This document is available in PDF and HTML here.
The PDF version is generated from the HTML version and may be out of date.
A shorter version originally appeared in Computing in Schools, 1981.

This was much enlarged in March and April 2014, including
-- recollections by Wendy Manktellow (nee Taylor) [WM], and
-- a draft annotated biography of Max Clowes with publications [BIO].
Please send corrections and additions to a.sloman[ at ]


A Tribute to Max Clowes
Aaron Sloman[AS]

Previously: Reader in Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence
Cognitive Studies Programme[COGS]
School of Social Sciences,
The University of Sussex

Since this was posted online at Birmingham University, there have been a number of
modifications. If you have information about Max's biography that you would be
willing to contribute, please let me (AS) know.

Added March 2014
Wendy Manktellow worked with Max at Sussex University, helping with project
administration. She was then Wendy Taylor, and will be remembered by several of
Max's students and collaborators. In February 2014 she stumbled across this
web page, and wrote to me with an anecdote which I've appended below[WM], with
her permission.
Added April 2014
A draft annotated biography of Max Clowes with publications [BIO].






Max Clowes died of a heart attack on Tuesday 28th April 1981. He was one of the
best known British researchers in Artificial Intelligence, having done
pioneering work on the interpretation of pictures by computers. His most
approachable publication is cited below. He was an inspiring teacher and
colleague, and will be remembered for many years by all who worked with him. He
helped to found AISB, the British society for the study of Artificial
Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour, now expanded to a European
society. This tribute is concerned mainly with his contribution to education.

He was one of the founder members of the Cognitive Studies Programme begun in
1974 at the University of Sussex, a novel attempt to bring together a variety of
approaches to the study of Mind, namely Psychology, Linguistics, Philosophy and
Artificial Intelligence. During the last few years his interests centred mainly
on the process of teaching computing to absolute beginners, including those
without a mathematical or scientific background. He was one of the main
architects of the Sussex University POP11 teaching system (along with Steve
Hardy and myself), which has gradually evolved since 1975. In this brief
tribute, I shall sketch some main features of the system, and hint at the unique
flavour contributed by Max.

POP11 embodies a philosophy of computer education which is relatively unusual.
It includes a language, a program-development environment, and a collection of
teaching materials including help facilities, much on-line documentation, and a
large collection of exercises and mini-projects. Unfortunately, it is at present
available only on a PDP11 computer running the Unix operating system, though a
version now being written in C should be available for use on a VAX by the end
of this year.[CPOP]

When we started planning the system, in 1974, we were much influenced by the
writings of John Holt (see references at end), the work on LOGO at MIT by
Seymour Papert and colleagues, and at Edinburgh University by Sylvia Weir, Tim
O'Shea, and Jim Howe.

These influenced our conviction that learners of all ages should be treated not
like pigeons being trained by a schedule of punishment and reward, but like
creative scientists driven by deep curiosity and using very powerful cognitive
resources. This entailed that learners should not be forced down predetermined
channels, but rather provided with a rich and highly structured environment,
with plenty of opportunities to choose their own goals, assess their
achievements, and learn how to do better next time through analysis of failures.

Although these needs can to some extent be met by many older learning environ-
ments (e.g. meccano sets, learning a musical instrument, projects), the computer
seemed to be potentially far more powerful, on account of its speed, flexibility,
reactiveness and ability to model mental processes. Instead of making toy cranes
or toy aeroplanes, or dolls, students could make toy minds.

Unlike educational philosophies which stress 'free expression', this approach
stresses disciplined, goal oriented, technically sophisticated, activities with
high standards of rigour: programs will not work if they are badly designed. Yet
the computer allows free expression to the extent that students can choose their
own goals, and their own solutions to the problems, and the computer will
patiently, more patiently than any teacher, pay detailed attention to what the
student does, and comment accordingly, by producing error messages, or running the
program and producing whatever output is required. Of course, error messages need
to be far more helpful than in most programming environments, and the system
should make it easy for the student to make changes, to explore 'where the program
has got to', and to try out modifications and extensions without a very lengthy
and tedious edit compile and run cycle.

These ideas are embodied in a course, Computers and Thought, offered as an
unassessed optional first year course for students majoring in Humanities and Social
Science subjects. By making the computer do some of the things people can do, like
play games, make plans, analyse sentences, interpret pictures, the students learn to
think in a new way about their own mental processes. Max put this by saying that he
aimed to get students to 'experience computation' and thereby to 'experience
themselves as computation'.[CT] In other words, our answer to the student's
question 'Does that mean I'm a computer?' is 'Yes'. Of course people are far more
intricate, varied, flexible, and powerful than any man-made computer. Yet no other
currently available framework of concepts is powerful enough to enable us to
understand memory, perception, learning, creativity and emotions.

