Nick,
Good question. Before I answer, lemme introduce some terminology. With
respect to this discussion about "art", I admit that what I'm really
getting at is my particular take on the "mythos versus logos" issue -
with my notion of "art" falling on the "mythos" side.
In my notion of "art", the artist "sends a message" to an "audience"
(receiver) - just like in information theory. But the difference lies is
the _focus of interest_ in what happens once the message is received by
the "audience" of the art. In information theory, the focus is on
whether the message is received correctly, and associated probabilities
and entropies. However, in my version of "art" (or mythos), I don't
start getting interested at the time that the message is recieved. In
fact, I don't get interested until this received message /evokes/ or
/arouses/ retained information (memories?) that lies within the mind of
the audience. Moreover such an evocation must become the focus of the
attention of the audience (message receiver) before I am willing to say
that "art has happened". (And, any attention on the part of the audience
on the initial received message has been dropped at this point.)
Usually, that evoked information represents an embellishment by the
receiver and is often much richer than the direct content of the
received message itself. It is this embellishment that is the focus of
interest, and intent, of the artist - even though the artist does not
directly control it.
In such a situation, my interest lies more in the multiple ways that
these evocations on the part of different "audiences" might be different
from each other. And I am less interested in how much they are the same.
So, unlike Shannon, I'm not worried that any kind of "chance variation"
has occurred across multiple listeners. In fact, as an artist, I am
/celebrating/ that degree of chance variation rather than trying to
reduce it - as I would be whenever I am engaging in "logos", such as
when I am "doing science".
I'm simply saying that I observe such a phenomena taking place right in
the middle of "artists doing art" - and it interests me. And that is
what I call an "instance of art". I'm not arguing any particular point -
only expressing an interest in a phenomenon that I observe.
HTH,
Grant
On 12/28/15 9:08 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Thanks, Grant,
I am still a bit confused, perhaps because I don’t really know how to
play the “information” word game very well.
In information theory, I thought communication was defined as any
change in the response probabilities of the receiver that was due to
the content of the message.
So the elicitation of images by a poem, WOULD be the transfer of
information.
Am I wrong about that?
I guess I am pushing this point because metaphors seem to me to be
extremely important operators in science. Take “natural selection”,
for instance.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Grant
Holland
*Sent:* Monday, December 28, 2015 8:01 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the
Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine
Nick,
Ok, I'll giv'er a whirl.
Don't take this as a lexical definition; but rather as my own peculiar
way of choosing to understand art.
I see art as a form of communication that attempts to arouse or evoke
information (e.g. imagery) from within the minds of audience members
to the forefront of the minds of those members.
Generally, in this form of communication, the "audience" is expected
to be human-like (in a sense that I am unprepared to define at present).
This form of communication is as opposed to "information transfer".
One way to describe the difference is that ambiguity is expected,
even desired, in the former, but eschewed in the latter.
Another difference is that Shannon's theory applies to the latter but
maybe not so well to the former.
According to this view, science can be, and often is, art.
Anyway, this is the best I can do for now. I hope I have conveyed my
meaning.
Grant
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 28, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net
<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote:
Grant,
Aw. Come on. Try. I stipulate that it’s not easy.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of
*Grant Holland
*Sent:* Monday, December 28, 2015 1:22 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the
Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine
Nick,
Some nebulous one, for sure.
Grant
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Nick Thompson
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>
wrote:
Grant,
What is the implicit definition of “art” you are running with
there?
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of
*Grant Holland
*Sent:* Monday, December 28, 2015 1:51 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>; Owen Densmore
<o...@backspaces.net <mailto:o...@backspaces.net>>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the
Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine
Mathematics already went through this "crisis of confidence"
in the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky and
Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean, geometries.
The issue that forced this new look at the soul of mathematics
was, I believe, the verifiability - consistency, actually - of
Euclid's fifth postulate with respect to his other four. This
was followed historically by the works of Dedekind and Cantor
who engaged naked logic to expose a number of
counter-intuitive "truths" of mathematics. The entire hoopla
was addressed by Hilbert's program in an attempt to put the
matter to rest for once and for all. However, the work of
Russell and Whitehead to further Hilbert's program by
developing arithmetic from Hilbertian foundations was
eventually stymied by Godel, whose work was generalized by
Turing.
The result of all of this, according to my understanding, is
that mathematics ceased to see itself as a "seeker after the
true nature of the universe" (as do both science (which
physics thinks it owns) and philosophy even today); and began
to see itself as a "constructor of logically consistent
models, regardless of their verifiability". Verifiability was
dropped from the program of pure abstract mathematics, and was
left to the "impure" pursuits of physicists, philosophers and
applied mathematicians.
I'm sure someone on this list can set straight my
recollections of mathematical history. But I do hold to the
point that mathematics addressed, and "kind of" resolved, its
own crisis of confidence over its assumed need for
verifiability about a century ago. It's conclusion? Forget
verifiability and pursue pure mathematics as art - not science.
Should physics give up its similar insistence on verification
(seeking "the truth") - and join the ranks as just another
branch of abstract mathematics?
Grant
On 12/26/15 9:44 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
Abs fab!
But amazingly, there are fantastic young grad students
doing the impossible in this field .. testing at the
Planck limits. Often using the universe itself to test its
own theories.
One of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing towards
a void in space which suggests "gravity on the other side"
.. i.e. a multiverse lump hidden from us but not by gravity.
Why is there Something, not Nothing gets to be fascinating
when the big bang was sparked by less than a tea-spoon of
matter, or so it is thought nowadays.
-- Owen
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Tom Johnson
<t...@jtjohnson.com <mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>> wrote:
Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/
===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
t...@jtjohnson.com <mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>
505-473-9646 <tel:505-473-9646>
===================================
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
