tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post1665392347238380883..comments2024-03-18T07:23:32.809-04:00Comments on Gurney Journey: VangobotJames Gurneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01870848001990898499noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-84857256261183532332013-04-13T13:03:22.517-04:002013-04-13T13:03:22.517-04:00has anyone actually purchased a Vangobot painting ...has anyone <i>actually</i> purchased a Vangobot painting from Crate & Barrel? I can't find any support for that claimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-45688065916855229332013-01-03T21:07:16.549-05:002013-01-03T21:07:16.549-05:00No, actually I'm NOT asking you to define cons...No, actually I'm NOT asking you to define consciousness since you and I both speak english and understand the normal usage of the word. I'm wondering what evidence you consider a sound basis for the belief that plants experience mental states of some sort.<br /><br />For example:<br /><br />Do you believe plants can experience pain?<br /><br />If so, what experiments or evidence convinces you of this? <br /><br />If you don't want to go into it, that's fine. I wouldn't want to try to defend that proposition either.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-27787430837057272592013-01-03T19:15:10.010-05:002013-01-03T19:15:10.010-05:00David,
We're back to 'how do you define c...David,<br /><br />We're back to 'how do you define consciousness, love' etc.<br /><br />It's been fun talking with you. Perhaps we'll get another chance to discuss it sometime.<br /><br />Best - BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-69319833190743585242013-01-03T11:22:13.331-05:002013-01-03T11:22:13.331-05:00It seems to amount to the claim:
Plants do amazin...It seems to amount to the claim:<br /><br />Plants do amazingly complex things. Therefore plants are conscious.<br /><br />But doing amazingly complex things isn't particularly well correlated with consciousness. My body is doing millions of amazingly complex things every second and I'm conscious of almost none of them. David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-31406193719180065582013-01-03T11:17:50.506-05:002013-01-03T11:17:50.506-05:00The talk describes some quite fascinating things p...The talk describes some quite fascinating things plants do. I didn't hear anything that amounted to good evidence for plant consciousness though.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-76032281321210502602013-01-02T23:23:39.803-05:002013-01-02T23:23:39.803-05:00David:
Clearly you're a much smarter person th...David:<br />Clearly you're a much smarter person than I am.<br /><br />Here's the TED.com talk I referred.<br />http://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence.html<br /><br />I'll love to hear what you think of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-14648190419761244262012-12-30T13:17:25.082-05:002012-12-30T13:17:25.082-05:00Again, we both know what people mean when they tal...Again, we both know what people mean when they talk about falling in love. Debating the definition is, therefore, not particularly useful. Especially when discussing whether plants fall in love.<br /><br />More useful would be discussion of the supposed evidence for plant consciousness. So far, you've presented none. David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-86068743527960252512012-12-30T03:31:46.935-05:002012-12-30T03:31:46.935-05:00Good to read. Interesting conversation.
Since you...Good to read. Interesting conversation.<br /><br />Since you asked: <br />"What love is" is absolutely relevant when deciding what/who is capable of it and what that means for his/her/its survival. I find love to be so various and complex that I couldn't possibly draw a line in the sand as a sure measure by which to judge another's.<br />This discussion, however, is perhaps for another time and another place.<br /><br />Next:<br />Ted.com had a talk recently in which a scientist presented evidence that shows plants have animalistic, conscientious behavior. I'm on my iPod right now, so looking it up is too inconvenient, but if you can't find it let me know and I'll go searching.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-32942763237204427082012-12-29T18:49:09.872-05:002012-12-29T18:49:09.872-05:00"Finally (you set yourself up for this):
How ..."Finally (you set yourself up for this):<br />How did you get past the "prove you're not a robot" test?"<br /><br />Obviously, the only way I could distinguish myself from a robot capable of passing the Turing test, if that's what you're referring to, is to meet someone in the flesh.<br /><br />Not that I can see why it's relevant to the points we've been debating.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-7009004319343196802012-12-29T18:44:55.334-05:002012-12-29T18:44:55.334-05:00"There are compelling scientific arguments ri..."There are compelling scientific arguments right now showing that plants have consciousnesses."<br /><br />Could you be more specific?<br /><br />"You have some definition of morality in you, something that makes human molecule-compounds sacred to you but a tomato's expendable."<br /><br />Only that which can have experiences is morally significant. I can about animals because they can suffer. They want to live, etc. Rocks and tomatoes don't, so far as I know, have experiences. If I find that they do, much as I doubt that will happen, they would become part of my circle of moral concern.<br /><br />"That sense of morality is the starting point of getting to know the supernatural, as by very definition this moral law influencing your decisions is 'Above' your carnal Nature. That is, super-natural."<br /><br />Again with the devaluing of the physical and the natural. My capacity for empathy and reason (the basis of my moral viewpoint) is, so far as I can tell, quite natural.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-90555243324190587272012-12-29T18:36:22.549-05:002012-12-29T18:36:22.549-05:00First point:
