anton,
your characterization of chess as a simple game that can be reduced to
processing is too simplistic. if it could be reduced to computing all
alternative moves than we would have found a solution in the form of a
sequence of countermoves that unfailingly leads to winning the game
(depending on who starts). the fact is that the game is transcomputational.
its winning strategy cannot be computed if you put all computers together
and let them cooperate for as long as the earth solidified. this is why
being beaten by deep blue is not so obvious.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Hutton
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Beauty - a mathematical aesthetic
Ranulph
When deep blue beat kasparov there was a gasp and then an explaination which
seeks to minimise to achievement. Computers are good processors, chess is a
simple game it can be reduced to processing, of course computers will win.
In a smiliar way here you have with regard to this beauty project mimimised
the achivement ("geeky and trivial").
As computer programs model or partially model aspects of human thinking
(computational creativity, understanding of beauty, etc, etc) they make a
contribution to the overall project of Artificial Intelligence.
anton
-----Original Message-----
From: Ranulph Glanville <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:33:41 +0000
Subject: Re: Beauty - a mathematical aesthetic
Yes, this research tells us that we can model something, based on simplified
determinations of the averaged decision of a collection of humans, that will
allow us to change images of faces so that the better match the model built.
That means precisely that all the beauty (if that's what it is) is in the
eyes of the (collective of) beholders. It also means the outcome is not
aesthetic but the outcome of a crude psychological sampling technique. Is
this beauty? It's certainly not aesthetics.
Of course, tricks like this are fascinating and create possibilities we'd
not previously had. But understanding? I don't think there's much there:
it's sort of geeky and trivial, but with the usual inflation of the computer
world, and the usual blindness of the mechanist to what designers actually
do.
Reminds me a bit of a charming mathematician who told me that Hundertwasser
was the only decent architect: he wasn't prepared to listen when I explained
that what Hundertwasser does is about as far removed from architecture as
anything I can imagine.
Goodnight, my beauties!
Ranulph
Anthony Hutton
Senior Lecturer in Design
School of Creative Arts
Magee College
University of Ulster
Rock Road
Derry City
BT48 7JL
Mobile +44 (0)7813 780316
http://www.ulst.ac.uk/staff/a.hutton.html
[log in to unmask]
Web site:
www.foylearts.net/ahutton/mobile
|