RE: [-empyre-] inspiration+digi dodos

> Damien Everett
> > As far as I know all the behaviour predictions work on a group of 
> > people, never on the individual. You can statistically predict what 
> > the stock market (manouvred by a group of people) will do 
> in a given 
> > situation, or even flocking. But predicting individuals 
> behaviours as 
> > singles...
> Hmm, first "know thyself", if you can statistically predict 
> what you will do under a certain set of conditions, perhaps 
> this can extend to others... like a kind of merging of 
> consciousness with another... I don't know if you've ever 
> experienced this, it goes beyond a conventional scientific / 
> rational framework.

That's easy for convenntional, standard stituations, i.e. what if I
loose a job, buy a house, have a kid. I most probably know what I'd do
about it. I'm not even sure what my brother, who grew up and lived with
me for 28 years, would react to the same situations. But definitely, if
you pose me an unexpected question (i.e. art) I cannot predict how
whould I react. I doesn't only depends on the question, but also on my
mood (that computer cannot have, yet) on the place I am (that computers
cannot experience yet) on what I had for breakfast and even if I'm over
the anger I felt last night for my neighbour's noise at their party. And
one million other things.

> Adrian Miles:
> >isn't this going sideways here? :-)
> Heh, good point, its easy to lose perspective when caught up 
> in details :)
> >i think damien's point was more  that 'inspiration' is not a 
> human only trait as bird, whale, and  dolphin songs seem to suggest. 
> What I was trying to say in a round about way:  inspiration 
> is the moment of unity with the creative force of the 
> universe, focused through the modality of the "individuals" 
> consciousness. This would manifest differently in different 
> organisms (see Maslows Hierarchy of Needs or the evolutionary 
> ascension through the Chakras).

I don't think we are loosing the track, here, Adrian. Damien initial
trail was to say that computers can create art. We are still discussing
that. On a secondary trail, the discussion took on whether computer can
be inspired, in the way Damien claims that whales, birds and dolphin do.
The teaching path came out of those, as well as you teach a young to
become an artist, you can do that to a computer.

As far as the discussion goes, I'm still convenced that the answer to
all of the above questions is no. Computer do not create art (on their
own will, whose very notion I find hard to justify, let alone talk
about). Computers are not inspired. Computers do not live, despite our
affection to them and someone possible sexual relationship with them :-)
(and I'm awaiting for the offsprings of that). And despite the fact that
they behave strangely: last night my girlfriend had a problem with
changing the format of some cells on an Excel spreadsheet. She showed me
what she was doing, bold, italic, 16pt font. But her Mac wouldn't do it.
I did exactly the same and it worked ;-) I didn't think the computer was
unsimpathetic to her. I just thought how crap Microsoft programmers

Happy Easter (to your laptop too, Damien!)


This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.