If sound reasons to believe in the s...First point:<br /><br />If sound reasons to believe in the supernatural arise I'd be happy to discover them. <br /><br />"Well... it depends on how you look at it. They do reproduce, and they do grow in communities, etc."<br /><br />Love is a mental state. Tomatoes have no minds and therefore no emotions.<br /><br />"What is love?"<br /><br />Do we really need to debate what love is? We've both, presumably, experienced love and therefore know what people are referring to when they talk about falling in love. <br /><br />"Can you create an empirical, all-inclusive definition for it?"<br /><br />Why would I do that? I never claimed that only what can be observed with the senses exists and, of course, love, being an emotional state, is not an object observed with the senses.<br /><br />I did not say I don't believe in minds. I said I don't believe in the supernatural. <br /><br />"If it's just atoms, molecules, and electrons firing off in our brains and bodies in a certain pattern, why is that pattern any better than another kind of pattern happening in a tomato?"<br /><br />The mental state called love is intrinsically valuable (that is, love is of value because of what it is like to experience love---it needs no sanction other than it's own intrinsic nature). Surely both supernaturalists and naturalists can agree that love is of value in and of itself.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-24781932357244245242012-12-29T18:02:06.869-05:002012-12-29T18:02:06.869-05:00David,
I don't think we want to get too carri...David,<br /><br />I don't think we want to get too carried away with this discussion here, as it's fairly off topic. I'll reply to your points and I look forward to hearing your response, and we can leave it there. <br /><br />First: <br />For the sake of the argument, what if there is a supernatural power in the universe and you just haven't discovered it—are you interested in finding it?<br />I'm not asking whether or not you believe right now, just if you are open to considering it.<br /><br />Second:<br />"Tomato plants don't fall in love." etc.<br />Well... it depends on how you look at it. They do reproduce, and they do grow in communities, etc. What is love? Can you create an empirical, all-inclusive definition for it? If it's just atoms, molecules, and electrons firing off in our brains and bodies in a certain pattern, why is that pattern any better than another kind of pattern happening in a tomato?<br />There are compelling scientific arguments right now showing that plants have consciousnesses. Does that spell trouble for moral-vegetarians?<br />You have some definition of morality in you, something that makes human molecule-compounds sacred to you but a tomato's expendable. That sense of morality is the starting point of getting to know the supernatural, as by very definition this moral law influencing your decisions is 'Above' your carnal Nature. That is, super-natural.<br /><br />Finally (you set yourself up for this):<br />How did you get past the "prove you're not a robot" test? Cheater... ;) (j/k)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-23855688494980188282012-12-29T15:38:20.178-05:002012-12-29T15:38:20.178-05:00"By accepting only the external reality and n..."By accepting only the external reality and not believing in a spiritual journey—one that happens within a person's heart, removed from contact with any other ndividual, including prophets, scientists, poets, fathers, mothers, children, etc.—you actually do lose quite a lot."<br /><br />I said I don't believe in the supernatural. The human heart and human experience I know by direct introspection. I simply don't assume that what you refer to as the spiritual has a supernatural basis.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-52493552863216034772012-12-29T15:34:37.337-05:002012-12-29T15:34:37.337-05:00"So if we are just biological machines like a..."So if we are just biological machines like any other biological machine, and human life isn't special, then for example, someone can murder- sorry, terminate, you and should suffer no more consequence than if they harvested a tomato plant, right?<br /><br />it's easy to see how such materialistic thinking quickly cheapens human life."<br /><br />Tomato plants don't fall in love. They don't look up at the stars in wonder and joy.<br /><br />The fact that humans are biological machines does not mean that they are insignificant. You are again inserting your bias against the physical into the discussion. Remember that this is not a bias we share. If you want to say that materialism implies murder is OK then you'll have to present an actual argument for the bias you've so far simply assumed without question.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-82397854097760055472012-12-29T14:03:20.421-05:002012-12-29T14:03:20.421-05:00"Like it or not, we're just bilogical mac..."Like it or not, we're just bilogical machines"<br /><br />Great non-sequitur typo!<br /><br />Yes, we are indeed bi-logical machines.<br />Like it or not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01850475222271022000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-77611786803205190212012-12-29T14:01:37.055-05:002012-12-29T14:01:37.055-05:00:) you'll have to keep searching. It's wor...:) you'll have to keep searching. It's worth it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-13896996927717619552012-12-29T13:58:56.944-05:002012-12-29T13:58:56.944-05:00David,
I think you're absolutely right about ...David,<br /><br />I think you're absolutely right about the wonderful nature of the universe. And there is a lot of which to be amazed even before we examine any existence of a spiritual side of life.<br /><br />By accepting only the external reality and not believing in a spiritual journey—one that happens within a person's heart, removed from contact with any other ndividual, including prophets, scientists, poets, fathers, mothers, children, etc.—you actually do lose quite a lot.<br /><br />You miss out on the internal reality, which is just as amazing as the external one. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-35799835316424696842012-12-29T10:09:20.352-05:002012-12-29T10:09:20.352-05:00Like it or not, we're just bilogical machines
