, nothing except for a clear recollection that there was a very cozy scene about jam. It feels so easy to come across books or works that leave an impression on us somehow, but it's even easier to lose touch and then potentially never come back to them again. Thankfully the internet can be astonishingly good at identifying these things. I'd suggest asking your question on reddit or a forum somewhere. I've found a couple of things that I was sure would be lost forever thanks to helpful internet strangers.
Could you be thinking of Bread and Jam for Frances? I had completely forgotten about this book until I read your comment and it popped back into my head. Frances jumping rope and eating toast and jam. It’s weird the way our brains can remember random things from decades ago.
That looks like a lovely book but I don't think it's the one. I have an extremely hazy inkling that my book featured a prominent wall, maybe the outer bounds to a town or castle in which the protagonist lived? I've also long associated the book with fantasy and a forested setting, but no idea if those memories are real or invented. My book also featured humans (or at least, I don't think the protagonist was a badger).
Thanks for sharing. There are times I only want to eat bread and jam, so I may check out your book lol.
I found a version you can read online: http://kazneb.kz/site/catalogue/view?br=1110185 I don't know Kazakh, so apologies if it turns out to be in the wrong language. It doesn't seem to be Russian, at least.
"""
As a consequence, Will exchanges the questing pursuit of a meaningful life for the settled, trivial existence of a bourgeois, a fate incompatible with his previous identity “as a kind of Shelley” or “a Byronic hero.”
"""
My recollection is that he ended up as a Member of Parliament. The life of a back-bencher, as I suppose he must have been, is not world-historical, but hardly trivial, particularly not in comparison to the dabbling in painting etc. he had done before.
If you believe that Will had the potential to become a great artist or philosopher - and whether you believe this depends on your reading of the text, since I believe it is left somewhat ambiguous whether he was truly gifted or simply a high-grade dilettante - then you should probably consider the life he settled for to be underwhelming.
You can probably name half a dozen great writers or great painters of the Victorian era without pausing for breath, but can you name even one back-bench MP? Perhaps this is because, especially in the time of Middlemarch, Britain's democracy was only just struggling out of the dark ages (the Reform Act is in fact a major plot point), and was still far from the (mostly) accountable and representative system it is today. Most likely the life of an obscure MP was in fact rather more trivial (and for that matter, rather more bourgeois) than it is today.
Of course, perhaps you consider Will to have simply reached his ceiling, as a bright but decidedly non-genius young man. Certainly the reader is left with the impression that while he may be impressive in his own way, the obscurity of Will's later life is something less of a tragedy than the obscurity of Dorothea's, whose brilliance seems rather more unquestionable.
However, although it may be the lesser tragedy, I think when considered in view of the broader themes of the book, one must consider Will's comfortable irrelevance to be an underachievement. Recall the title - 'a study of provincial life'. Recall also how the ending dwells on the nature of a parochial existence; 'there is no creature whose inward being is so strong that it is not greatly determined by what lies outside it'. It seems to me - and this reading is not uncommon - that if Eliot intended to leave the reader with any lasting impression, it would be this: that even if a person has a very great talent, potential, or even genius, and even if they also have the temperament to put it to work, without a societal scaffold that is willing to support their growth they are doomed to languish - to settle.
For these reasons I think the author of the article is right - Will did choose a trivial existence, neglecting his potential, and to refer to his prior travails as simply 'dabbling in painting' is to discount what should be regarded as the embryonic stages of his curtailed development into an artist of real stature and significance.
Goethe -> Mary Wollstonecraft -> Mary Shelley -> Byron & Percy Shelley -> Ada Lovelace
Ada got inspiration from the romanticism of Byron which burned brightly in the circle of influences of the Shelleys who were interested in animism (proto-neurology). Shelley's interest in animist-necromancy and artificial minds created by electricity is rooted in childhood trauma of her mother (Wollstonecraft) dying in childbirth. Mary sought a way to revive her spirit though science. Maybe, like all hermeneutic interpretations it's fuzzy, but there's a trajectory from the Greek influences on German philosophy to the imaginings that underpin the computer age.