sentient humans, consciousness, and aesthetics
Emilio M Recio
In one of my metaphysics papers,
http://polywog.navpoint.com/philosophy/metaphysics I posited on the
concept of perception. I conjectured that humans rarely come up with new
pieces of abstract information. Everything that is created in the
abstract (in the imagination) is just a recomposition of sense datum in a
unique form.
Then does the fact that computers can randomly create art (literary or
otherwise) from already existent pieces of art fall into the same
categories as humans creating art?
--
Best Regards,
E. M. Recio, Jr.
****************************************************
* Sociology and Philosophy student at Drexel Uni. *
* Philadelphia, PA 19103; USA *
* Email: n2...@usa.net ICQ: <458042> *
* Homepage: < http://polywog.navpoint.com > *
****************************************************
Gene Autry
find a suitable answer to your question.
Emilio M Recio wrote in message <20010428...@polywog.navpoint.com>...
Adam Anderson
> Everything that is created in the abstract (in the imagination) is just a > recomposition of sense datum in a unique form.
If it wasn't I would reject the Creation as non-sensical. It's like
trying to imagine a new primary colour.
As for the creation of Art, by either computer, Humans, Monkeys or
natural forces, Art is a Method of interpretation of the sense datum it
is not the sense datum itself, even if the source of the sense datum has
no purpose other than to be interpreted as art.
Sentience, when a computer can appreciate art not just create it!
Jure Sah
> Sentience, when a computer can appreciate art not just create it!
Just a question or two: Take a song that is expresed to the computer in source code (MIDI). Isn't it easy for the computer to
then appreciate the art in that song and/or _create_ it? Does that make it sentient?
joseph w kim
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Gene Autry wrote:
> One mans art is another amns pile of crap, in other words you will never
> find a suitable answer to your question.
>
> Emilio M Recio wrote in message <20010428...@polywog.navpoint.com>...
> Can computers draw?
>
> In one of my metaphysics papers,
> http://polywog.navpoint.com/philosophy/metaphysics I posited on the
> concept of perception. I conjectured that humans rarely come up with new
> pieces of abstract information. Everything that is created in the
> abstract (in the imagination) is just a recomposition of sense datum in a
> unique form.
Wow, what a way to look at art. This conjecture is so wrong. Where did you
discuss this in your paper? And what was your argument?
>
> Then does the fact that computers can randomly create art (literary or
> otherwise) from already existent pieces of art fall into the same
> categories as humans creating art?
Well in terms of your classification above, it may, but humans don't just
splice together past works. (although you may believe it does so in a
level that is undetectable to me) Some artists make completely original
works. Yes they do have certain traits in common, (they may be all talking
about human nature) But I have yet to find anyone as unique as Oscar
Wilde. But I do believe that many authors are merely regurgitating what
they've read/listened to/seen in a completely unoriginal fashion.
There is a quote I found to be amusing on the subject of this.
"Genius steals, others borrow." (or something like that. by somebody)
sam carruth
i think originality in subject is a lil overrated
but context! ah! what is it trying to say! thats the rub!
kmart used to sell those pictures of kids with really big eyes...made by humans
but art?? or all those black and whites of kids holding roses wearing oversized
clothes...art??
fractals can be computer generated but are they art? in a sense i think they are
so far as they appear to be representations of shapes and objects we know
i dont care if anything is original, though, doesnt seem to matter much
Adam Anderson
Think of sound waves hitting a wooden structure and making it resonate,
I still don't think that the wooden structure is appreciating the music.
joseph w kim
Good point. Perhaps the worth of a work of art depends on how well the
artist managed to steal the work of others yet giving it some unique
arrangement.
>
>
Jure Sah
Ahhh, another selfish human.
So tell me organic structure, why did you 'resonate' my post?
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
I'm addicted to PDS.
Anybody interested in cooperation? See:
Http://www.geocities.com/gtsc4/innc/index.html
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
Adam Anderson
Selfish, are you saying a wooden structure is sentient? How does this
relate to my level of selfishness? If you say yes than we have different
definitions of sentient. Or was selfish only used to be rude because my
opinion was different to yours?
Adam Anderson
Selfish, are you saying a wooden structure is sentient? How does this
relate to my level of selfishness? If you say yes than we have different
definitions of sentient and appreciation. Or was selfish only used to be
rude because my opinion was different to yours?
I notice from the links at the bottom of your message that you are
involved in A.I.
A.I. and specifically Artifical Neural Networks are not related to the
question of sentience in the above statements. I find no possibility of
the above hardware, MPU401 or above, which I have a great deal of
knowledge on producing anything that would satisfy anyones definition of
sentience.
I suggest you read the Creative Labs documentation if you feel that any
of these class of processors can produce sentience.
Complexity is not sentience.
Emilio M Recio
agreement on aesthetics and hence the appreciation of art. What's music
to me, might be a bunch of noise to you ... esp considering my listening
to trace/trip hop and the such (which is not a very popular form of
music.) So because you cannot appreciate my music, does it mean that you
are not sentient. The simple answer of course is ``yes, I know Emilio,
but i can appreciate *some* forms of art.'' Then ought there not be a
particular ruler or guide to say *when* and *what* counts as appreciation
of art?
Best Regards,
Emilio M Recio
ICQ: 458042 Email: n2...@usa.net
Department of Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology
Drexel University; Philadelphia, PA 19107
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 4/29/01, 5:07:46 AM, Adam Anderson <adam.a...@theglass.com.au> wrote
regarding Re: sentient humans, consciousness, and aesthetics:
Emilio M Recio
from people? Then computers can create pieces of abstract (seemly random)
pieces of output which we call artwork by pure virtue of that piece being
able to evoke emotions from humans.