Choosing a language

Part of the LOGO philosophy was that beginners playing with computers needed a
very powerful language, making it easy to perform interesting tasks quickly. (See
Papert). Interesting tasks include building 'toy minds'. Thus we needed a
language which is interactive and provides procedures with recursion and local
variables, and facilities for non-numerical problem solving, such as list
manipulation. This rules out BASIC. LOGO is much more powerful, but, we felt,
did not go far enough: after all, it was designed for children, so it could not
be powerful enough for children! PASCAL was ruled out as too unfriendly and even
less powerful than LOGO. (E.g. the type structure makes it impossible to program
a general-purpose list-processing package: the package has to be re-implemented
for numbers, words, lists etc.) We did not know about APL. It might have been a
candidate, though its excessively compressed syntax which delights mathematicians
is hardly conducive to easy learning by the mathematically immature. Moreover it
appears to have been designed primarily for mathematical applications, and does
not seem to have suitable constructs and facilities for our purposes. PROLOG
would have been considered had an implementation been available, though it too is
geared too much towards a particular class of problems, and is hard to use for

We therefore reduced the choice to LISP and POP2, and settled for the latter
because of its cleaner, more general semantics (e.g. functions are ordinary
values of variables), more natural syntax, and convenient higher-level
facilities such as partial-application and powerful list-constructors (Burstall
et. al). A subset of POP2 was implemented on a PDP11/40 by Steve Hardy, and then
extended to provide a pattern-matcher, database, and other useful features. We
now feel that the power of PROLOG (see Kowalski 1979) should be available as a
subsystem within POP, and are planning extensions for the VAX version.[CM]

More than just a language

From the start we intended to provide a wide range of facilities in the library, so
that students could easily write programs to do things which interested them: draw
pictures, analyse pictures, play games, have conversations relating to a database of
knowledge, etc. We soon also found the need for help-facilities, on-line
documentation of many kinds, and a simple, non authoritarian teaching program
(written in POP11, and calling the compiler as a subroutine to execute the student's
instructions), which could, for some learners, feel less daunting than a twenty page
printed handout.

One of the ideas that played an important role in our teaching strategy was an
analogy between learning a programming language, and learning a natural
language, like English. The latter does not require formal instruction in the
syntax and semantics of the language. The human mind seems to possess very
powerful capacities for absorbing even a very complex formalism through frequent
and fruitful use. So, instead of starting with lectures on the language,
we decided to give the students experience of using the language to get the
computer to do things we hoped would make sense to them. So they were encouraged
to spend a lot of time at the terminal, trying out commands to draw pictures,
generate sentences, create and manipulate lists, etc, and as they developed
confidence, to start working towards mini-projects. Extending or modifying
inadequate programs produced by the teacher (or other students) provides a means
of gaining fluency without having to build up everything from the most primitive
level. Naturally, this did not work for everyone. Some preferred to switch at an
early stage to learning from more formal documentation. Some found the pain of
even minor errors and failures too traumatic and needed almost to be dragged
back to try again - often with some eventual success. Some, apparently, had
insuperable intellectual limitations, at least within the time-scales available
for them to try learning to program. But many students found it a very valuable
mind-stretching experience.

One of the ways in which Max contributed to this was his insistence that we try to
select approaches and tasks which were going to be more than just a trivial game
for the student. He was able to devise programming exercises which could be
presented as powerful metaphors for important human mental processes - such as
the pursuit of goals, the construction of plans, the perception and recognition
of objects around us and the interpretation of language. He would start the
'Computers and Thought' course by introducing students to a simple
puzzle-solving program and erect thereon a highly motivating interpretation:
treating it as a microcosm of real life, including the student's own
goal-directed activities in trying to create a working program. (Perhaps this is
not unconnected with a slogan he defended during his earlier work on human and
machine vision: "Perception is controlled hallucination'' - hallucinating
complex interpretations onto relatively simple programs helps to motivate the
students and give them a feel for the long term potential of computing).

Moreover, he always treated teaching and learning as more than just an
intellectual process: deep emotions are involved, and need to be acknowledged.
So he tried to help students confront their emotions of anxiety, shame, feeling
inadequate, etc., and devised ways of presenting material, and running seminars,
which were intended to help the students build up confidence as well as
understanding and skills.

There is no doubt that for many students the result was an unforgettable
learning experience. Whether they became expert programmers or not, they were
changed persons, with a new view of themselves, and of computing. Some of this
was due to his inimitable personality. In addition he advocated strategies not
used by many university teachers at any rate: such as helping all the students
in a class to get to know one another, prefacing criticisms with very
encouraging comments, and helping students cope with their own feelings of
inadequacy by seeing that others had similar inadequacies and similar feelings
about them, whilst accepting that such 'bugs' were not necessarily any more
permanent than bugs in a computer program.

