This philosophical inquiry explores the work of philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari and posits applications to music education. Through the concepts of multiplicities, becoming, bodies without organs, smooth spaces, maps, and nomads, Deleuze and Guattari challenge prior and current understandings of existence. In their writings on art, education, and…
This philosophical inquiry explores the work of philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari and posits applications to music education. Through the concepts of multiplicities, becoming, bodies without organs, smooth spaces, maps, and nomads, Deleuze and Guattari challenge prior and current understandings of existence. In their writings on art, education, and how might one live, they assert a world consisting of variability and motion. Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari's emphasis on time and difference, I posit the following questions: Who and when are we? Where are we? When is music? When is education? Throughout this document, their philosophical figuration of a rhizome serves as a recurring theme, highlighting the possibilities of complexity, diverse connections, and continual processes. I explore the question "When and where are we?" by combining the work of Deleuze and Guattari with that of other authors. Drawing on these ideas, I posit an ontology of humans as inseparably cognitive, embodied, emotional, social, and striving multiplicities. Investigating the question "Where are we?" using Deleuze and Guattari's writings as well as that of contemporary place philosophers and other writers reveals that humans exist at the continually changing confluence of local and global places. In order to engage with the questions "When is music?" and "When is education?" I inquire into how humans as cognitive, embodied, emotional, social, and striving multiplicities emplaced in a glocalized world experience music and education. In the final chapters, a philosophy of music education consisting of the ongoing, interconnected processes of complicating, considering, and connecting is proposed. Complicating involves continually questioning how humans' multiple inseparable qualities and places integrate during musical and educative experiences. Considering includes imagining the multiple directions in which connections might occur as well as contemplating the quality of potential connections. Connecting involves assisting students in forming variegated connections between themselves, their multiple qualities, and their glocal environments. Considering a rhizomatic philosophy of music education includes continually engaging in the integrated processes of complicating, considering, and connecting. Through such ongoing practices, music educators can promote flourishing in the lives of students and the experiences of their multiple communities.
Human team members show a remarkable ability to infer the state of their partners and anticipate their needs and actions. Prior research demonstrates that an artificial system can make some predictions accurately concerning artificial agents. This study investigated whether an artificial system could generate a robust Theory of Mind of…
Human team members show a remarkable ability to infer the state of their partners and anticipate their needs and actions. Prior research demonstrates that an artificial system can make some predictions accurately concerning artificial agents. This study investigated whether an artificial system could generate a robust Theory of Mind of human teammates. An urban search and rescue (USAR) task environment was developed to elicit human teamwork and evaluate inference and prediction about team members by software agents and humans. The task varied team members’ roles and skills, types of task synchronization and interdependence, task risk and reward, completeness of mission planning, and information asymmetry. The task was implemented in MinecraftTM and applied in a study of 64 teams, each with three remotely distributed members. An evaluation of six Artificial Social Intelligences (ASI) and several human observers addressed the accuracy with which each predicted team performance, inferred experimentally manipulated knowledge of team members, and predicted member actions. All agents performed above chance; humans slightly outperformed ASI agents on some tasks and significantly outperformed ASI agents on others; no one ASI agent reliably outperformed the others; and the accuracy of ASI agents and human observers improved rapidly though modestly during the brief trials.