Best Regards,
Emilio M Recio
ICQ: 458042 Email: n2...@usa.net
Department of Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology
Drexel University; Philadelphia, PA 19107
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 4/30/01, 2:20:48 PM, eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote regarding Re:
sentient humans, consciousness, and aesthetics:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> IMO, the worth of a work of art is the intensity of reaction in the
> viewer. The viewer may get teary-eyed, may get angry, may feel love or
> hope or euphoria, or may glance away with nary a second thought.
joseph w kim
> Then art is not what artists do? Art is what is able to evoke emotion
> from people? Then computers can create pieces of abstract (seemly random)
> pieces of output which we call artwork by pure virtue of that piece being
> able to evoke emotions from humans.
I did NOT write the below excerpt. Someone else did. But to answer your
question, he was talking about the worth of an art piece, and that is
determined in part by the interaction between the artist's expression and
how people interpret that expression. Computer generated art can't be seen
as a form of expression because it makes no statement other than "this is
random gibberish." (Assuming the computer generated art was composed
entirely by the computer and not by the interaction between the computer
and the human artist) People may "see" something there, but it's
comparative to "seeing" the rain as dreary and "seeing" the sunny day as
cheerful. (in other words, injection of meaning into the painting where it
has no meaning otherwise)
joseph w kim
> But it is also arguable that humans themselves cannot come to an
> agreement on aesthetics and hence the appreciation of art. What's music
> to me, might be a bunch of noise to you ... esp considering my listening
> to trace/trip hop and the such (which is not a very popular form of
> music.) So because you cannot appreciate my music, does it mean that you
> are not sentient. The simple answer of course is ``yes, I know Emilio,
> but i can appreciate *some* forms of art.'' Then ought there not be a
> particular ruler or guide to say *when* and *what* counts as appreciation
> of art?
Well one can argue that it's not so much that art is different and that we
all have our own ideas of art, but that there are many types of art meant
to cater to our different feelings and needs. Your appreciation of trance
music may be due to it's ability to give you an escape from your problems,
and this type of art is present everywhere. One can even argue that all
art does this.
Adam Anderson
GFostel
>| artist managed to steal the work of others yet giving it some unique
>| arrangement.
>
>viewer. The viewer may get teary-eyed, may get angry, may feel love or
>hope or euphoria, or may glance away with nary a second thought.
>
>art with a greater worth.
Hey! Fancy seeing you in this NG. Is Y2k dead?
But as to this post, "craft" enters into it as well, from both directions. Art
that defames revered symbols may rouse angry responses without beng "art" and
art of supreme skill, but low emotional content (Michelangelo's David?) is
clearly "art" but rouses little emotion response, at least in me.
---garyFostel---
joseph w kim
Good point. Also, let me respond to the statement that "the worth of a
work of art is the intensity of reaction in the viewer." This is a
oversimplified definition of art that doesn't really touch on what art
really is.
>
> ---garyFostel---
>
joseph w kim
You're putting too much emphasis on personal preference.
There are plenty of art that most, if not all people can appreciate.
Adam Anderson
How does my statement that art is an interperative process and not a
quality of the sense datum place any quantitative level or limit on
generic appeal, I see no emphasis.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the cliché I paraphrased.
joseph w kim
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Adam Anderson wrote:
> joseph w kim wrote:
> >
> > You're putting too much emphasis on personal preference.
> > There are plenty of art that most, if not all people can appreciate.
> >
> > On Tue, 1 May 2001, Adam Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > Art is in the eye of the beholder.
> > >
Well I was being nitpicky.
>
> How does my statement that art is an interperative process and not a
I believe you have just made that word up. "interperative" LOL
> quality of the sense datum place any quantitative level or limit on
I don't think you ever stated implicitly or explicitly that "art is"
"not a quality of the sense datum"
> generic appeal, I see no emphasis.
You don't? That's unfortunate.
Jure Sah
> > > Think of sound waves hitting a wooden structure and making it resonate,
> > > I still don't think that the wooden structure is appreciating the music.
> >
> > Ahhh, another selfish human.
> >
> > So tell me organic structure, why did you 'resonate' my post?
>
> Selfish, are you saying a wooden structure is sentient? How does this
> relate to my level of selfishness? If you say yes than we have different
> definitions of sentient and appreciation. Or was selfish only used to be
> rude because my opinion was different to yours?
Ok, this last thing was kind of off. But really, If you think that
you're sentient or can appriciate music just because you're human,
you surely are selfish.
See:
"The wooden structure accepts the sound waves and converts them into
pulses of it's motion. The motion is effected by the structure of
the wooden structure and finnaly the motion is converted back to sound
waves (delay possible)."
and
"The human (actualy his ear) accepts sound waves and converts them into
neuron firing. The neuron firing is effected by the structure
of the human (mostly his brain and voice-forming organs) and finnaly the
entire thing is converted back to sound waves (delay
possible)."
Tell me from this example, what makes the human appriciate music and
what proves that the wooden structure dosen't. What makes the
human sentient from this?
> I notice from the links at the bottom of your message that you are
> involved in A.I.
Har, har, har... Those are part of my signature file. You can ignore
them if you want.
> A.I. and specifically Artifical Neural Networks are not related to the
> question of sentience in the above statements.
ANN? Who (except you) mentioned ANN here?
> I find no possibility of
> the above hardware, MPU401 or above, which I have a great deal of
> knowledge on producing anything that would satisfy anyones definition of
> sentience.
> I suggest you read the Creative Labs documentation if you feel that any
> of these class of processors can produce sentience.
> Complexity is not sentience.
Ok, since you're so wise, perhaps the PET scans you and your co-workers
have made in the last few months can provide any better
defenition of sentience. Or maybe you would want to make analyisys on
human evolution. Was the human's abbility to apriciate and/or
create art one of the turning points in human evolution?
Complexity is not sentience, but who said it is? The human brain is
complex, should I suppose that there are no sentient humans?!
I was talking about a program that handles MIDI data, in case you were
wondering.
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
I'm addicted to QB71.
Jure Sah
> Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Actualy... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." This makes a major
diffirence. If you smash a tomato of the top of the building, it's
abstract art to all of us, but it may be beauty only to some.
