Re: R: [-empyre-] Raquel Paricio opening statement


Here's a quick introduction before diving in. My name is Brian Lee Yung Rowe; I
am a software engineer, artificial intelligence designer, and post-artist. I'm
currently collaborating with hostprods (an invited guest this month) on various
bio-inspired installations.

> > The first point of our research is to facilitate the 
> > development of attention, i.e., to be conscious of our 
> > attention or of our perceptions (that is what Leibniz termed 
> > "apperception"). In my opinion this is the previous step to 
> > acquire new levels of consciousness.
> I do agree with that! 
> Indeed, I've always thought of attention like an "inputs selection" process
> which is necessary to the brain to cope with the complexity of the
> environment related to its computational power limitations.
> Therefore, in my opinion, exploiting the attentional processes means to
> enlarge the inputs correlation analysis, and therefore increasing our
> consciousness of the world and ourselves.

I don't think you're giving the unconscious mind enough credit, nor the
intelligence inherent in our bodies at the cellular level. As aggregate
multicellular beings, our bodies are constantly processing information and
deciding what to do, most of which is abstracted from our conscious state of
awareness. The interesting thing about awareness is that the more we are aware
of ourselves and our environment, the more it seems that our conscious mind is
supplanting our unconscious mind. Or is that going in the wrong direction?

> > We are living in a historical moment in constant change and 
> > acceleration.
> > Social structures more and more require from us more complex 
> > and faster adaptation abilities. How can the field of art and 
> > science evolve on this context? How can we help to evolve 
> > human consciousness?
> Well I must confess I do really like the question! : )
> I think that art and science could, to start with, help by selecting the
> number and the right inputs to focus at.
> Further, I'm pretty sure that the two disciplines can help evolving
> consciousness by inventing (or trying to) new ways of represents incoming
> data relations with an acceleration similar to that of the technological
> growth.

What I like about the art-science collaboration is that it is very much a
symbiotic relationship. As a scientist and engineer, I would never get away
with doing the type of experiments I do in the name or art if it were strictly
science. Art gives scientists a certain amount of creative freedom and
looseness that otherwise would not exist. That's not to say scientists don't
have intellectual and creative freedom. They do, but it is strictly within the
confines of the scientific method. If you don't adhere to that principle, you
might end of like Pons and Fleischman.

In contrast, science gives art a bit more rigour and honesty, which is important
in the age of conceptual art. Often times, it is too easy to tear apart a
conceptual piece that doesn't have enough depth or thoroughness in the idea
because the artist wasn't properly exposed to the issues through a domain
expert. As our culture continues to integrate more deeply with technology, the
artist must stay at the front in order to continue exploring and asking
difficult questions. But in order to ask the right questions, they need to tap
into some of the rigour and domain knowledge that scientists posess.

brian lee dae yung
biomimetic art and research
  mux space . com

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

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