Cosmosis

Previous Entry
Main
Archive
Next Entry


Posted by Andrew - October 14, 2006 - 23:41

"Where's the Science, Bub?"

We've been asked to prepare about three sentences, each, addressing "where's the science?" and "where's the art?". That excercise seems a bit contrived to me, in our case -- I really think David and I come at things more from the same side than from radically different perspectives. I imagine maybe Helen and Dave experience similar reaction.

Attempting to address the "science side": We can only ask, "what does it mean, specifically, to most scientists, when we say `scientific'?".
  • Is it enough just to find something mensurable (quantifiable)?
  • Does it also need to be reproducible?
  • Need we have a motive for studying a particular measurable?
The total experience of a system+participants session is nondeterministic by nature and by design. However, certain statistical behaviours can be systematically elicited, at least frequently if not dependably -- we could quantify those qualities, and measure them reproducibly.

If we measured physical human gestures, as sensed by the camera(s), we would also know quite concretely what our numbers meant, especially if our model was "anatomical". If we measured agent coalition dynamics, it might be hard to ascribe meaning to the numbers, since agents partake of the unknown -- perhaps of the unknowable, if chaos is implicated ...

It is theece very ambiguities that verge into artistic zones, since the participant who is selectively-guiding the evolution depends very much on sensible feedback in order to feel engaged, which is a prerequisite (if not a synonym) for intentional. And, as we mention in our Proposal, we are trying to incur a study on empirical intentionality.


Previous Entry
Main
Archive
Next Entry