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
Anybody interested in cooperation? See:
Adam Anderson
Drop the second e, It's a typo: interpretative is variant of
interpretive
>
> > quality of the sense datum place any quantitative level or limit on
>
> I don't think you ever stated implicitly or explicitly that "art is"
> "not a quality of the sense datum"
From my first post in this thread: "Art is a Method of interpretation of
the sense datum it is not the sense datum itself"
Unfortunately for you, I don't know how to be more explicit than this.
>
> > generic appeal, I see no emphasis.
>
> You don't? That's unfortunate.
>
I'm not even sure what your point is regarding the original question, so
I'm going to leave this thread at this point.
Adam Anderson
>
> Adam Anderson wrote:
>
> > Art is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Actualy... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." This makes a major
> diffirence. If you smash a tomato of the top of the building, it's
> abstract art to all of us, but it may be beauty only to some.
Sorry I won't paraphrase if you don't understand the implication.
joseph w kim
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Adam Anderson wrote:
> > I believe you have just made that word up. "interperative" LOL
>
> Drop the second e, It's a typo: interpretative is variant of
> interpretive
Well it looks like you were goin for interpretive.
But in any case, you'd have to drop the "a" and make "per" into "pre."
>
> >
> > > quality of the sense datum place any quantitative level or limit on
> >
> > I don't think you ever stated implicitly or explicitly that "art is"
> > "not a quality of the sense datum"
>
> From my first post in this thread: "Art is a Method of interpretation of
> the sense datum it is not the sense datum itself"
> Unfortunately for you, I don't know how to be more explicit than this.
Well, how was I to know you were referring to your *first* post?
>
> >
> > > generic appeal, I see no emphasis.
> >
> > You don't? That's unfortunate.
> >
>
> I'm not even sure what your point is regarding the original question, so
> I'm going to leave this thread at this point.
I was being nitpicky. Go on..
>
sam carruth
worth?
what is this "worth" of which you speak?
is it akin to a jackalope?
sam carruth
> Adam Anderson wrote:
>
> > Jure Sah wrote:
> > >
> > > Adam Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sentience, when a computer can appreciate art not just create it!
> > >
> > > Just a question or two: Take a song that is expresed to the computer in source code (MIDI). Isn't it easy for the computer to
> > > then appreciate the art in that song and/or _create_ it? Does that make it sentient?
> >
> > Think of sound waves hitting a wooden structure and making it resonate,
> > I still don't think that the wooden structure is appreciating the music.
>
> Ahhh, another selfish human.
>
> So tell me organic structure, why did you 'resonate' my post?
oooh!
sounds naughty nancy
and are you saying that wood is not organic?
sam carruth
eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> | Good point. Perhaps the worth of a work of art depends on how well the
> | artist managed to steal the work of others yet giving it some unique
> | arrangement.
>
> IMO, the worth of a work of art is the intensity of reaction in the
> viewer. The viewer may get teary-eyed, may get angry, may feel love or
> hope or euphoria, or may glance away with nary a second thought.
>
> IMO, the latter is art with little worth, while the other examples are of
> art with a greater worth.
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
i bet they just dont want to get jobs
"i think that i shall never see
a poem as loverly as a bee"
sam carruth
i think the point was something more like this:
"why the tarnation are you more important (ah! important!) than a friggin' wooden structure, ape man?"
sam carruth
> But it is also arguable that humans themselves cannot come to an
> agreement on aesthetics and hence the appreciation of art. What's music
> to me, might be a bunch of noise to you ... esp considering my listening
> to trace/trip hop and the such (which is not a very popular form of
> music.) So because you cannot appreciate my music, does it mean that you
> are not sentient. The simple answer of course is ``yes, I know Emilio,
> but i can appreciate *some* forms of art.'' Then ought there not be a
> particular ruler or guide to say *when* and *what* counts as appreciation
> of art?
>
but i know lots of people who just dont care
if you's hungry you aints got the time for appreciation
are the huddled masses, then, not sentient?
i say i am not sentient so, please, dont ask me!
sam carruth
Emilio M Recio wrote:
> Then art is not what artists do? Art is what is able to evoke emotion
> from people? Then computers can create pieces of abstract (seemly random)
> pieces of output which we call artwork by pure virtue of that piece being
> able to evoke emotions from humans.
>
>
yea, my art is poking people with sticks
sam carruth
joseph w kim wrote:
> > But it is also arguable that humans themselves cannot come to an
> > agreement on aesthetics and hence the appreciation of art. What's music
> > to me, might be a bunch of noise to you ... esp considering my listening
> > to trace/trip hop and the such (which is not a very popular form of
> > music.) So because you cannot appreciate my music, does it mean that you
> > are not sentient. The simple answer of course is ``yes, I know Emilio,
> > but i can appreciate *some* forms of art.'' Then ought there not be a
> > particular ruler or guide to say *when* and *what* counts as appreciation
> > of art?
>
> Well one can argue that it's not so much that art is different and that we
> all have our own ideas of art, but that there are many types of art meant
> to cater to our different feelings and needs. Your appreciation of trance
> music may be due to it's ability to give you an escape from your problems,
> and this type of art is present everywhere. One can even argue that all
> art does this.
yes, one could argue this
being sheltered and incredibly shallow
it must come naturally to only see simple art
velvet elvis?
if you dont mind being wrong
feel free to make grand all encompassing statements
thats how i operate
sam carruth
> Art is in the eye of the beholder.
"get thee to an eye wash station"
joseph w kim
Hmmmmm....................
>
>
sam carruth
> Adam Anderson wrote:
>
> > Art is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Actualy... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." This makes a major
> diffirence. If you smash a tomato of the top of the building, it's
> abstract art to all of us, but it may be beauty only to some.
>
> -
you spelled actually wrong
joseph w kim
First part: ? (perhaps it only makes sense to you)
Second part: Wrong *because* it's an all encompassing statement? I'm
afraid your logic is as twisted as your rhetoric.
