art and computers

[David Mitchell <david.mitchell@new.oxford.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


in response to what Nick said:

1. Nick claims self awareness is not necessary to reason, I dispute this. Whilst self awareness is unecessary for something to perform complex procedures or solve complex problems such as are found in maths, geometry and logic, self awarenes is, I believe, necessary to a more fundamental sense of 'rational thought'. By this I mean the ability to question, to consider ones place in the world and the reason and value of things, and for this self awareness is required. e.g In order to ask the question 'why should I do this' we require self awareness, indeed in order to genuinely raise any question we must be aware of ourselves, and this is at the heart of what we mean by rational thought. Thus whilst a computer, or a brilliant animal, could do logic or maths only creatures who are self aware can truly reason, and understand philosophy.

Briefly also, self awareness does not require you to have a stable sense of self, therefore the issue of people with split personalities etc. is redundant

2. With regard to the issue of art I did not mean to suggest that most hollywood films, elton john, britney spears songs etc. were a 'lesser form of art' ,but that they are not art at all. As such the difference between, for instance, a Mills and Boon novel and say a Gide or Camus novel is not that the latter are 'more unique' but that they express an individuality that in the former is entirely lacking. Consequently a computer can never produce art, and media visuals, or whatever, produced randomly are not art [although I acknowledge that the point is clearer with something like a novel rather than music or visual art].

Concerning computers making art it is important to distinguish between two possible senses of the term though which seem to have been confused.
[a] A computer or some other machine trying to produce art randomly e.g randomly generating words or notes [like the monkeys with the typewriters]
[b] A computer producing a song or novel according to some programmed pattern or formula e.g like the novel producing machines in Orwells 1984 

With regard to [b] this is the sense in which I meant computers could not produce art, since true art requires an individuality which a machine can not possess. As such a formula, no matter how complex, can never yield art. 
In the first sense [a]though it is possible that a computer randomly throwing out words could accidentally 'produce' a great novel.
However it is a far more likely explanation for the existence of art in the world that it was made by other rational, free, individuals like me, than that it was the product of a machine randomly generating words, sounds etc. 
The existence of others is also a far more plausible explanation of art than that I 'hallucinated' it, even if such a thing were possible [what an imagination I would have if I could 'hallucinate' Kafka novels!].  

Therefore the existence of art provides us with a good reason to believe in the existence of others who possess self awareness [even if it falls short of an absolute proof, which it was never intended to be].

David.







j


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm