On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:16:07 +0200 lordkrandel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I will, however, point out one consequence of that idea: the most > > noticeable difference between abstract art and abstract mathematics is > > that abstract mathematics has some aesthetic value. Abstract art can > > now consist of a canvas painted one color, or mere splatters of paint > > (or other substances) on a surface; contrast that with the Mandelbrot > > and Julia sets, or the Hilbert and Peano space-filling curves and von > > Koch snowflake, or the elegant complexity which arises from the simple > > axioms of group theory. A pure mathematician does his work to satisfy > > his curiosity; an abstract artist does his work merely to see what he > > can get away with. > > An artist is moved by curiosity about the world and himself just > as scientists do in a rational way. The author satisfies this need > through his work. You can find beauty in both a paint and a formal > description of a theory. One can write songs to have a better and > full understanding of what he is feeling and to try to convey his > emotions to others, just like mathematicians convey their knowledge > about the world through axioms, rules, laws, models. They are not abstract artists. Their works of art have functions. (A work's function includes ‘feeding its creator(s)’ surprisingly often.) > > I will also point out that a game does have a function -- to be fun. > Define in an objective way: to be fun. :P Oh goody. A philosopher. A computer game is a computer program whose creator intended primarily that human beings enjoy interacting with it. If you want an objective definition of ‘to enjoy’, ask a neurologist; they are finally starting to understand this sort of simple emotion. As I understand it, a human being (or other animal) enjoys an activity if the activity causes certain cells in his/her/its brain to produce and/or release dopamine. If you want an objective definition of ‘intended’, ‘interacting’, ‘computer program’, ‘human being’, ‘animal’, ‘cell’, ‘brain’, ‘dopamine’, ‘produce’, ‘release’, or ‘neurologist’, **** *** *** *** ******* *****. Uriel can elaborate on that if you want (or if you don't want). To the extent that this list has a topic, it seems to be ‘the philosophy of computer programming’. That does not mean that any of us want to read the kind of crap [that *is* a noun, right?] that university departments of Philosophy emit. > It is not a tool like hammers, "cat" command or applied maths. > I'm thinking about applied coding, pure coding, and applied pure coding. > Sounds almost like Kant xD *** ******* *****! > >> I like Mozart and Minimalism just as much as I like Dadaism or free > >> Jazz, even if they have different forms and subjective functions. > > I hope you aren't suggesting that Mozart *is* minimalist. > > It was an example of "elegance", to pinpoint the delta with Dadaism. Well, at least you have a glimmer of sanity. Robert Ransom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