Surely we are all biased towards our own experiences with art.
We would find offense with anyone talking about art as something that
fulfills a need or provokes a feeling. This grossly undermines what art
really is.
*Any* general statement about art would be in a sense anti-art due to its
being all encompassing and impersonal.
But.. this is a metaphysics newsgroup. (I am not a metaphysicist, but
anti-metaphysicist)
>
>
sam carruth
i thought this was a philosophy newsgroup
joseph w kim
Did you know metaphysics = philosophy? That's news to you.
>
>
>
sam carruth
so then, the group i am in is meta-meta-physics
i dont think you are rite, tho
but i dont really matter
anyway
joseph w kim
You're drunk, on drugs, retarded, or for some twisted reason think what
you're writing is actually witty. But I do agree with second part.
>
>
sam carruth
to wit to wit!
forsooth, my dear sir
i must away to bed!
for if i miss music 204A at 8am,
Mr Seppanen will strike me...uh...
anyway
hasta
Jure Sah
> > > Think of sound waves hitting a wooden structure and making it resonate,
> > > I still don't think that the wooden structure is appreciating the music.
> > So tell me organic structure, why did you 'resonate' my post?
>
> oooh!
> sounds naughty nancy
> and are you saying that wood is not organic?
No. Did I ever say that?
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
I'm addicted to QB71.
Anybody interested in cooperation? See:
joseph w kim
On Wed, 2 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> | Did you know metaphysics = philosophy? That's news to you.
Stop being nitpicky. I meant "a" philosophy. Do you actually think
anything could believe metaphysics is the one and only philosophy?
>
> Is that accurate? I was under the impression that metaphysics was just
> one type of philosophy, along with many other types.
>
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
On Wed, 2 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> | On Wed, 2 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
>
> |> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> |>
> |> | Did you know metaphysics = philosophy? That's news to you.
>
> | Stop being nitpicky. I meant "a" philosophy. Do you actually think
> | anything could believe metaphysics is the one and only philosophy?
>
> Yes. This field is a quagmire unless language is used precisely. I
> assumed that you were saying exactly what you meant.
Well you assume too much. And no, language in newsgroups should not be
assumed to be precisely stated.
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
On Wed, 2 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> | Did you know metaphysics = philosophy? That's news to you.
>
> Is that accurate? I was under the impression that metaphysics was just
> one type of philosophy, along with many other types.
Metaphysics = philosophy. This statement does not imply that metaphysics
is the only philosophy out there. If I said philosophy = Metaphysics,
*then* you can say that. But I can also say chicken = animal.
>
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
On Wed, 2 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> | On Wed, 2 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
>
> |>
> |> Yes. This field is a quagmire unless language is used precisely. I
> |> assumed that you were saying exactly what you meant.
>
> | Well you assume too much. And no, language in newsgroups should not be
> | assumed to be precisely stated.
>
> OK. I'll take your advice, and when I see your posts, I'll be certain
> that I can't know whether you meant what you said, or meant something very
> different.
So I guess when someone gives uses exaggeration, personification, irony,
you'll be totally lost. My statement that metaphysics = philosophy works
perfectly well in demonstrating that metaphysics is a type of philosophy.
Only you would get confused by that and ask, "do you mean metaphysics IS
the one and only philosophy?" Of course not. Think about it, can *anyone*
even *possibly* think that? If you had instead tried to point out my
error in syntax, then I'd understand. But the fact that you actually think
that I actually think metaphysics IS the one and only kind of philosophy
really shows how stupid you really are.
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> | So I guess when someone gives uses exaggeration, personification, irony,
> | you'll be totally lost.
>
> Wrong again.
>
> My statement that metaphysics = philosophy works
> | perfectly well in demonstrating that metaphysics is a type of philosophy.
>
> Only if you think that a subset is the same as the complete set.
You are confused. Philosophy can refer to the *all* philosophies or a
specific philosophy.
Example of first. "In school, I learned philosophy."
Example of second. "What is your philosophy on life?"
>
> | Only you
>
> Ok, I get the point. You use language loosely. When you say "Only you",
> you don't mean what you write. You don't think I'm unique. You mean
> "You".
>
>
> would get confused by that and ask, "do you mean metaphysics
> IS
> | the one and only philosophy?" Of course not. Think about it, can *anyone*
> | even *possibly* think that?
>
> Of course they can. But once again, you use words imprecisely. Of course
> it is possible. But when you say "possibly", you mean "likely". I'm
> starting to catch on.
How can anyone be that stupid. (you being the exception)
>
> If you had instead tried to point out my
> | error in syntax, then I'd understand. But the fact that you actually think
> | that I actually think metaphysics IS the one and only kind of philosophy
> | really shows how stupid you really are.
>
> Might it mean that I was unfamiliar with your sloppy use of
> language instead?
Sloppy? Hell no. I only see you complaining. And you're definitely wrong.
>
> Or to translate into your dialect: "Everybody always says things that
> everybody always knows what they mean, and nobody ever says things what
> they mean but everybody always understands them always anyhow."
God you're a retard. Please go grow some brain cells before you even
*start* to respond. Or better yet, DONT respond and save face.
>
> I'm catching on...
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> | On Wed, 2 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
>
> |> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> |>
> |> | Did you know metaphysics = philosophy? That's news to you.
> |>
> |> Is that accurate? I was under the impression that metaphysics was just
> |> one type of philosophy, along with many other types.
>
> | Metaphysics = philosophy. This statement does not imply that metaphysics
> | is the only philosophy out there. If I said philosophy = Metaphysics,
> | *then* you can say that. But I can also say chicken = animal.
>
> Ok, I get it now. So 2 = 4, but 4 != 2. Is that what you're saying?
Metaphysics = a philosophy
philosophy (as used above) = Metaphysics
Philosophy (according to your definition) != Metaphysics
Philosophy has many definitions. Don't be angry, just look it up for
yourself and admit I am right.
