Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsla.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcsla!hestenes From: hestenes@sdcsla.UUCP (Eric Hestenes) Newsgroups: net.books,net.ai Subject: Re: Hofstadter on computer music Message-ID: <858@sdcsla.UUCP> Date: Wed, 15-May-85 15:47:24 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcsla.858 Posted: Wed May 15 15:47:24 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 17-May-85 12:07:06 EDT References: <582@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> <195@u1100s.UUCP> <14174@watmath.UUCP> Organization: U.C. San Diego, Cognitive Science Lab Lines: 59 Xref: linus net.books:1727 net.ai:2530 > I said: > >graphics artist. However, the best,most realistic graphics made today > >is made with the computer, not exclusively by humans. Fractal geometry > >provides mathematical principles that describe real-world scenery far > >better than the hands of most artists. And it draws scenery with such > >precision that it makes human efforts look "like the throw of the dice". Martin Taylor said: > Although I agree with the conclusion, I can't agree that fractal geometry > provides more realistic descriptions of scenery than human artists. Real > scenery is not fractal except in unusual circumstances. The effects of Whether or not fractals are precisely accurate, the point relevant to AI is that an understanding of the world ( versus artistry ) facilitates creating very realistic pictures ( a form of art ), without needing to dive into a lot of labor involving imitating human artistic endeavors. > erosion or biological growth patterns are usually scale-dependent, and > directed. For example, folded strata dominate most mountain structures, > and the relative hardness and friability of the strata determine the > visual appearance of a mountain. Alps don't look like Rockies, for example. > One side of a mountain may be almost a mirror-smooth slab, whereas the > other shows a dipping saddle of cliffs. Fractal geometry provides > aesthetically pleasing pictures that sort-of look right, especially > when compared with previous computer-based graphic methods. But it's > a long way from there to realism. Wrong. There are important areas where one cannot describe the scenery at all without the aid of fractal geometry. Mountain landscapes are just one example. Another good example of the impact of fractals is in predicting the shape of coastlines bordering major oceans ( pacific, atlantic, indian ) and the shape of islands. Without fractal geometry we have no coherent theory for predicting the shape of coastlines, islands, etc. With it, we can generate by computer near exact predictons of the shape of major continents. > > Music doesn't require realism, and I do think that the right computer-based > approach may well provide music of deep aesthetic satisfaction (i.e. "great"). > (Of course, visual art doesn't require realism, either). > -- > > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt Who says music doesn't require realism? Perhaps someone who also does not think fractal geometry is required to describe nature. One may ASSUME that realism isn't important, but this assumption doesn't provide evidence against the argument the realism MIGHT BE important. Read Mandelbenoit, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, for the real scoop. eric ------- hestenes@nprdc ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcsla!hestenes