As a teacher I found myself nervously treading several footsteps behind him - too
literal-minded to be willing to offer students his metaphors without qualification,
yet benefitting in many ways from his suggestions and teaching practice.

Just before he left Sussex we had a farewell party, at which he expressed the hope
that we would never turn our courses into mere computer science. There is little risk
of that, for we have learnt from him how a different approach can inspire and
motivate students. The computer science can come at a later stage - for those who
need it. For many, who may be teachers, managers, administrators, etc. rather than
programmers or systems analysts, the formalities of computer science are not
necessary. What is necessary is a good qualitative understanding of the range of
types of things that can be done on computers, and sufficient confidence to face a
future in which computation in many forms will play an increasingly important role.

None of this should be taken as a claim that the teaching system based on POP11,
used by Max and the rest of us, is anywhere near perfect. We are aware of many
flaws, some of which we feel we can remedy. But there is still a great deal of
exploring to be done, in the search for a good learning environment, and good
learning experiences. Moreover, we don't know how far what is good for novice
Arts university students would also be good for school children, though several
have played with our system and enjoyed it. We are still in the process of
improving the POP virtual machine to make it a more natural tool for thinking
about processes. This is a never-ending task. Probably a language is needed
which can be 'disguised' to present a simpler interface for the youngest
learners, without sacrificing the power to do interesting things very quickly.
To some extent the 'macro' facility in POP (see Burstall et. al.) makes this

Computing in Schools?

In December 1980 Max left Sussex, to join a project on computing in schools.
Although I don't know exactly what his plans were, I feel that he would probably
have fed many important new ideas into the educational system. New ideas are
surely needed, for teaching children to program in BASIC is like teaching them
to climb mountains with their feet tied together: the permitted steps are so
very small. Moving towards COMAL will merely loosen the ropes a little. Teaching
them PASCAL will loosen the ropes a lot more, but add heavy weights to their
feet: taking some big steps is possible in PASCAL, but unnecessarily difficult.
And some things are not possible, as mentioned previously.

The problems of providing better teaching languages and teaching environments are
enormous, since available computers are much too small, and there is too little
expertise on tap in schools. I think Max might have tried to press for funds to be
diverted from stand-alone microcomputers to larger, shared, machines, or networks,
making available better languages, shared libraries, larger address spaces and
increased opportunities for learners to help one another, including teachers. This
may be more expensive: but what could be a more important use of computers?

Such a system, based on a DEC 11/23, running the UNIX operating system,
has just been introduced at Marlborough College, partly as a result of Max's

It will be interesting to watch what happens there. Maybe we'll learn from that
how to use the newer, cheaper, bigger, faster systems that will shortly be on
the market. Let us hope the existing puny machines with their inadequate
languages will not have turned too many people off computing for life.


Acknowledgements (for the original obituary notice)

I am grateful to Reg Baukham and Masoud Yazdani, who reminded me of some
features of Max's teaching omitted from a first draft, and who pointed me at things
he had written in CSGAS, an informal magazine edited by Masoud Yazdani.


Original References

R M Burstall, et. al. Programming in POP2, Edinburgh University Press, 1972

Max Clowes, 'Man the creative machine: A perspective from Artificial Intelligence
research', in J. Benthall (ed) The Limits of Human Nature,
Allen Lane, London, 1973.

John Holt, How Children Learn, Penguin Books

John Holt, How Children Fail, Penguin Books.

Robert Kowalski Logic for Problem Solving, North Holland, 1979.

Seymour Papert, Mindstorms, Harvester Press, 1981.
Entry for Max Clowes at HOPL (History of Programming Languages) web site.
Alas, now appears to be defunct. (12 Apr 2014)



Now at the University of Birmingham

I discovered a version of this article among some old files in 2001, and
thought it would be useful to make it available online, at least for people
who remember Max, and perhaps others.

I added a few footnotes, putting the text in the context of subsequent

Note added 28 Mar 2014
I have been working on a paper on unsolved problems in vision, making use
of some of Max's ideas, here:

The Cognitive Studies Programme, was founded by Max Clowes and others at
the University of Sussex as a cross-disciplinary undergraduate programme
within the School of Social Studies. Later, a few years after he died it
became a separate School of Cognitive Sciences. Within a few years it
had enlarged further and become what is now known as COGS, The School of
Cognitive and Computing Sciences, with an international reputation. But
for the early inspiration influence of Max Clowes it would never have
existed. My own role in its development was a direct consequence of the
influence Max had in changing my research direction, from about 1969.