>
> That so long as you put the subset first, you can use an equals sign, but
> if you put the complete set first, you can't.
>
> I must have missed that in arithmetic class (or was it logic?). Thanks
> for setting me straight.
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
sam carruth
being angry and rude will never make you correct
even if your facts were valid
joseph w kim
You're more interesting when you don't make sense.
>
>
joseph w kim
On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> | On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
>
> |> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> |>
> |> | So I guess when someone gives uses exaggeration, personification, irony,
> |> | you'll be totally lost.
> |>
> |> Wrong again.
> |>
> |> My statement that metaphysics = philosophy works
> |> | perfectly well in demonstrating that metaphysics is a type of philosophy.
> |>
> |> Only if you think that a subset is the same as the complete set.
>
> | You are confused. Philosophy can refer to the *all* philosophies or a
> | specific philosophy.
> | Example of first. "In school, I learned philosophy."
> | Example of second. "What is your philosophy on life?"
>
> Those are diffferent sentence structures than you used up above.
>
>
> |>
> |> | Only you
> |>
> |> Ok, I get the point. You use language loosely. When you say "Only you",
> |> you don't mean what you write. You don't think I'm unique. You mean
> |> "You".
> |>
> |>
> |> would get confused by that and ask, "do you mean metaphysics
> |> IS
> |> | the one and only philosophy?" Of course not. Think about it, can *anyone*
> |> | even *possibly* think that?
> |>
> |> Of course they can. But once again, you use words imprecisely. Of course
> |> it is possible. But when you say "possibly", you mean "likely". I'm
> |> starting to catch on.
>
> | How can anyone be that stupid. (you being the exception)
>
> So you resort to insults? Is that because you are at a loss to form a
> coget arguement?
>
>
>
> |>
> |> If you had instead tried to point out my
> |> | error in syntax, then I'd understand. But the fact that you actually think
> |> | that I actually think metaphysics IS the one and only kind of philosophy
> |> | really shows how stupid you really are.
> |>
> |> Might it mean that I was unfamiliar with your sloppy use of
> |> language instead?
>
> | Sloppy? Hell no. I only see you complaining. And you're definitely wrong.
>
> Arguement by repeated assertion is not very convincing.
Argument
>
>
>
> |>
> |> Or to translate into your dialect: "Everybody always says things that
> |> everybody always knows what they mean, and nobody ever says things what
> |> they mean but everybody always understands them always anyhow."
>
>
> | God you're a retard. Please go grow some brain cells before you even
> | *start* to respond. Or better yet, DONT respond and save face.
>
> Again, you resort to insults when you can't form a cogent response.
>
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> | Metaphysics = a philosophy
>
> By George, I think she's got it!
>
>
> | philosophy (as used above) = Metaphysics
>
> But that's NOT what you said above. Do you know what an equals sign
> means?
By now you realize that I never meant metaphysics is the one and only
philosophy so lets just end this pointless thread.
You have a specific definition of philosophy in your mind.
In your mind philosophy = the body of all the philosophies as a whole.
And yet metaphysics is a philosophy also.
You are using the "=" as used in mathematics.
I was using the "=" sign as an equivalent of "is a"
Perhaps you see this as a big deal but I don't.
But we do know by now that I did not mean what you thought.
So the only thing we're arguing is how "=" is used.
Well, once again, to me "=" has different ways of being used, and I was
being flexible with it. (Another way of using "=" is to assign values to
variables as in programming.) So to me, there really is nothing to argue
but the usage of "=."
>
> | Philosophy (according to your definition) != Metaphysics
>
> | Philosophy has many definitions. Don't be angry, just look it up for
> | yourself and admit I am right.
>
> I'm not angry. In fact, I'm fairly amused that you're digging in your
> heels, resorting to insults, changing your story, and responding to every
> post I make.
> |>
> |> --
> |> =========================================================
> |> --------...@shore.net------------
> |> =========================================================
> |>
>
>
> And BTW, your newsreader likely has an option to strip away a .sig when
> you reply to a post.
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
What frustrates me is truth dogmatists such as yourself pointing out small
insignificant errors so that you would waste both our times arguing over
the usage of "=." Insults were uncalled for, but it seemed fitting at the
moment.
You are also responding to every post I make. Can you say hypocrite?
Now go away I don't want to argue "=" anymore.
joseph w kim
> And now a spelling (f)lame? Damn pathetic, kiddo.
Who said anything about flaming? I'm merely correcting you for your
benefit. I hope it helps!
>
>
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> |>
> |> |> Or to translate into your dialect: "Everybody always says things that
> |> |> everybody always knows what they mean, and nobody ever says things what
> |> |> they mean but everybody always understands them always anyhow."
> |>
> |>
> |> | God you're a retard. Please go grow some brain cells before you even
> |> | *start* to respond. Or better yet, DONT respond and save face.
> |>
> |> Again, you resort to insults when you can't form a cogent response.
> |>
> |>
> |> --
> |> =========================================================
> |> --------...@shore.net------------
> |> =========================================================
> |>
>
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> | On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
>
> |> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> |>
> |> | Metaphysics = a philosophy
> |>
> |> By George, I think she's got it!
> |>
> |>
> |> | philosophy (as used above) = Metaphysics
> |>
> |> But that's NOT what you said above. Do you know what an equals sign
> |> means?
>
> | By now you realize that I never meant metaphysics is the one and only
> | philosophy
>
> Of course. The issue isn't what you meant, nor is it even the meaning of
> the word philosophy.
>
> It seems that you STILL misunderstand the meaning of certain logical
> operators, specifically, an equals sign. Maybe a dictionary would help?
I used "=" to mean "is a." It works to a practical extent.
>
> Clue: It does NOT mean "is a subset of".
>
>
> | so lets just end this pointless thread.
>
> OK. You first.
