: Sunday, January 26, 2003 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Chess (was If a Machine Creates Something Beautiful, Is It an Artist?)
> Selma Singer wrote:> > Hi Harry, > > I think I understand that you're saying that even when the chess players are > > playing the computer, they're playing a human. > > > > So, Harry, do you think that if a machine produces something beautiful, that > > product is art? Is the machine an artist? > > > > Perhaps you would say that, since the machine is being manipulated by a > > human, the product is really being produced by a human? > > > > What comes to my mind is fractals which could not be produced by a human. > Brad wrote: > I would not be so sure about this. I am not sure what > are the limits of Benoit Mandelbrot's imagination. I would > not be surprised if he can imagine what fractals look like > without "crunching the numbers". > > Another thing about pictures of fractals. It is my > impression -- perhaps false -- that the pretty picvtures of > fractals we see are "false color" images. By this I mean > that the person programming the image says that values > of the formula generating the image between x1 and x2 should be > colored green, between x2 and x3 blue, etc. So the > colors are not exactly part of the fractal itself. This > is not necessarily bad, but it does indicate that there > is a lot of human judgment -- be it esthetically or > pragmatically motivated or whatever -- in these computer-generated images. Point taken. What you are saying makes me think that there is, perhaps, not a great deal of difference between a computer and a violin or a gun, for that matter. They are both instruments created for human use and it is the human that determines how they will be used, therefore, it is not the computer that is the artist anymore than the violin is the artist or the gun is the killer or responsible for feeding people. > Ever since the invention of the telescope and the microscope, > we have lived in a world of machine-mediated images -- a world > in which we see things that are invisible. > > But, making a thought experiment, what different does it make > if something originates from a carbon-based processor that > came out of a birth canal, or a silicon-based processor that > came out of a "clean room" -- if, that is either one or both > happen in the given instalce to think and/or feel? Our > current computers do not think or feel (at least the > ones we persons without security clearances know about, > but I don't see any logical difference between one set of > chemical reactions and another. If the day ever comes that > a computer seems to enter into dialog with me, and I can't > find the little man hiding inside, what should I > hypothesize? Conversely, when one talks with a person > and one cdan predict everything they say and do? What comes to mind is a Star Trek episode in which a computer-generated string quartet was playing classical music so beautifully and emotionally that it brought tears to the eyes of Spock's father who was present. Of course, for the Vulcans, this was a sign of weakness and terrible degeneration. But many of the issues you raise were present here. That show did a lot of interesting things. > > Granted, the human has to put in the information that will make it possible > > for the computer to produce the fractal, but is that the same thing as > > composing a beautiful piece of music or a painting or a poem or delivering > > an opera aria that makes one tremble and cry? > > > > I've been moved to tears by some fractals I've seen. > > I wonder what ones. I generally find some sort > of "pattern" in the fractal images I've seen, > which makes the infinity of details kind of boring. It is precisely the patterns of the fractals that I find beautiful. > But, on the other hand, Mandelbrot said that the coastline of > England is infinitely long, which is a different kind of > fractal image (not computed or computable). > > -- > > Let's try this from a different angle: > > Another thought experiment: Suppose a computer started > cranking out really great art. Leonardo-ish drawings > and National Treasure grade ceramics, etc. How would you > (I...) respond to these things? How would you (I...) > feel about them. How satisfied would you (I...) be > with the things themselves,as opposed to turning > your attention to the computer that produced them? What a good question, Brad. I guess it's related to my comments, above, about the computer-generated string quartet playing so beautifully that it could move even a Vulcan. I don't really know, but I don't think so. I do know that I was listening to James Levine conducting the Boston Symphony in Brahms' First Symphony a couple of weeks ago and I had never heard that Symphony played as beautifully and movingly before and I hear it often. I think the question is 'whether' a computer could turn out works of art that would match a da Vinci or a Michaelangelo or perhaps a Jackson Pollock? Here we get into what is one of my favorite topics, that is, the spiritual quality of a piece of art which is, for me, what makes it a piece of art. When Segie (sp?) Ozawa conducts Brahms' First, I don't get nearly the thrill I got listening to the Levine version; maybe that's a different issue. I guess maybe the question is whether it would be possible for the computer to generate the spiritual and creative qualities that humans are capable of. I would think the answer to that would be an unequivocal no. > Hereis another angle: Why don't more human beings > get on with making things of value, or at least > trying to? And if they can't make them, > why don't they get on with buying them and > patronizing their makers? Etc. > > I don't know about your social surround, but I know > mine could be a lot better without any breakthrus > in computer power. I also know that the powerful > things we know computers can do to help us are > not being done or are only being done in > half-assed ways (SGML, again). > \brad mccormick > Isn't that a different kind of question, Brad? I'm not sure of that. It occurs to me as I write this that maybe the problem is that I/we think the questions of cultural morality are separate from political questions and of course they are not. Selma _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