Note added 2001:
In fact the version in C proved to be a temporary bridge towards a Pop11
in Pop11 compiler subsequently developed by John Gibson, which became
the core of the multi-language Poplog system, which was later sold world
wide. It is now available free of charge with full system sources at
where much of the still useful AI teaching material has its roots in his
approach to teaching. E.g.

Some years later, ideas that had developed out of the course appeared in a book:
Sharples, M. Hogg, D. Hutchison,C. Torrance,S, Young,D.
Computers and Thought: a practical introduction to Artificial Intelligence
MIT Press 1989.
Many students without backgrounds in programming and mathematics find
that this book provides a useful route into AI and computational cognitive
science. The text (without images) and Pop-11 code can be downloaded here:

Chris Mellish implemented a Prolog in Pop-11 in 1981, and after that the system
combining both languages came to be known as Poplog.
Later, other languages were added, including Common Lisp, and Standard ML.
There are Wikipedia entries with more information:

APPENDIX 1: Max's first pupil (added 9 Mar 2014)

In February 2014, out of the blue, I received a message from Wendy Manktellow,
who, as Wendy Taylor, had worked with Max as an administrative assistant while
he was at Sussex University. She described an episode that sheds light on Max as
teacher and colleague, which I have added here, with her permission.
I have just found your tribute to Max on line and realised, as I read about
his thinking on teaching and learning, that I was his first pupil!!!

I recall his growing consternation having been awarded his chair, that he
was to teach Arts students who would have little or no maths. So he
decided to use me as his guinea pig.

There was one session when he was trying to teach me how to display a loop
on screen from digitised cursive-script handwriting (presumably received
from Essex who were working on that area of AI at the time). We were both
getting very stressed as I displayed it every way but upright. Eventually,
in tears, I said: "Max I am just too stupid to learn."

He stared at me for a moment and said: "No Wendy, I am too stupid to

Years later, after my English degree and a PGCE (both Sussex) when I was
teaching at Comprehensive level, that incident kept coming into my mind. It
was a eureka moment about the nature of teaching and learning.

That day, when I'd dried my tears, Max and I had a long talk about it,
about the feelings of inadequacy, shame and stupidity in the teaching and
learning process. I think we were both stunned that we were both feeling
the same emotions.

Then we got back to finding loops and we both got it right!!!

I never forgot what I learned that day and it made such a huge difference
throughout my teaching career.

Yours is a fine tribute. Max was such a very special person. You all
were. Those pioneering days of the Cognitive Studies Programme in the
prefabs next to the refectory were so full of energy and excitement. I
have wonderful memories of those years.

Thank you for finding the time to read this.

Wendy Manktellow (nee Taylor)


APPENDIX 2: Draft Incomplete Annotated Biography
(Added 11 Apr 2014; Updated: 16 Apr 2014)

With thanks to Margaret Boden, Steve Draper, Mark Jenkin, Alan Mackworth,
Keith Oatley, Mark Steedman, and google.

Max B Clowes

  • Date of Birth 1933 (according to Margaret Boden Mind as Machine, p.787)

  • PhD in the department of Physics, University of Reading,
    supervised by R.W. Ditchburn (1958 or 1959?)

  • The following publication is likely to have been based on the PhD thesis:

    M.B. Clowes & R.W. Ditchburn (1959)
    An Improved Apparatus for Producing a Stabilized Retinal Image,
    Optica Acta: International Journal of Optics, 6:3, pp 252-265,
    Taylor & Francis, DOI: 10.1080/713826291

    Criteria for defining the efficiency of an apparatus for stabilizing the
    retinal image are formulated. A distinction is made between geometrical
    stabilization and stabilization of illumination. A new technique is
    described which employs a telescopic normal incidence system. This makes
    it possible to obtain geometrical compensation both for rotations and for
    translations of the eye. It also gives good illumination stabilization.
    The degree of compensation achieved may be evaluated by precise physical
    measurements. About 99.7 per cent of natural eye rotations in horizontal
    and vertical planes is compensated and the effect of translations is
    negligible. The apparatus is designed to permit easy interchange of
    normal and stabilized viewing conditions.

    (a) The Acknowledgements section states:

    We would like to thank Dr. D. H. Fender and Dr. Stella Mayne for much
    helpful discussion. Mr. W. S. Martin has provided technical assistance in
    the construction of the apparatus. This work was supported by a research
    grant No. B-1233 from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
    Public Health Service, U.S.A.
    (b) The document states for Max:
    "Now at the National Physical Laboratory, Teddington."

