Re: [-empyre-] Forward from Kominos Zervos: reTangent:software/conceptual art

["Christophe Bruno" <christophe.bruno@unbehagen.com>]

jim, of course you are assuming that a human being is able to modify its own
"code", whereas it seems to me that we have the greatest difficulties to do
that ;-) this looks an even more interesting problem to me!

anyway, I suspect this discussion looks to me as old as the questions of the
relations between Godel's theorem and consciouness and things like that...
very interesting of course but it's almost 80 years old. Could anybody
explain to me what's new in this field (a part from technicallities), after
Godel and the Turing test ??

last, I would like to point out that there is an other approach to these
questions, which is the analysis of the prisoner's dilemma by J. Lacan in
his article "logical time and the assertion of antipated certainty"
you will find some references at the end of my paper
http://www.christophebruno.com/index.php?p=49

christophe


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 8:30 AM
Subject: RE: [-empyre-] Forward from Kominos Zervos:
reTangent:software/conceptual art


>
> > and this is proved conclusively in films like 2001 space odyssey,
> > bicentennial man, the matrix, robots, etc.
> >
> > i'm with florian on this one
>
> Great, Komninos. You're with Florian that there is no such thing as
> self-modifying code? But Paul has mentioned it does exist, has given
> examples of its use in art, and if you do a google search for
> 'self-modifying code' you'll find hundreds of documents from as many
> different sources verifying that it does indeed exist.
>
> I realize that it is somewhat outrageous that it *does* exist. It means
that
> computers are not yer average machine, doesn't it. It would seem to imply
> that we are not simply dealing with a communications medium here, or a
fancy
> cash register+typewriter+record player+telephone etc but, instead, are
> dealing with process as potentially self-modifying as we can occassionally
> be ourselves. Apparently we are not dealing with simply another art medium
> or typewriter but process as flexible, very likely, as thought itself.
This
> has implications concerning what we think computers are capable of and,
> perhaps more relevant to this list, should have implications on one's
> conception of the flexibility and range, the nature of, digital art.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
>
>
>