>
>
> | You have a specific definition of philosophy in your mind.
>
> Now you can read my mind! You truly are an amazing guy.
>
>
>
> | In your mind philosophy = the body of all the philosophies as a whole.
>
> Wrong, yet again. At least you're consistent.
>
>
> | And yet metaphysics is a philosophy also.
> | You are using the "=" as used in mathematics.
>
> Wrong again. I'm using is as used in logic (which by the way, given your
> total unfamiliarity with it, is a branch of philosophy).
>
>
> | I was using the "=" sign as an equivalent of "is a"
>
> That your use was idiosyncratic does not make it correct.
>
>
> | Perhaps you see this as a big deal but I don't.
>
> Wrong again, Kreskin. Keep guessing tho, and you're bound to get
> something right eventually.
>
>
>
> | But we do know by now that I did not mean what you thought.
>
> Are you a king, or do you have a tapeworm?
>
> All I know is that you seem to be backpedaling, shucking and jiving, and
> generally, providing me with much entertainment.
>
>
> | So the only thing we're arguing is how "=" is used.
> | Well, once again, to me "=" has different ways of being used, and I was
> | being flexible with it. (Another way of using "=" is to assign values to
> | variables as in programming.) So to me, there really is nothing to argue
> | but the usage of "=."
>
> Ok. Prove me wrong. Use your vast mental abilities, and the top-notch
> research facilities at that fine institution you attend, and find an
> authoritative definition of "=" which assigns it the meaning "is a
> subset of". Go ahead, college boy.
>
> |> |>
> |> |> --
> |> |> =========================================================
> |> |> --------...@shore.net------------
> |> |> =========================================================
> |> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> And BTW, your newsreader likely has an option to strip away a .sig when
> |> you reply to a post.
> |>
> |> --
> |> =========================================================
> |> --------...@shore.net------------
> |> =========================================================
> |>
>
> Still can't figure out them dad blamed complicated configurations
> settings, eh? Maybe if you ask you little brother, he could help...
>
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> |> |>
> |> |> Arguement by repeated assertion is not very convincing.
> |>
> |> | Argument
> |>
> |>
> |> And now a spelling (f)lame? Damn pathetic, kiddo.
>
> | Who said anything about flaming?
>
> I did. Try to keep up, 'kay?
Of course you did silly. I hope you've learned much from me.
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
On Thu, 3 May 2001, joseph w kim wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
>
> > In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > | On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> >
> > |> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > |>
> > |> | Metaphysics = a philosophy
> > |>
> > |> By George, I think she's got it!
> > |>
> > |>
> > |> | philosophy (as used above) = Metaphysics
> > |>
> > |> But that's NOT what you said above. Do you know what an equals sign
> > |> means?
> >
> > | By now you realize that I never meant metaphysics is the one and only
> > | philosophy
> >
> > Of course. The issue isn't what you meant, nor is it even the meaning of
> > the word philosophy.
> >
> > It seems that you STILL misunderstand the meaning of certain logical
> > operators, specifically, an equals sign. Maybe a dictionary would help?
>
> I used "=" to mean "is a." It works to a practical extent.
I think your frequent misspellings is more of an issue than my usage of
"=." I, as an artist of words, do not feel I should be restricted by such
trivial rules. My *point* has been well-received. (except by you)
I still can't believe you actually thought I thought metaphysics is the
only philsophy out there and that the term philosophy refers ONLY to
metaphysics. LOL! Thanks for making my day.
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
> joseph w kim wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Gene Autry wrote:
>
> i think originality in subject is a lil overrated
> but context! ah! what is it trying to say! thats the rub!
> kmart used to sell those pictures of kids with really big eyes...made by humans
> but art?? or all those black and whites of kids holding roses wearing oversized
> clothes...art??
> fractals can be computer generated but are they art? in a sense i think they are
> so far as they appear to be representations of shapes and objects we know
> i dont care if anything is original, though, doesnt seem to matter much
Art: artiface, lie.
RJL
Roy Jose Lorr
eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> | Computer generated art can't be seen
> | as a form of expression because it makes no statement other than "this is
> | random gibberish." (Assuming the computer generated art was composed
> | entirely by the computer and not by the interaction between the computer
> | and the human artist) People may "see" something there, but it's
> | comparative to "seeing" the rain as dreary and "seeing" the sunny day as
> | cheerful. (in other words, injection of meaning into the painting where it
> | has no meaning otherwise)
>
> What if the computer is programmed to analyze examples of "great art" that
> are scanned into it, and then identifies common traits, and then
> regurgitates them in a novel (or even a banal) manner? I think that a lot
> of successful artists do exactly this, and spit out hundreds of iterations
> of the same crap, which they then sell in Shopping Mall art galleries for
> big bucks.
>
> Then it wold not be random gibberish, but instead, a calculated effort to
> reproduce elements which are often considered indicia of great art.
>
> For example, the computer (if it were sufficiently powerful) could break
> down the works of Van Gogh, and identify the distinctive brushstroke
> technique, it could look at the subject matter of paintings by Monet, and
> then combine the two (perhaps starting with photographs) to produce
> original works which would be (on occasion, anyway) pretty and decorative.
>
> Would it be art? I dunno, but it certainly might porduce works which
> people would enjoy on their walls.
>
> Is it "expressive"? It depends what you mean by that word, but if one
> chose a definition carefully, the answer would be yes, as the computer is
> expressing the synthesis of one artists style with another artists subject
> matter. Maybe it would only simulate expressiveness? It depends on
> definitions.
>
> So what if our computer-which-simulates-art has a huge database, and
> analyzes millions or billions or artworks, for traits such as the color
> pallete, the subject matter, the technique, etc., and then combined this
> analysis with traits of the artist, like "this guy was insane", or "this
> guy was influenced by the civil war that destroyed his family"?