  • NPL Teddington 19?? - 19??
    He seems to have gone from Reading to the National Physical Laboratory,
    Teddington (NPL). I don't have access to the next two papers, possibly
    written at NPL and referenced in his 1967 paper, below.

    • Clowes, M. B., & Parks, J. R.(1961).
      A new technique in character recognition.
      Comput. J. , 4, 121-126.

    • Clowes, M.B.(1962).
      The use of multiple auto-correlation in character recognition.
      Optical Character Recognition.
      Fischer, Pollack, Radack & Stevens, Eds. Pp. 305-318.
      Baltimore: Spartan Books, Inc.

  • Founding AISB (1964)
    According to Margaret Boden in Mind as Machine Vol 1, p.364, in 1964 Max
    Clowes, presumably still in Oxford, started a "Study Group on Artificial
    Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AISB)" as a subgroup of the
    British Computer Society, and writes "within a decade this had become the AISB
    Society, under the interdisciplinary leadership of researchers at the universities
    of Edinburgh, Sussex, and Essex. The name was a psychological pun
    on Clowes' part: 'A is B'".

    AISB is still flourishing
    and celebrated its 50th year in 2014: .
    Note: AI did not start at Sussex until Max arrived around 1969, and it did not
    start at Essex until Pat Hayes and Mike Brady, and later Yorick Wilks,
    established it around 1972 and after. So initially the "leadership" must have
    involved Edinburgh plus Max Clowes, first at NPL then at Oxford?
    PDF versions of the conference proceedings (from 1974) are available at

  • Oxford Psycho-linguistics Research Unit 19??-19-??
    From NPL he moved to the MRC Psycho-linguistics Research Unit at Oxford.
    The following book chapter was written there:

  • M. B. Clowes, Perception, picture processing and computers
    Machine Intelligence Vol 1 pp 181--197
    Eds. N L Collins and Donald Michie, Oliver & Boyd, 1967.
    Later re-published by Edinburgh University Press.

    For information about the Machine Intelligence series see

    Max's address is given as
    M.R.C. Psycho-Linguistics Research Unit University of Oxford
    The ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS section states:

    "I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the use of the computing
    facilities at the Culham Fusion Research Laboratory, U.K.A.E.A., the
    assistance of Douglas Brand and Barry Astbury, and valuable discussions
    with John Marshall, Professor N. S. Sutherland and Professor
    R. C. Oldfield."
    A footnote says:
    Present address: Computing Research Section, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra, Australia.
    So presumably he went from Oxford to Australia. When?)

    It is clear that although the paper was written in an engineering context Max's
    concerns were partly biological, as illustrated by these extracts:

    "The ability to interpret and respond to the significant content of pictures is
    shared by a large proportion of the animal kingdom and a small but growing
    number of machines."
    "No machine can as yet approach this sort of performance. We may well
    ask, therefore, what if anything we can learn from a study of 'machine
    perception' which could conceivably help us to understand human perception.
    The answer lies in the fact that any realistic account of the mechanism
    underlying perceptual or any other human skills will be complex. The virtue
    of a computer lies in its ability to capture in a definite form processes of
    indefinite complexity and subtlety, and moreover, to permit an evaluation
    of the efficacy of the proposed description by trying it out on the actual

    He discusses the work done in linguistics on formally characterising linguistic
    structures (e.g. spoken or written sentences) at different levels of
    abstraction, and remarks:

    "Comparable mechanisms for processing pictures have not appeared to any
    significant extent either in Artificial Intelligence or in Psychology. Instead
    the emphasis has been on classifying pictures, i.e., upon the equivalent of
    deciding the type (S1 or S2) of a sentence The possibility that a structural
    description of a pictorial object is necessary has only recently emerged in
    Artificial Intelligence (Kirsch 1964). It appears to be crucial to the
    automation of many picture processing tasks (e.g., interpreting bubble-chamber
    photographs, recognising fingerprints). That perceptual behaviour involves
    description as well as classification could be supported by innumerable examples
    beyond the two already quoted in the introduction to this paper. However, it
    seems to have received scant attention in recent psychological literature. This
    may well be because overtly descriptive (rather than classificatory) behaviour
    has a large verbal element. There is a strong temptation to avoid this
    'complication' by designing experiments which merely require simple YES/NO
    responses ...." (... or selecting labels from a fixed set, he might have added).

    A variant of this comment could be applied even to a great deal of current AI
    research in machine vision (i.e. up to 2014), focusing on training machines to
    attach labels as opposed to understanding structures. One of the points he could
    have made but nowhere seems to have made, is that natural vision systems are
    mostly concerned with motion and change, including change of shape, and
    change of viewpoint. The emphasis on static scenes and images may therefore
    conceal major problems e.g. those pointed out by J.J.Gibson. AI vision
    researchers later started to address this (partly influenced by Gibson), though
    as far as I can tell, it never interested Max.

    So he specifies the objective of

    "... development of a formal (i.e., rigorous) theory of picture processing which
    aims to provide a structural description of pictorial objects as well as a
    classification of them (wherever appropriate)."

  • Computing Research Section, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra, Australia. 19??-1969?
    (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
    The next publication I've found gives Max's address as
    Division of Computing Research,
    C.S.I.R.O., Canberra

    M.B. Clowes, Pictorial relationships - a syntactic approach.
    Machine Intelligence Vol 4, pp 361-384, 1969
    B. Meltzer & D. Michie (eds.). Edinburgh University Press

    This important paper was deeply influenced by Chomsky, especially
    Chomsky,N.(1965) Aspects of the theory ofsyntax. Cambridge,
    Mass: MIT Press.

    In particular Max (like other AI vision researchers in that decade) argued that
    images had a type of syntax and what they depicted could be regarded as
    semantic content. Max attempted to develop a research methodology inspired
    partly by Chomsky's work, emphasising the importance of concepts of
    - 'ambiguity' (two possible semantic interpretations for one syntactic form)
    - 'paraphrase' (two syntactic forms with the same semantic content),
    - 'anomaly' (syntactically well formed images depicting impossible semantic
    contents -- impossible objects, e.g. "The devil's pitchfork" often misdescribed
    as an "illusion"!)

    He also emphasised important differences between pictures and human languages, e.g.

    "The variety of relationships which we can readily identify and name is
    much greater in pictorial expressions than in string expressions."
    And goes on
    "Published accounts of 'picture syntax' have not provided any systematic
    accounts of the variety of pictorial relationships with which they deal,
    much less a discovery procedure for those relationships. This omission
    may of course be intentional in the sense that no attempt is being made
    to capture our intuitive knowledge of picture structure in these picture
    syntaxes. In this account, however, we adopt as goal the formal
    description of our pictorial intuitions and accordingly we shall adopt a
    more or less systematic methodology for ascertaining what
    these intuitions are."
    In section 4.5 he writes "we are characterising our intuitions about picture
    structure, not erecting some arbitrary picture calculus." This leads to the notion
    that the same picture, or portion of a picture may instantiate different qualitative,
    relational, structures at the same time, i.e. different 'views'.
    "Significantly, however, we cannot hold these multiple views simultaneously
    -- we switch between them. Formally, that is, we can only assign a single
    relational structure at a time, although this structure may relate a number
    of items ... in quite a complex manner."

    Unlike the majority(?) of current computer vision researchers he did not simply
    accept the properties and relationships that are derivable via standard
    mathematical techniques from image sensor values and their 2-D array
    co-ordinates (e.g. defining "straightness" in terms of relationships between
    coordinates in a digitised image) but instead attempted to identify the
    properties and relationships that are perceived by human viewers and used
    in interpreting visual contents.

    This approach has important consequences:

    "When faced, however, with a wholly novel picture, for example that
    produced in some esoteric experiment in physics, we may find that it
    takes some considerable time to adjust our view so as to recover the
    significant elements of Form and reject the insignificant."
    "The conclusion we would draw from this is that the structure we assign
    to a picture is determined not solely by the 'raw data' of that picture
    but also by a priori decisions as to the varieties of relationship we
    expect to find there. The question therefore becomes 'can we formalise
    these a priori decisions?'"

    The paper states:

    "We may summarise the foregoing argument as 'People see what they expect
    to see'. The essential rider is that what they want to see is things not
    pictorial relationships, that is, the a priori decisions reflect assumptions
    about the things and events which we expect to see exhibited in the picture.
    We shall argue that it is necessary and indeed possible to give a structural
    characterisation of things and events which is a mapping of the relational
    structure of the picture. This characterisation we call the semantics of the
    What sorts of entities a collection of lines is intended to denote can affect how it
    should be parsed. E.g. he points out that in a circuit diagram, straightness of
    lines, and the existence of corners are less important than they might be in other
    pictures (e.g. a drawing of a building).
    "A machine (or program) capable of mediating translations between these
    various languages would utilise the underlying semantic structure as the
    'pivot' of the translational process. We could describe such a machine as
    'informed' -- 'informed', that is, about the varieties of relationship
    applicable in these various representations of an event. It would not,
    however, be intelligent. Such an appellation should be reserved for a
    machine (like us) capable of formulating and testing hypotheses about new
    relationships and ultimately about new systems of attainable concepts
    manifesting these relationships."

