This post reminded me of the discussion of creativity in Carse’s Finite and Infinite Games. He wrote that finite games are games (in a loose sense) with definite rules, with beginnings and ends, for which one can speak of preference orderings and optimizations. Infinite games have no end but may include finite games, and can be played but not won; they are played for the sake of playing. It makes no sense to talk about optimizing on an infinite game.
Modern art’s surface-level boundary breaking can certainly be thought of as a winnable competition, but I’d be much more hesitant to say the same of all of human life, the higher-level creative process that gave rise to modern art and the problem of transportation. I’m not convinced that optimization captures all the important properties of intelligence (or creativity). Perhaps someone with a better understand could elucidate this for me?
It makes no sense to talk about optimizing on an infinite game.
If I get the difference between finite and infinite games… then I’m afraid I disagree.
Take, for example, the difference between “baseball” and “playing house”.
Baseball is clearly a finite game—it makes sense to talk about a “winner” of baseball. Contrariwise, it makes no sense to talk about a “winner” of playing house—so I’d conclude that the latter is an infinite game.
From my own experience of “playing house” as a girl, I’d say there are definite candidates for optimisation—especially when playing with others. The most common (in my experience) being to optimise the average happiness level of each of the players (by sharing, avoiding or resolving disagreements etc).
Even if nobody “wins” you can still “play better” against this optimisation target.
okay, playing house isn’t actually a coherent category. there are ways to play house that have carse-jargon-“definite rules” and have a carse-jargon-defined-beginning&end, and there are ways to play house that don’t. most instances of playing house are of the former type, likely including your experiences.
This post reminded me of the discussion of creativity in Carse’s Finite and Infinite Games. He wrote that finite games are games (in a loose sense) with definite rules, with beginnings and ends, for which one can speak of preference orderings and optimizations. Infinite games have no end but may include finite games, and can be played but not won; they are played for the sake of playing. It makes no sense to talk about optimizing on an infinite game.
Modern art’s surface-level boundary breaking can certainly be thought of as a winnable competition, but I’d be much more hesitant to say the same of all of human life, the higher-level creative process that gave rise to modern art and the problem of transportation. I’m not convinced that optimization captures all the important properties of intelligence (or creativity). Perhaps someone with a better understand could elucidate this for me?
If I get the difference between finite and infinite games… then I’m afraid I disagree.
Take, for example, the difference between “baseball” and “playing house”.
Baseball is clearly a finite game—it makes sense to talk about a “winner” of baseball. Contrariwise, it makes no sense to talk about a “winner” of playing house—so I’d conclude that the latter is an infinite game.
From my own experience of “playing house” as a girl, I’d say there are definite candidates for optimisation—especially when playing with others. The most common (in my experience) being to optimise the average happiness level of each of the players (by sharing, avoiding or resolving disagreements etc).
Even if nobody “wins” you can still “play better” against this optimisation target.
carse uses words in weird ways. in carse jargon, playing house is a finite game.
As explained it doesn’t fit the definition given: playing house does not have “definite rules” and does not have a defined beginning/end.
okay, playing house isn’t actually a coherent category. there are ways to play house that have carse-jargon-“definite rules” and have a carse-jargon-defined-beginning&end, and there are ways to play house that don’t. most instances of playing house are of the former type, likely including your experiences.
carse uses words in weird ways.