I agree with you that in order for this discussion not to be hopelessly
confused and generalising we need to distinguich between "simulating"
which needs be seen in the context of digital simulation, and representation
(such as the Brughel paintings and the photos that pier luigi points to)
here is the wikipaedia statement on the meaning of the word simulation
in the context of computer and systems sciences:
""Historically, simulations used in different fields developed largely
independently, but 20th century studies of Systems theory and
Cybernetics combined with spreading use of computers across all those
fields have led to some unification and a more systematic view of the
Physical simulation refers to simulation in which physical objects are
substituted for the real thing (some circles use the term for
computer simulations modelling selected laws of physics, but this
article doesn't). These physical objects are often chosen because they
are smaller or cheaper than the actual object or system.
Interactive simulation is a special kind of physical simulation, often
referred to as a human in the loop simulation, in which physical
simulations include human operators, such as in a flight simulator or
a driving simulator.
Human in the loop simulations can include a computer simulation as a
so-called synthetic environment.""
pier luigi and jennifer when they talk about "simulating the senses"
i think are within this definition of "simulation" and the general dicussion
one could have about painting and music and representation in the arts
so for me a picture that happens to be developed using computer graphics
is not a "simulation" in this sense but an alife program that generates
evolving life like systems ( and then you can photograph and produce a still
graphic)= the work of karl simms etc
as mentioned in the definition above, often the aspect of interactivity
is key to creating an digitally generated experience that "simulates'
so i agree= for the discussion of simulation here not to be over general
we need to distinguish clearly between simulation and representation
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Annick Bureaud <email@example.com> wrote:
> Dear Pier Luigi, Dear All,
> This discussion is a bit difficult to follow for me as I don't have much
> time to read everything, so I hope that my remark will not be too trivial.
> For me there is a difference between simulating and representing.
> But one naive question : if life is simulatable (A.life), then death is
> Pier Luigi Capucci wrote:
>> Dear Derek, beautiful idea that death can be something un-simulatable....
>> But, don't you think images like the following ones can represent it?
>> Pier Luigi
>> Il giorno 21/gen/2011, alle ore 21.13, derek hales ha scritto:
>>> to go back to the opening question - and with apologies, when Pier first
>>> posed the question of what was un-simulatable / unsimulable, before
>>> the discussion - I said something like "life"...I take it all back - it
>>> death. death cannot be simulated, perhaps the final rasping breath can -
>>> the completion of non - sense, the utter desolation of the senses, the
>>> unconditioned, a void: this surely cannot be simulated?
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin