I was nodding along to this fluffy #science news (still in an overhyped computational model phase), when I hit this record-scratch of an AW HELL NO:
"The study’s findings not only confirm existing theories about the brain’s use of Bayesian-like inference but open doors to new research and innovation, where the brain’s natural ability for Bayesian inference can be harnessed for practical applications that benefit society."
NOPE. NOPE NOPE NOPE.
STEAM, not STEM, folks!
https://scitechdaily.com/biological-masterpiece-evolution-wired-human-brains-to-act-like-supercomputers/
Respectfully, I could not disagree more. My daughter draws out designs of things. Various things. The most elaborate, ornate design was a dagger for a part she had in a play. It took a couple hundred hours, several meltdowns, and grit, but she created her own code and 3D printed the most incredible dagger. She then inserted LED’s and switches where here forethought design allowed so it would light up as she wished.
If that is not art and engineering, what is?
@CajunBlueAZ1 @MLClark I didn't say the two disciplines couldn't be used together - I said they served very different purposes.
If you want to turn art into a physical object, yeah, you'll need to apply STEM principles... but STEM does not necessarily depend on art. The dependency is mostly one-way.
If you are using a "function over form" paradigm, which is essentially always the most efficient way to achieve material goals, there is no art involved.
Oh, I’m sorry . I misunderstood. This is a different concept and I am too tired to wrap my mind around it. At hazy first thought, I am inclined to agree.
Again, apologies if I stepped in it. I make mistakes often.
@CajunBlueAZ1 @MLClark All good! No worries. Hope I didn't come across as abrasive. No need to apologize!
I'll admit, I may be a bit biased in my assessments on this subject, as (as I've hinted at/mentioned elsewhere) I deal with a combination of factors that severely impair most domains of artistic creativity.
Although they do also seem to inhibit the creativity necessary required to do certain types of advanced calculus at a decent pace as well... making me extremely slow to find solutions.
@MLClark Aaaaaand there are people who are essentially incapable of producing art due to a combination of neurological and physical factors, while being perfectly capable of excelling in STEM fields, for whom making art a requirement would be *extremely* unfair.
I am *almost* one of those people, due to (among other things) a combination of aphantasia, a near-complete lack of spatial memory, and cognitive peculiarities.
I can do music, primarily by a lot of slow/frustrating trial and error.
The expression "STEAM not STEM" is perhaps one you're not familiar with; it refers to the importance of the humanities / ethics training in science education.
If you view "the arts" in an education context as something else, that's fine, but your definition of the role of a humanities education is a touch limited here.
@MLClark Hmm?
It occurs to me - as an artist/musician myself - that STEM fields and art serve completely different roles and use very different competencies, so it doesn't really make any sense to lump them together.
STEM fields serve to facilitate the achievement of real, physical goals.
The arts serve to modulate human emotion and perception.
There is essentially zero connection between those purposes.