Graham,
The ability of a machine to replicate choices humans have made in the past (associated color with emotion, for example) is achieving "some kind of sentience," no doubt.
Today, much of the art made by humans is also formulaic.
I think there’s been some discussion here (maybe it was somewhere else) about the distinction between innovation and invention.
Iconic inventors describe it as an unexpected outcome.
Most improvisers would say the same thing.
And the marketing “icons” I’ve met would agree behind the scenes (when not making a pitch or writing a Harvard Business School Case study) that the ideas that moved mountains were as much a surprise to them as they were to everyone else.
Starting with a framework of knowledge and the skill that comes with practice is essential. But I think most truly change-making inventors, artists, marketers, etc. (if there are any still alive today) would tell you with all humility that there is also an energy that moved them to make unexplainable even irrational choices that seemed totally benign at the time but led to a breakthrough.
Maybe the ideal is a machine that provides the creator with all the choices based on existing framework of knowledge and highest skill level to accelerate the learning curve a creator goes through to conceive the choice neither the machine nor the creator expected.
Meanwhile, the maker movement – the idea of actually making stuff with your hands - is an opportunity to discover there are still unexpected choices out there. Integrating art into it makes total sense from my experience. For example, I never gave a hoot about chemistry until I wanted to learn how to experiment with pottery glazes – I get and remember chemistry in context much better than I did in the abstract.
All this is moving in right direction. But we also need a new business model to support experienced inventors, artists, and creative marketing professionals so more kids aspire to do it.
K-
From: Graham Hill <
">
> Date: Friday, February 7, 2014 at 4:53 AM To: Gmail <
">
> Cc: ProjectVRM list <
">
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Personal = Sovereign
Hi Erik
It is probably only a matter of time before machines achieve some kind of sentience. Already machines are capable of creating improvised art (that most ordinary humans cannot).
At the moment a machine becomes sentient, your metaphysical point is moot. It probably already is.
Best regards from Edinburgh, Graham
On 6 Feb 2014, at 23:30, Gmail <
">
> wrote: Speaking of art, I would offer we may too readily assume data is real, tangible or possesses meaning or integrity independent of the humans who collect, think about, analyze, extrapolate, and otherwise manipulate it. All data is ultimately abstraction - it is interpretation of stimulus and superimposition of mental qualities, distinctions, standards, etc. This is not to say it is not valuable but it is to recognize the source ultimately begins and ends between our ears.
As a result I think we can reasonably view data as art. Without the artist's sensibilities - which involve use of other aspects of human intelligence no less human nor less intelligent than disciplines that use other such aspects of human intelligence - we are less aware, less intelligent and potentially less human. Erik Cecil On Feb 6, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Katherine Kern <
">
> wrote:
From: Devon M T Loffreto <
">
> Date: Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 1:40 PM To: Doc Searls <
">
> Cc: ProjectVRM list <
">
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Personal = Sovereign
Thanks for all the highlighted links Doc.
Been thinking on a post about personal sovereignty in terms that families can relate to, given I have been putting much time towards education lately and teaching kids + parents about programming, web literacy and other such things related to the "Maker Education" effort... some additional thoughts here: http://www.moxytongue.com/2013/12/a-makers-education-for-social-change.html
Specifically, #10 on that list talks about Art and its relation to personal sovereignty. For many years STEM (science, technology, engineering math) has omitted art from its goal set, and many consider STEAM, with art included, to be the real effective end game. As really, what is our ability to use the others effectively without artistic representation? Data is virtually useless without art, and ugly tech is an afront felt personally.
I find it interesting that art is also the only one of those subjects that comes from a sovereign origin... and may indicate why it is overlooked/undervalued in present day systems thinking. The infusion of the personally sovereign context into STEM workforce goals and system management practices and the infusion of art into the same are met with similar obstacles and objections.
Without personal sovereignty... as without art... I am not sure this world works. We often treat these things as of secondary importance, or of secondary consequence... and yet without them, I am not sure the others ever really get a chance to become useful.
Systems, administrative processes, machines... they can produce output, they can scribble and draw lines in our world... but art, as with personal sovereignty, can only come from within Humanity. A healthy respect for that which leads us forward would do Society, cultures, families, companies, schools, engineers, scientists, and all the technology producing outcomes we drive towards some good... and the sovereignty of art is a keen reminder of that.
Devon
-- Dr. Graham Hill UK +44 7564 122 633 DE +49 170 487 6192
Partner Optima Partners
Senior Associate Nyras Capital |