>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:58:09 +0200, Julian Rohrhuber wrote
>> >> Where does the urge in a computer come from to express
>> >> itself? (I don't mean this ironical)
>> >This is a question I cannot answer, better ask a robot for this :+)
>> >
>> >Seriously, let us consider the idea for a sec, that WE are not expressing
>> >ourself but Technology (as a separate species) is and we are only helping
>> >this to happen.
>>
>> I think the notion of expression needs to be revisited. I don't find
>> it extremely hard to consider what you suggest, but my question was
>> more, what makes you consider it? Is there specifics of a computer
>> that makes them different (in this regard) to other stuff, like
>> chairs, who make us sit on them, and want to travel around with us
>> in the world in our cars?
>
>Eek, I'm lost! If you're using an evolutionary strategy, like GP - the
>computer *is* merely being used to create art, it's role in the creative
>process is just as constrained as any other system
Constraints (also our own constraints) make us not less creative, but
possibly more. Something that is "merely being used to create art":
This "merely" would then mean that art is artist-intentionality (the
intention to create art) mediated by the computer?
> - the application of some
>random numbers does not make it magic.
>
>Sounds like anthropomorphism to me, but then I never have been able to get a
>grip on the (computer != paintbrush >= artist < medium) type of arguments! :)
I don't get them either, but I'm interested in what makes us
attribute anthropomorphisms to things.
--
.
Received on Wed Apr 13 2005 - 17:06:23 BST