>
> Could we then request it to compose and output an abstract expressionist
> piece which conveys anger and contempt? Could we ask it to "paint" a
> portrait of a subject which shows the model's incredible beauty? Could we
> ask it to output happy crap like kids with big eyes and flowers and
> puppies, and end up with works which unsophisticated viewers fall in love
> with?
>
> Would the output of our computer "express" the requested traits?
You'd get a painting by an art critic, not an artist.
RJL
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
> Emilio M Recio wrote:
>
> > Then art is not what artists do? Art is what is able to evoke emotion
> > from people? Then computers can create pieces of abstract (seemly random)
> > pieces of output which we call artwork by pure virtue of that piece being
> > able to evoke emotions from humans.
> >
> >
>
> yea, my art is poking people with sticks
in contrast to sticking people with pokes
Roy Jose Lorr
Emilio M Recio wrote:
> But it is also arguable that humans themselves cannot come to an
> agreement on aesthetics and hence the appreciation of art. What's music
> to me, might be a bunch of noise to you ... esp considering my listening
> to trace/trip hop and the such (which is not a very popular form of
> music.) So because you cannot appreciate my music, does it mean that you
> are not sentient. The simple answer of course is ``yes, I know Emilio,
> but i can appreciate *some* forms of art.'' Then ought there not be a
> particular ruler or guide to say *when* and *what* counts as appreciation
> of art?
What the hay is "trace/trip hop. If its what I think it is, you have some
nerve
thinking yourself sentient. "~)
Roy Jose Lorr
Adam Anderson wrote:
> Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Art is butt music.
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
> Emilio M Recio wrote:
>
> > But it is also arguable that humans themselves cannot come to an
> > agreement on aesthetics and hence the appreciation of art. What's music
> > to me, might be a bunch of noise to you ... esp considering my listening
> > to trace/trip hop and the such (which is not a very popular form of
> > music.) So because you cannot appreciate my music, does it mean that you
> > are not sentient. The simple answer of course is ``yes, I know Emilio,
> > but i can appreciate *some* forms of art.'' Then ought there not be a
> > particular ruler or guide to say *when* and *what* counts as appreciation
> > of art?
> >
>
> but i know lots of people who just dont care
> if you's hungry you aints got the time for appreciation
> are the huddled masses, then, not sentient?
> i say i am not sentient so, please, dont ask me!
If masses are doing it, I wan do huddled too. Know somebody
can teach me the steps?
joseph w kim
On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> | I think your frequent misspellings is more of an issue
>
> You're a riot, kiddo. Next time you try a spelling (f)lame, try to get
> the subject and verb to agree, eh?
>
>
>
> than my usage of
> | "=." I, as an artist of words,
>
> Thank God you're not an artist of mathematical symbols!
>
>
> do not feel I should be restricted by such
> | trivial rules. My *point* has been well-received. (except by you)
>
> From what I've seen, your "*point*" has been totally
> ignored. Whatever. (OH! I get it now! When you mean "ignored", you say
> "well-received". WHAT ARTISTRY!!!)
>
>
> | I still can't believe you actually thought I thought metaphysics is the
> | only philsophy out there and that the term philosophy refers ONLY to
> | metaphysics. LOL! Thanks for making my day.
I think you need to calm down.
> And then again, maybe not...
>
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
On Thu, 3 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> | What frustrates me is truth dogmatists such as yourself
>
> Who, me?
Yes you. =)
>
> pointing out small
> | insignificant errors so that you would waste both our times arguing over
> | the usage of "=."
>
> I'm not wastig your time, kid, you are. Take a little responsibility for
> once in your life. First you say something silly, and then when I
> politely questioned it, you couldn't even admit an error, but instead
> started to (and continue to) fling insults.
=(
>
>
> | You are also responding to every post I make. Can you say hypocrite?
>
> Yes I can. Can you say "amused"?
=O
>
>
> | Now go away I don't want to argue "=" anymore.
>
> You first, tough guy.
=P
>
>
>
> |> > |>
> |> > |> --
> |> > |> =========================================================
> |> > |> --------...@shore.net------------
> |> > |> =========================================================
> |> > |>
> |> >
> |> >
> |> > And BTW, your newsreader likely has an option to strip away a .sig when
> |> > you reply to a post.
> |> >
> |> > --
> |> > =========================================================
> |> > --------...@shore.net------------
> |> > =========================================================
> |> >
> |>
> |>
>
>
> Love your software configuration skills.
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
sam carruth
yea!
same to you and more of it
sam carruth
is it morally right to impose our will upon a poke?
sam carruth
>
> | Now go away I don't want to argue "=" anymore.
i think thats really cute, lil man
fling your cards to the wind
games over
pout pout
sam carruth
butt is art music
sam carruth
first you wave your arms around like landing planes
sam carruth
hi joseph
you are a very nice person
and doggone it!
people like you!
joseph w kim
Hey, you're retarded again!
>
>
joseph w kim
=)
>
>
joseph w kim
How original. (Copyright SNL)
>
> =)
>
> >
> >
>
>
Jure Sah
> What the hay is "trace/trip hop. If its what I think it is, you have some
> nerve
> thinking yourself sentient. "~)
Feeling sorry for yourself being a total musical retard?
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
I'm addicted to QB71.
Anybody interested in cooperation? See:
Http://www.geocities.com/gtsc4/innc/index.html
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
Roy Jose Lorr
Jure Sah wrote:
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> > What the hay is "trace/trip hop. If its what I think it is, you have some
> > nerve
> > thinking yourself sentient. "~)
>
> Feeling sorry for yourself being a total musical retard?
Translation: I can't explain diddly.
RJL
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
Depends on the size.
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
Semper fly
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
Nope its ear wax
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
I like you too
free for lunch
sam carruth
no way
i charge
all day
joseph w kim
What a waste of a post. Do us all a favor and stop posting your garbage.
>
>
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
batteries included
sam carruth
this is my response
joseph w kim
On Fri, 4 May 2001 eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> Careful there Sam, or he'll stamp his little feet and call you names!