    These ideas are mostly ignored by current vision researchers, who, instead, use
    powerful mathematical machinery and elaborate machine statistical learning
    regimes, whose result is a collection of narrowly focused (shallow?) systems
    that perform well in some (often arbitrary) benchmark tests but are still far
    behind the visual capabilities of a human toddler, a squirrel, a nest-building
    bird, an elephant, and many other animals, whose evolution and epigenesis are
    subject to pressures and constraints that are quite different from typical AI
    vision benchmarks.

    I am not sure whether Max drew the conclusion that instead of totally general
    purpose learning mechanisms applied to the raw data of visual and other sensors,
    intelligent machines would need to have learning mechanisms tailored to the
    kinds of environments in which they evolved and preferences for types of
    "syntactic" and "semantic" ontologies that have been found useful in our
    evolutionary history. Research on learning using artificial neural nets may be
    thought to meet that requirement, but that could be based on misunderstandings
    of functions and mechanisms of biological brains. Compare John McCarthy on
    "The well designed child".

    I don't think Max knew how much he was echoing the viewpoint of Immanuel
    Kant in The Critique of Pure Reason (1781). However, he was aware of the
    work of von Helmholtz (perception is "unconscious inference") and he may have
    been aware of the M.L.J Abercrombie's influential little book The Anatomy of
    (1960), summarised here, which made several similar points from
    the viewpoint of someone teaching trainee zoologists and doctors to see
    unfamiliar structures.

    The connection between Max's work and Kant's philosophy was later
    acknowledged in Footnote 2 of the 1971 paper 'On Seeing Things' (listed below).

  • Influences and connections while at CSIRO, Australia

    The Acknowledgements section of the Machine Intelligence 4 paper states:

    "The approach to picture interpretation outlined here has emerged from the
    Verbigraphics Project. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness to
    my colleagues D. J. Langridge and R. B. Stanton. I am grateful to Dr G. N.
    Lance for encouraging us and supporting us in this work."

    The MSc Thesis of Vaughan Pratt, Dated August 1969, University of Sydney,
    Title: "Translation of English into logical expressions"
    acknowledges "Dr Max Clowes, formerly of CSIRO ...., Canberra, for arousing
    my interest in transformational approaches to English, and also acknowledges
    "Associates of Max, including Robin Stanton, Richard Zatorski, Don Langridge
    and Chris Barter."

  • Move to Sussex University, Experimental Psychology, 1969
    In Oxford, Max had worked with Stuart Sutherland, who later came to
    Sussex University as head of the Experimental Psychology (EP) laboratory in the
    School of Biological Sciences (BIOLS). This functioned more or less
    independently of the social, developmental, and clinical psychology groups in
    schools within the Arts and Social Sciences "half" of the University.

    A result of this move was that Max was invited to return to the UK
    to a readership in EP, where he arrived in 1969. Somehow I came to know
    him and he, Keith Oatley and I had a series of meetings in which we
    attempted to draft a manifesto for a new research paradigm. (I think
    none of us knew at that stage that Margaret Boden also had a strong
    interest in AI, and had been reviewing and commenting on AI publications,
    as reported in Boden(2013).)

    Max's dislike of the proximity (and smell) of rats, along with his interest in
    linguistics, and psychology of humans, probably made it inevitable that he would
    prefer to shift his location to the Arts and Social studies area, of the university,
    where he was offered a chair in 1973, to help start the new interdisciplinary
    Cognitive Studies Programme, mentioned in the obituary notice. This was
    located in the School of Social Sciences (SOCS).

  • Robin Stanton, mentioned in the acknowledgements section of the MI4 paper,
    was supervised by Max for a PhD at ANU. He came to Sussex University after
    Max moved there in 1969, where I believe he completed the PhD in 1970,
    and remained for a while doing post-doctoral research with Max before
    returning to Australia. Some of that information was obtained from:

    I think Robin's work shifted from AI to more central computing science thereafter.

  • The following is Max's best known paper, closely related to the talk he gave at
    the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) around 1971, published later.
    M.B. Clowes,
    On seeing things,
    Artificial Intelligence, 2, 1, 1971, pp. 79--116,
    This develops the themes summarised above and introduced the line-labelling
    scheme used in interpretation of pictures of polyhedra, independently discovered
    by David Huffman, and referred to by Clowes:
    Huffman, D. A.
    Impossible objects as nonsense sentences. Machine Intelligence 6,
    Meltzer, B., and Michie, D. (Eds.), Edinburgh University Press, (1971), 295-323.
    Footnote 1 states: "Omitted from this discussion is any treatment of Huffman's
    [24] excellent study. The two papers employ what is essentially the same idea
    -- the interpretation of junctions as edge complexes -- in a rather different
    manner. Huffman's treatment is applied to single bodies, not to scenes as in
    the present paper, but contains a more extensive formulation of the concept of a
    well-formed polyhedron. The algorithm reported here is not paralleled by any
    procedural mechanism in Huffman's account."

