On Jan 3, 11:10 am, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > The problem is that the logic of comp doesn't seem to have a reason to > > invent a revulsion response associated with increasing fidelity of > > simulation > > If the simulation is good enough for our excellent ability to detect subtle > facial cues to kick in (this never happens for the newspaper cartoon > Charlie Brown) but is not good enough for the cues to be consistent and > make coherent sense then we feel surprised and uncomfortable not knowing > what emotional state they are in.
Instead of a threshold of realism where an ability of ours 'kicks in', it makes more sense to me that what is happening is that Charlie Brown is clearly not intended to be taken seriously as a real person. When something is presented perceptually as a real person but you can tell that they aren't, there is an experience of being deceived and even threatened. The wIt has to do with subjectivity and objectivity. I get into how it works in comics in this post: http://s33light.org/post/10979679238 > And there are sound Evolutionary reasons > for revulsion, if someone looks very different from us and from the average > of those around us then they may be ill and have bad genes and make a poor > mate, they might even be contagious. A beautiful face is one where > everything is symmetrical and none of the features are far from average. > There have been studies where 10 pictures of people with looks that were > judged to be just mediocre were averaged together on a computer and the > result is a picture that was judged to be much more beautiful than any one > of those 10 pictures. There are different theories of beauty and how symmetry relates. The theory you are referring to has not held up very well. Here's one blurb http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/685 but I have read other discussions of other studies which cast doubt on the evolutionary biology of beauty. > > They've even invented a "beauty machine" out of a soulless computer, insert > a picture of anyone and press a button, after many many calculations the > bloodless machine outputs a picture that is obviously of the same person > but is subtly more beautiful or more handsome. > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081106122409.htm Yes, there is another project like that I have seen too. Interesting but again, no synthetic face has ever been created which has been considered worthy of serious consideration. They are attractive only in a generic and empty way, but no model or actor has been put out of a job yet by symmetrical computation. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