After all the spelling mistakes I've helped you with, this is how you
repay me?
>
> --
> =========================================================
> --------...@shore.net------------
> =========================================================
>
joseph w kim
and this is mine
>
>
joseph w kim
GFostel
>
>And BTW, your newsreader likely has an option to strip away a .sig when
>you reply to a post.
>
Mine doesn't. But it is awfully easy to delete things like that. Maybe Kim
really likes your sig? It's so bold, and assertive and clean. Maybe she's
flirting. (:-)
---garyFostel---
GFostel
>
>eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
>
>> In comp.ai.philosophy joseph w kim <jwk...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> | as a form of expression because it makes no statement other than "this is
>> | random gibberish." (Assuming the computer generated art was composed
>> | entirely by the computer and not by the interaction between the computer
>> | and the human artist) People may "see" something there, but it's
>> | comparative to "seeing" the rain as dreary and "seeing" the sunny day as
>> | cheerful. (in other words, injection of meaning into the painting where
>it
>> | has no meaning otherwise)
>>
>> What if the computer is programmed to analyze examples of "great art" that
>> are scanned into it, and then identifies common traits, and then
>> regurgitates them in a novel (or even a banal) manner? I think that a lot
>> of successful artists do exactly this, and spit out hundreds of iterations
>> of the same crap, which they then sell in Shopping Mall art galleries for
>> big bucks.
>>
>> Then it wold not be random gibberish, but instead, a calculated effort to
>> reproduce elements which are often considered indicia of great art.
>>
>> For example, the computer (if it were sufficiently powerful) could break
>> down the works of Van Gogh, and identify the distinctive brushstroke
>> technique, it could look at the subject matter of paintings by Monet, and
>> then combine the two (perhaps starting with photographs) to produce
>> original works which would be (on occasion, anyway) pretty and decorative.
>>
>> Would it be art? I dunno, but it certainly might porduce works which
>> people would enjoy on their walls.
>>
>> Is it "expressive"? It depends what you mean by that word, but if one
>> chose a definition carefully, the answer would be yes, as the computer is
>> expressing the synthesis of one artists style with another artists subject
>> matter. Maybe it would only simulate expressiveness? It depends on
>> definitions.
>>
>> So what if our computer-which-simulates-art has a huge database, and
>> analyzes millions or billions or artworks, for traits such as the color
>> pallete, the subject matter, the technique, etc., and then combined this
>> analysis with traits of the artist, like "this guy was insane", or "this
>> guy was influenced by the civil war that destroyed his family"?
>>
>> Could we then request it to compose and output an abstract expressionist
>> piece which conveys anger and contempt? Could we ask it to "paint" a
>> portrait of a subject which shows the model's incredible beauty? Could we
>> ask it to output happy crap like kids with big eyes and flowers and
>> puppies, and end up with works which unsophisticated viewers fall in love
>> with?
>>
>> Would the output of our computer "express" the requested traits?
>
>You'd get a painting by an art critic, not an artist.
To a degree, I think you are right. But try it from this angle. Artists today
have access to tools that were not available 500 years ago. For example, there
are sculptors who use chain saws to carve large blocks of wood. Might a
computer program be yet another modern sophisticated tool for an artist? We're
on a slippery slope here. A computer drawing program allows an artist to draw.
Does a more complex program that has analyszed works by the masters and can
incoprate these features at the direction of an artist fail the test? Not an
easy call.
---garyFostel---
Roy Jose Lorr
GFostel wrote:
And the wood looks like someone took a chain saw to it.
> Might a
> computer program be yet another modern sophisticated tool for an artist? We're
> on a slippery slope here. A computer drawing program allows an artist to draw.
But what has happened to the tactile connection. Where has the oomph gone? Is
art all cerebral?
>
> Does a more complex program that has analyszed works by the masters and can
> incoprate these features at the direction of an artist fail the test? Not an
> easy call.
Easy for me.
RJL
sam carruth
thats what i love about poetry
the tactile connection
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
textile?
sam carruth
you can drape a curtain over me
but my point still stands
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
Before computers, painting by pixel
was called pointillism... effete, then
as now.
sam carruth
good ol' george
i think a computer can produce art
art is what you see
but the up side is computers dont wear turtlenecks
and ask for millions of dollars
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
A human can produce art on a computer.
Art is what a human does... its in the doing.
What critics, and we are all critics, make of
it is pointless.
(bias of an artist.)
sam carruth
who said critics?
tree falls in forest?
i am an artist...when i am alone i dont produce art...i just play! when it is viewed by the
unwashed masses (with all their 'yearnings') it becomes a shared experience
art is a four letter word and you can drag yourself thru glass on late night tv or just recreate
what you know
bear in mind, tho, that i am not to be trusted on any account (ask my bank, yuk yuk yuk)
Roy Jose Lorr
sam carruth wrote:
I couldn't care less about the shared experiences of yearning critics... unless
or course they wish to share the experience of dragging me away. That's when
I turn into a shootist... another game I play well. The forest is full of unwashed
bears... can't miss em for the trees.
For me, the essential part is creating something that I don't know... the something
that lurks in the hidden part of me... the part that dares not expose itself. It
takes concerted, physical as well as mental grappling to force the issue.
Caress or punch it with the brush and the canvas responds physically... a "tactile"
symbiosis... something a computer is incapable of. I don't know, maybe someone
will invent a computer interface that shocks or spits at you when you make artistic
demands on it that it objects to. Maybe it will evolve to the point that painting with
it will be no different than painting on a human body. Most of the original stuff I surf
up strikes me as either photographic, or late 60's black light, day glow, overblown,
body painting anyway... cartoons, graffiti.
Art as we commonly praise it was born when perverse craftsmen traded sacred for
a new toy, perspective.
But what the hey do I know?... next to nothing. (ask my barber, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk)
.
sam carruth
oh, i see
art is only pictures
then i must not count
i work with words
and sounds