AI reimagining history via powerful video creations

[Shippou-Sensei]

So when you read the primary sources, or indeed when you select the primary sources, you aren't interpreting these through a contemporary filter?

I'm just a butterfly dreaming I'm a man

 

[Idaho]

In this case I am right. History isn't a reimagining of the past, there's no way you can know or even guess as the thoughts or matrix of motivations of most people. Hell, history is partial both in what's remembered and the way it's written - as Carr points out, historians select facts to support their argument. Napoleon was perhaps nearer right than you when he said history is a set of lies people have agreed on. History for me is both things we choose not to forget, and things we excavate from the well of forgetting. I wouldn't pretend to go further than the sources, to create an imaginary version of the past as you're suggesting. And for me anyone who would isn't a historian but an author of fiction.

Seems like you are agreeing with me as that all backs up what I'm saying, to the point that I don't really know what it is you are trying to say tbh.

There is no way we can guess at the thoughts or motivations of one person with complete accuracy, and the combination of many plus the random intrusion of other events makes any comprehensive synthesis of the past precisely that - synthetic. We can claim we are colouring within the lines of the source material, but it's still a fiction.

I enjoy places like the yorvik viking centre, and I love reading the information boards at iron age forts - complete with pictures of people feeding chickens or smelting iron. They are interesting, informative and completely reimagined. Those people would doubtless find it bizarre what elements we were interested in.

 

[Pickman's model]

Seems like you are agreeing with me as that all backs up what I'm saying, to the point that I don't really know what it is you are trying to say tbh.

There is no way we can guess at the thoughts or motivations of one person with complete accuracy, and the combination of many plus the random intrusion of other events makes any comprehensive synthesis of the past precisely that - synthetic. We can claim we are colouring within the lines of the source material, but it's still a fiction.

I enjoy places like the yorvik viking centre, and I love reading the information boards at iron age forts - complete with pictures of people feeding chickens or smelting iron. They are interesting, informative and completely reimagined. Those people would doubtless find it bizarre what elements we were interested in.

The difference is you're saying history is a reimagining of the past and I'm saying the reimagining of the past is not history.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Somehow posted this on wrong thread

 

[bcuster]

Using AI on a known 13th/14th century hoax.

Truly an example of GIGO

Garbage in, garbage out - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In 1988 an international team of scientists dated the shroud using the carbon-14 decay-rate technique. They concluded that the fabric originated between 1260 AD and 1390 AD. This would rule out the burial shroud of Christ hypothesis and led many people to dismiss the shroud as a clever medieval hoax. But some experts challenged this conclusion on various grounds and also claimed that this study was not properly controlled for surface contamination of the shroud.

In the latest study by Liberato de Cato and others, researchers from Italy’s Institute of Crystallography applied a wide-angle X-ray scattering technique to study the shroud. This method analyses the natural ageing of flax cellulose to uncover details of the linen’s structure and breakdown over time, allowing construction of a timeline from the fabric’s manufacture. This analysis dates the shroud’s origin to the first century AD, supporting its authenticity.

New evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin

So far nobody has come up with a credible explanation of how the the relic might have been forged

www.irishtimes.com

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

In 1988 an international team of scientists dated the shroud using the carbon-14 decay-rate technique. They concluded that the fabric originated between 1260 AD and 1390 AD. This would rule out the burial shroud of Christ hypothesis and led many people to dismiss the shroud as a clever medieval hoax. But some experts challenged this conclusion on various grounds and also claimed that this study was not properly controlled for surface contamination of the shroud.

In the latest study by Liberato de Cato and others, researchers from Italy’s Institute of Crystallography applied a wide-angle X-ray scattering technique to study the shroud. This method analyses the natural ageing of flax cellulose to uncover details of the linen’s structure and breakdown over time, allowing construction of a timeline from the fabric’s manufacture. This analysis dates the shroud’s origin to the first century AD, supporting its authenticity.

New evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin

So far nobody has come up with a credible explanation of how the the relic might have been forged

www.irishtimes.com

"However, the authors stress that their results can only be accurate if future research finds evidence that the relic was kept safely at an average room temperature of around 22°C (71.6 °F) with a relative humidity of about 55 percent for 1,300 years before it appeared in the historical record."

Sounds tenuous

 

[Idaho]

The difference is you're saying history is a reimagining of the past and I'm saying the reimagining of the past is not history.

I'm saying that it's impossible for history to be anything other than a reimagining of the past, and your Napoleon quote fits this entirely.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm saying that it's impossible for history to be anything other than a reimagining of the past, and your Napoleon quote fits this entirely.

It depends what you're expecting to gain from reading or writing history. If it's a full picture you'll never find that. You can get an inkling of what eg liudprand of cremona felt about his embassy to constantinople but you'll never know what the other people who travelled with him felt. But even partial histories are better (imo) than nothing, histories written in a recognition that there's only so much we'll know.

 

[bcuster]

"However, the authors stress that their results can only be accurate if future research finds evidence that the relic was kept safely at an average room temperature of around 22°C (71.6 °F) with a relative humidity of about 55 percent for 1,300 years before it appeared in the historical record."

Sounds tenuous

Not tenuous at all. These were exactly the conditions that existed

 

[Idaho]

You can get an inkling of what eg liudprand of cremona felt about his embassy to constantinople

And what do you do with that inkling? Leave it to sit isolated in your mind, separate from all the other inklings, clues and insights you have gleaned on Byzantium? I think you draw them together into some form of mental model of the period. A reconstruction that you attach to other mental constructions associated with the period. Indeed if you did not, there would be precious little point in reading any particular historical tidbit. This mental model is by it's nature a reimagining.

 

[Idaho]

It's an interesting discussion. A shame that, as AIs, we'll both soon be banned.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Not tenuous at all. These were exactly the conditions that existed

22 degrees C 55% humidity from moment of wrapping untill the 13th century?

All the time as it made its way from calvery to turin?