...<i>Like it or not, we're just bilogical machines</i><br />Really? So if we are just biological machines like any other biological machine, and human life isn't special, then for example, someone can murder- sorry, terminate, you and should suffer no more consequence than if they harvested a tomato plant, right?<br /><br />it's easy to see how such materialistic thinking quickly cheapens human life.<br /><br />Stop and think about what you are actually saying, and actually believe -it's quite disturbing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-48249228051892503602012-12-29T09:42:46.383-05:002012-12-29T09:42:46.383-05:00Looks like vangobot needs to work on his brushwork...Looks like vangobot needs to work on his brushwork...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-16361707142757940132012-12-28T23:40:47.606-05:002012-12-28T23:40:47.606-05:00As someone who has created both robots and art, I ...As someone who has created both robots and art, I think it is important to keep in mind their similarities. Building a machine that does anything is an incredibly creative and rewarding task. Also, anyone who has tried to recreate some aspect of nature with any amount of realism, be it robot or painting, knows how humbling it can be, and how it gives the creator an appreciation of the natural world that is greater than the average person, who takes the complexity of the world around him for granted. It just happens that as technology goes, robots are about as anthropometric as it gets and therefore creates a lot of angst due to their similarity and perceived potential superiority.<br /><br />Remember that robots, like all technology (and art), represents the intent of human creators, so don't think of it as a mindless machine that duplicated a photo, but rather a couple people who had an idea to create art using a novel tequnique. <br /><br />Robots will only be able to represent as much of humanity as we understand about ourselves. Given that we are only beginning to understand how our brain's machinery works, it will be a long time before any robot truly mimics it at a level where it can create its own intent. In the end, the fun of building robots is to take that understanding of the world and use it to make something happen, sometimes surprising, sometimes familiar, and sometimes emotional.<br /><br />That sound like art to me.Toddnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-77511221217750266322012-12-28T22:11:34.347-05:002012-12-28T22:11:34.347-05:00Maybe the bright side to this is that it makes one...Maybe the bright side to this is that it makes one think how real painting is not about technical skill but about the "heart" and the "soul" in the thing. Look at Van Gogh"s paintings, he didn't have great technical skill but they're great paintings. More than great. They have life in them. And more importantly then anything, they are interesting. For a painting to be interesting is everything. Just because a painting looks like a photo or it looks just like someone, doesn't mean it's interesting. It needs something else. It needs energy in it. Maybe this robot painter thing will make us rethink things a little bit, and try to find out what makes a painting really great besides just looking like a photo and having skillful brushstrokes, which Sargent already mastered and can't be beat at except by machines like this when they are perfected pretty soon. The vangobot will pretty soon be able to make something that looks like a Sargent, but will it ever be able to make something that looks like a Van Gogh? Maybe machines like this will finally completely free painters from the craving for technical perfection, which is so strong and time and thought consuming, and let us dwell on something that may possibly be more important than that. I'm not sure what it is, but maybe it's along the lines of caricature, and the intensification of forms and space and color and emotions and beauty and mystery. To put feeling and life into the thing, besides asking does it look just like the person? Does it have painterly, skillful brushstrokes? Does it look like a Sargent? Maybe, we need to go beyond that in this new millenium to find a way to show the beauty of this earth on a canvas. Thanks for reading this rambling, this was fun to write on this great blog and comments section. Alright, peace everybody. I hope you get a little bit of what I mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-27223597143094128862012-12-28T18:10:27.234-05:002012-12-28T18:10:27.234-05:00Creating art isn't just about what you paint, ...Creating art isn't just about what you paint, it's also about what you leave out both intentionally and unintentionally. Until programers design artificial intelligence that is able to make mistakes, I think human artists can rest easy.Lucas Durhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156781364756863585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-88626373421563487332012-12-28T14:44:28.981-05:002012-12-28T14:44:28.981-05:00Now we just need a photoshop filter for artistic l...Now we just need a photoshop filter for artistic license - that ability of the human mind to interpret and insert changes to improve or comment on an idea. Like: This city scene needs an airplane flying through it to show human motion. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11658101180816077598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-27590898144354550372012-12-28T14:03:57.522-05:002012-12-28T14:03:57.522-05:00It boggles the mind. These two guys could have be...It boggles the mind. These two guys could have been spending their time learning to paint well, but instead they wasted it building a machine that paints very, very badly! Somewhere in the great beyond, Rube Goldberg is smiling.Craig Banholzernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-86601243257361914092012-12-28T13:39:19.751-05:002012-12-28T13:39:19.751-05:00I second what Johan said . . . many people make ar...I second what Johan said . . . many people make art simply for the personal satisfaction that it brings to them, without concern for the viewer or the market. That robot painting away over there may turn out to be bad for us folks who make a living from art, but no matter at all for those who make art for themselves. I don't think art-making will disappear just because commercial art is made by AI. <br /><br />Also, my guess is that once the culture has been thoroughly saturated in AI art, there will again be a market for the handmade (including digital art created by an actual person), just as there is now a market for microbrewery beer right alongside the industrial stuff. Some people will prefer the AI, some will prefer the human-made.Ameliahttp://www.ameliahansen.comnoreply@blogger.com