>But what is aesthetics the study of? Of beauty? That's it isn't it?
But how can something as plastic as "beauty" have any kind of
terminal
value that you and I can both share? Do aesthetic terminal values
decide where something fits into "aesthetic reality" or something
like
that? By the way, thanks for showing that "artistic intelligence"
may
actually represent a form of scientific understanding, a thought
dear
to my heart.
Kim Jones
--
>Marc,
I would agree with you that aesthetics is an important driving
principle, and the top scientist _do_ recognize this (see for
instance
many quotes by Albert Einstein in this direction).
Also, you should have a look at Nietzsche - science and the aesthetic
pervade his work!
Cheers,
Günther
Yes, good Kim and Gunther- I’m now adopting the radical belief that
intelligence has a lot more to do with art, than math ;)
Good initial link on aesthetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
So throw away all those math books , forget about Bayes, and start
studying the arts: painting, music and so on and so forth.
We’ll finally solve the AI stuff…with art.
On Jul 30, 2:34 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Marc,
>
> I would agree with you that aesthetics is an important driving
> principle, and the top scientist _do_ recognize this (see for instance
> many quotes by Albert Einstein in this direction).
>
> Also, you should have a look at Nietzsche - science and the aesthetic
> pervade his work!
>
> Cheers,
> Günther
>
>
>
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Two issues I wish to mention, here.
>
> > Firstly, I present a few rapid-fire ideas about objective morality,
> > culminating in an integration of aesthetics, intelligence, and
> > morality, all in a few brief sentences ;)
>
> > Secondly, I give a mention to computer scientist Randy Pausch, who
> > recently died.
>
> > As regards the first issue:
>
> > It’s been said there are clear ways to determine physical and
> > mathematical facts, but nothing similar for values. But, in point (2)
> > below I point out what appears to be an objectively existing set of
> > values which underlies *all* of science. I present two brief but
> > profound points that I what readers to consider and ponder carefully:
>
> > Point (1) there is a clear evolution to the universe. It started from
> > a low-entropy-density state, and is moving towards a higher-entropy
> > density, which, remarkably, just happens to coincide with an increase
> > in physical complexity with time. In the beginning the universe was in
> > a state with *the lowest possible* entropy. This is expressed in the
> > laws of thermodynamics and big bang cosmology. So it simply isn’t true
> > that there is no teleology (purpose) built into the universe. The laws
> > of thermodynamics and modern cosmology (big bang theory) clearly
> > express the fact that there is.
>
> > Point (2) the whole of science relies on Occam’s razor, the idea that
> > the universe is in some sense ‘simple’. It must be emphasized that
> > Occam’s razor pervades all of science – it is not simply some sort of
> > ‘add on’. As Popper pointed out, an infinite number of theories could
> > explain any given set of observations; therefore any inductive
> > generalization requires a principle – Occam’s razor – to get any
> > useful results at all.
>
> > Here is the point that most haven’t quite grasped - Occam’s razor is
> > *a set of aesthetic principles* - the notion of ‘simplicity’ is *a set
> > of aesthetic principles*; Why? Because it is simply another way of
> > saying that some representations are more *elegant* than others, which
> > is the very notion of aesthetics! I repeat: the whole of science only
> > works because of a set of *aesthetic principles* - a *set of values*.
>
> > If all values are only subjective preferences, it would follow that
> > the whole of science relies on subjective preferences. But subjective
> > preferences have only existed as long as sentiments – therefore how
> > could physical laws have functioned before sentiments? The idea that
> > all values are subjective leads to a direct and blatant logical
> > contradiction.
>
> > Both these points are related and simply inexplicable without
> > appealing to objective terminal values. At the beginning of time the
> > universe was in the simplest possible state (minimal entropy density).
> > Why? Occam’s razor is wide-ranging and pervades the whole of science.
> > The simple is favored over the complex – that is– Occam’s razor is a
> > set of aesthetic value judgments without which not a single Bayesian
> > result could be obtained.
>
> > *Every single Bayesian result rests on these implicit value judgments*
> > to set priors. It must be repeated that *not one single scientific
> > result could be obtained* without these secret (implicit) value
> > judgments which set priors, that our defenders of the Bayesian faith
> > on these forums are trying to pretend are not part of science!
>
> > The secret to intell
