[-empyre-] Forward from Kominos Zervos: re Tangent: software/conceptual art

[Christina McPhee <christina112@earthlink.net>]

Sorry, this post bounced for some reason.

-cm




From: Komninos Zervos <k.zervos@griffith.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:22:16 +1000
To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: RE: [-empyre-] tangent: software / conceptual art


and this is proved conclusively in films like 2001 space odyssey,
bicentennial man, the matrix, robots, etc.

i'm with florian on this one

komninos 

komninos zervos
lecturer, convenor of CyberStudies major
School of Arts 
Griffith University
Room 3.25 Multimedia Building G23
Gold Coast Campus 
Parkwood
PMB 50 Gold Coast Mail Centre
Queensland 9726
Australia
Phone 07 5552 8872 Fax 07 5552 8141
http://www.gu.edu.au/ppages/k_zervos
http://users.bigpond.net.au/mangolegs
http://spokenword.blog-city.com


"Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
Sent by: empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au 08/11/2004 08:53
Please respond to soft_skinned_space
        
        To:        "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
        cc:        
        Subject:        RE: [-empyre-] tangent: software / conceptual art



> Self modifying code was a popular strategy of the early (pre Dewdney
> and Redcode) Code Wars.  Competing programs would rewrite their own
> code and some could steal and adapt their opponents code.  Code Wars
> began in the 60's and was an early pre-cursor of alife (and viruses).
> This was about the same time that Holland published his papers on
> adaptive strategies (in 1962) - the root of today's evolutionary and
> genetic algorithms and a major taproot of alife.

Very interesting, thanks for that and the links.

Yes, to think, as Florian does, that:

"{5: No computer can reprogram itself; self-programming is only possible
within a limited framework of game rules written by a human programmer. A
machine can behave differently than expected, because the rules didn't
foresee all situations they could create, but no machine can overwrite its
own rules by itself.}"

is a misunderstanding of the nature of computers and what they are capable
of. There is no proof, and there is very likely never to be any--popular
falacies from Penrose not withstanding--that the processes which computers
are capable of are any less flexible than thought itself. Were Florian's
statement true, it would demonstrate that there's a thought process
(self-modification) of which humans are capable and computers are not. But
it isn't so. It does seem that this sort of misunderstanding is widespread
and often fondly held.

ja
http://vispo.com


_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre




-- 
 soundart performance videoinstallation multimedia painting theory


<www.christinamcphee.net>
<www.naxsmash.net>
<www.naxsmash.net/inscapes>