i don't agree we can't/don't experience randomness. anyone who has been
around computer art for a while comes to know various representations of
randomness. such as a screenful of randomly coloured pixels. that has a
certain look to it. even the old experience of TV screen noise. also,
there's the look of an object jumping randomly from position to position
on the screen. if it's not random, the period has to be pretty long
before we don't discern the pattern. there are also sonic
representations of randomness. like when the algorithm seeks to random
locations in the audio file and plays from there, very briefly, and then
moves on to another seek very quickly. We listen for pattern. But it
becomes impossible to impose the same pattern for long. Randomness
defeats our habitual pattern-imposing behavior because we have to keep
changing the pattern beyond the patterns we use to impose and even
here's one i was just trying, myself. at
, click one of the buttons at top left
repeatedly. it reminds me of watching a bonfire.
On 7/12/2018 10:10 AM, Alex McLean wrote:
I think of randomness as a kind of silence. In a way they are
opposites - randomness is maximum information content, and silence is
minimum information content. But in a way they're the same - they lack
any structure in themselves, and are both impossible to experience.
You can't really experience silence (because you make noise yourself),
and can't really experience randomness either (you perceive patterns
in a random field). They can also be used the same way, to fill in
I agree with Philip that randomness is not a good stopping point. The
ability of random number generators to create variation is hugely
overrated. They're literally arbitrary.
I'm also pretty bored of having to wheel out the same old white men
(Burroughs, Eno, Cage, etc) for discussion tokens around randomness as
if they were the first or only people to explore chance operations.
eu-gene mailing list -- eu-gene(a)we.lurk.org
To unsubscribe send an email to eu-gene-leave(a)we.lurk.org