So now we have our definition of what it is we are looking for we now want to decide a “standard configuration” under which we will derive our benchmarks, again in much the same way that graphics cards are benchmarked.

Also analogous to this task will be that we require different standard configurations / test applications for different types of content. Testing emotional gestures will require a different test application than testing interactive narrative for example. » Read more: Minimal engagement II

An idea i have been thinking about recently, in the context of testing applications, is what would be the minimum level of engagement required to satisfy a user and give them an “engaging” experience?
We would have to start off by defining some terms and laying out some assumptions as this could easily turn into a “how long is a piece of string” question. There could be many levels to the question depending on what type of application you were trying to build. It would be somewhat analogous to benchmarking a graphics card the way ATI and Nvidia do. » Read more: Minimal engagement

I mentioned that behavior could not adequately be described using algebra, in my view. However others have other views. I have been reading blog by Paul Harrison for some time after stumbling upon it somehow. He has some fascinating posts based around his construction of brain function, particularly autism, through the use of some pretty advanced mathematics. Much of it goes right over my formula limited brain but he has a tremendous intellect, very sharp and has some great insights and conclusions. He is doing research besides the math I believe but his work would be so much deeper if he really had a deeper understanding of neuroscience to add the “why” and “what” to his fascinating “how”.

Go spend a few hours at his site, its worth the time.

I have begun to realize that whatever breakthroughs I make in my research there is a always a reasonable probability that someone else touched on the same area 50 years earlier. It is often the case that the work is a stroke of great insight that being entirely without precedent is subsequently consigned to gather dust as no one else understands it enough to realize what it means. So, bearing in mind my recent topic and personal insights:

It is not possible to produce a set of rules purporting to describe what a man should do in every conceivable set of circumstances. One might for instance have a rule that one is to stop when one sees a red traffic light, and to go if one sees a green one, but what if by some fault both appear together? One may perhaps decide that it is safest to stop. But some further difficulty may well arise from this decision later. To attempt to provide rules of conduct to cover every eventuality, even those arising from traffic lights, appears to be impossible. Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, 1950

» Read more: IF only

Following on from yesterdays post, so what is emergence in practice? In my context I will give you an example, unsurprisingly facial gestures:

The way facial gestures or expressions are currently derived is by triggering, with the use of a suitable rule, a “complete” expression, including eyes, brows, mouth etc from a “neutral” expression. As with rule systems this produces very simplistic behavior, often “snapping” between an expressive face and a completely non expressive face at the neutral position. Not good.

» Read more: On Emergence II