Yikes! I've been lured too far off topic. Putting aside whether graphics or maps are awe-inspiring, or breath taking, or of another rare quality, the relevant issue is shifting the creativity burden over to the computer while: * supporting human direction at whatever level-of-detail the human is concerned with * achieving a quality such that the human doesn't feel the need to be concerned with the lower levels of detail * significantly enhancing productivity - i.e. actual quantity of acceptable-quality elements
I personally believe that generative grammars ( http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4012) hold the most promise for these purposes - easy to extend and constrain and abstract. Flexible, like mad-libbing a map. I suspect that grammars would also serve as a useful `genome` for genetic programming models. As note, though, existing technologies are already well proven - e.g. knobs and dials and seeded fractals. Feedback from users was suggested, but doesn't obviate need for a theory to actually utilize this feedback. It might be possible to use `simulated runs` to help select maps. For example, run bots on a shooter map to judge fairness. Does anyone else have suggestions for how we might pursue the goal of `collaborative creativity`? Regards, Dave On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:47 PM, David Barbour <dmbarb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net>wrote: > >> >> Noted, but not relevant to my point. >> > > Oh? You say that without any explanation? Perhaps you need some hand > holding to follow my logic. > > 1) You make an argument about contexts being `awe inspiring to humanity as > a whole`. > 2) Given the human potential for psychopathy, autism, aspergers, and other > psychological classifications, it is impossible to find anything > awe-inspiring to all humans. > 3) Therefore, your `humanity as a whole` reduces to a statistical argument > about a group of humans. > 4) I describe your argument as `an anthropocentric statistical metric`. > 5) I point out that even such metrics are influenced (subject to) culture. > 6) Therefore, my argument is relevant to your point. > > Indeed, I believe it completely undermines your point. `awe-inspiring` is > simply not an objective property. > > >> >> I'd posit that everything is inherently related. I call this inherent >> relationship context, or "is-ness" if you will. >> > > How is such a position - which doesn't seem to make any distinctions - > useful in this context? Actually, how is it useful for anything whatsoever? > > >> >> Sure. Over at http://hof.povray.org/ >> >> >> Sorry I was implying given a technologically-driven only context. (As >> in... impossible without high technology) All of those works could be >> theoretically done more or less with an analogue medium, no? >> > > Speaking of the theoretically possible is always a fun and fantastic > exercise. Theoretically, all the oxygen in your room could just happen to > miss your lungs for the few minutes it takes to die. Theoretically, cosmic > rays could flip bits into jpeg-encoded pornography on your computer. > Theoretically, yes, those images could be generated on an analogue medium. > > But if we speak in practical terms - of what is `feasible` rather than > what is `possible` - then, no, those images would not be created in an > analog medium. They are the result of trial and error and tweaking that > would be `infeasible` in human time frames without the technology. The > precision of light and shadow would similarly be infeasible. > > >> >> long-lasting impacting meaning "the impact lasts for a long time" not as >> in the sense that the activity itself is long-lasting. >> > > Of the things I've found inspiring that had a long-lasting impact, none > inspired `awe`. > > Regards, > > Dave > > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