    This shared idea is often referred to as "Huffman-Clowes" labelling, and was
    generalised by many later researchers, including David Waltz who enriched the
    ontology and showed that constraint propagation could often eliminate the need
    for expensive search, and Geoffrey Hinton who showed that use of probabilities
    and relaxation instead of true/false assignments and rigid constraints, allowed
    plausible interpretations to be found in the presence of noise (e.g. missing or
    spurious line fragments or junctions) that would not be found by the alternative
    more 'rigid' mechanisms.

    One of the themes of the paper is the need for different domains to be related
    by the visual system, e.g. the picture domain and the scene domain, also
    referred to as the 'expressive' and 'abstract' domains, where consistency
    requirements in the scene (abstract) domain constrain the interpretation of the
    previously found structures in the picture (expressive) domain. An example is
    that in a polyhedral scene an edge is either concave or convex but cannot be
    convex along part of its length and concave elsewhere when there is no
    intervening edge junction.

    The paper echoes his earlier paper in claiming that the interpretation of
    complex pictures requires "a parsing operation on the results of context-free
    interpretation of picture fragments" i.e. picture elements and their
    relationships need to be described, as a basis for interpreting the picture.

    [This not a comprehensive summary of the contents of the 1971 paper.]

    [ ... summary to be expanded ... ]

    The Acknowledgements section thanks R. Stanton, A. Sloman and especially
    Jack Lang, "for exposing deficiencies in the formulation by attempting to
    program earlier versions of the algorithm".

    Several AI vision publications refer to the 1971 paper as the source of the
    slogan "Perception is controlled hallucination". However, That wording does not
    occur in this paper, but I believe he did use it in 1971 in a public talk at the
    Institute of Contemporary Arts, published in (1973). that talk included a still
    from the film "Sunday bloody Sunday" in which two intertwined bodies were
    shown, presenting the viewer with the task of using world knowledge to decide
    which parts belonged to the same body: an example of "controlled hallucination"
    of hidden connections.

  • The second International Joint Conference on AI (IJCAI) was held at Imperial
    College in London in 1971. As a leading AI researcher in the host country Max
    had an important organising role for that conference, though I can't recall
    exactly what it was. One consequence was that he bullied me to fight a bout of
    'flu before the submission deadline and submit a paper, which I did, and it
    changed my life.

  • M.B. Clowes, "Scene analysis and picture grammars",
    in: F. Nake and A. Rosenfeld, eds., Graphic Languages
    (Proc. IFIP Working Conf on Graphic Languages, Vancouver, 1972),
    Amsterdam 1972, pp. 70-82;
    also in: Machine Perception of Patterns and Pictures,
    Institute of Physics, London and Bristol, 1972, pp. 243-256
    (I have not found an online version of this.)

  • Max had several other research students at Sussex working on various
    aspects of vision, and he also supervised some AI MSc projects. One of
    his students is Alan Mackworth who went on to become a leading AI
    researcher in Canada with a prominent international role, e.g. in IJCAI and
    AAAI, among others.

    Steve Draper followed up a BSc in Physics and a DPhil in AI at Sussex
    supervised by Max, with a career in psychology.
    Larry Paul was supervised both by Max and Aaron Sloman.

    Frank O'Gorman, after an MSc in Computer Science at Birmingham, worked
    with Max for several years, and taught me a great deal about programming
    and computer science, partly by teaching me Algol 68, which was used for their
    research in the mid 1970s. I don't know if he was registered as a research
    student or merely a salaried member of the team.
    After the grant ended he worked for a while on my POPEYE project described
    here which attempted to extend some of Max's ideas.
    The grant was awarded by the Cognitive Science panel of the Science Research
    Council on condition that Max had an advisory role.
    Others on the team were David Owen, and, for a short time, Geoffrey Hinton.
    We were all deeply influenced by Max.
    [Other students, collaborators, etc. ... ?]

  • The Sussex University Bulletin obituary notice in 1981:
    mentions that Max was at Reading, Oxford, and NPL, before he
    went to Australia.

Margaret A. Boden, "Remarks on Receiving the Covey Award",
in Philosophy & Technology, 26, 3, 2013,
Springer, Netherlands, pp333-339,

About this document ...

This document was generated, using LaTeX2HTML,
by Aaron Sloman on 2001-02-17 followed by some hand editing.
Further editing is indicated by notes at the top and in-line comments.

Aaron Sloman