More on associations and what is thinking

I chatted with my husband about our class discussion on Thursday. I told him how my thoughts went flying when Zac asked the question, "does DARCI think?" and Dan said that if we can describe it, we can program a computer to do it. My husband and I got on the subject of what is thinking, how do we think? What processes are considered "carrying out a thought" and how important making associations is. After he referred me to a recent Charlie Rose interview with David Brooks (columnist for the New York Times).

Here's the exerpt that stood out to me:

Brooks: . . . This cognitive revolution is giving us a more accurate view of human nature that we are not only the rational, incentive based, the linguistic, logical parts of our mind, but we have other processes which are associational, which are emotional, and this is how we really navigate the world. 

So to me this is just exciting in its own way, but also solves my problems, my problems of why we've had so many policy failures by giving us a more accurate view of human nature and how people are likely to respond to different situations. 

CHARLIE ROSE:  It's stunning. 

And, you know, when I talk to all these people and frequently say "What's the one question you most want to answer?" It's always about the unconscious.  There is this ultimate fascination with, as what you say, how much of what we do is unconscious, and how deeply influential it is in terms of all relationships we have. 

DAVID BROOKS:  Right.  And to me, the metaphor that helps me understand it is the conscious is like a general, distanced from the world, looking down on it.  The unconscious are like scouts, millions of them, permeating the world, going into other minds, going into an environment and sending back these emotional signals -- go, no, go. 

And so when you look at a menu, you can make a choice of what you want, but you do not have a choice of whether you like broccoli.  That's happening unconsciously.  If you describe to me a story of incest, I have an immediate moral reaction to that.  That's all done unconsciously. 

And, you know, so one of my favorite little science experiments are people named Dennis are disproportionately likely to become dentists.  People named Lawrence are disproportionately likely to become lawyers, because unconsciously we have a preference for things that are familiar and we follow those things. 

And by now there are now 30,000, 40,000 neuroscientists in the world as well as other fields, and they're reshaping the way we understand how we navigate in this way, how these scouts send back signals.  Sometime they send back very brilliant signals, sometimes they send back biased signals. 

But it doesn't simplify life, but it gives you a sense of why we react or don't react the way we do. 

CHARLIE ROSE:  You've answered the question that I kept saying, why is David writing about this, one?  And why is he at this cognitive conference and this other cognitive conference?  Now I know, because of the book. 

What can you tell me about the book?  Can you tell me more?  Is it about the brain?  Is it about the unconscious? 

DAVID BROOKS:  I'm not a neuroscientist, so it's not really about the brain.  So my goal is to go the whole book without using the word "amygdale," because there's all this stuff with MRIs and brain geography which is very cutting edge and it's not something I'm qualified to write about. 

CHARLIE ROSE:  But it is the frontier of science right now. 

DAVID BROOKS:  But I'm always -- for us outsiders, we really should be worried about it, because the brain has a hundred billion neurons and infinite, almost, numbers of connections, and sometimes I look at the brain scans, the nice color pictures, and you think, OK, they're flying over Los Angeles, they're looking at neighborhoods where the lights are on, and they're trying to guess at what people are talking about at the dinner table.  It's phenomenally complicated . . .

Nonetheless, they don't solve philosophical problems.  They don't give you a new philosophy of life.  But they do confirm or validate some old philosophies. 

If you thought that emotion was not separate from reason, that we were all fundamentally emotional creatures, then this confirms that, the importance of emotion.  And so few if you felt we were fundamentally social creatures, then this confirms that, because we get dopamine surges when we have social conferences. 

If you thought we were utilitarian, purely rational individualists, then this disconfirms all that.  So it confirms certain -- it settles certain philosophical arguments, or at least biases you in one direction.  And I found that just tremendously useful. 

I thought his ideas about associations, the subconscious etc. are really pertinent to our class discussions over the last few weeks. I think that part of the reason why it is so hard for me to describe my artistic process or pinpoint what a thought is, is because it's subconscious. I'm not totally aware of what I do, but I feel like DARCI has to be aware of her every move. Maybe I'm wrong. I just wonder how close she can really mimic artificial intelligence because so much of our intelligence and functioning powers aren't conscious thoughts. Telling my heart to pump, my lungs to breathe, explaining why to put this color there and that color there . . . I can't explain how it happens, I just know it does.   

Associations

I was so fascinated by the associations that we made. Dan said he didn't think it was a big deal that we made "incorrect" (insane, irrational...) associations, but does DARCI make associations that are incorrect? Does anything she do come out of random associations or is all of her information supplied by us? What happens if the associations she makes are incorrect? Maybe nothing. Maybe it doesn't matter.

Could DARCI do this?

I recently read a post about mathematical/computer generated art. Interesting. Could DARCI do what this guy does on his computer?

Read the post HERE.

The artist, Tom Beddard, provides code and other resources for people interested on HIS SITE.

unkown boxes of interpretation

So I've been thinking quite a bit about Dan's post on black boxes that work their magic to create outputs out of inputs. My super long 'brain dump' was essentially outlining all the inputs that I am aware of in my artwork, and trying to correlate them with physical processes and outputs. I am still working on mapping all that out, just because I think it will be helpful to myself, but have postponed posting it, because I don't know how useful it would be (and besides, reading super long posts, or anything for that matter, in sans-serif fonts is painful). But, I have been thinking about the 'box,' what it means or represents, and the meaning of words that I normally associate with creating something of worth to myself. I thought of the word 'intelligence,' and what that means. In our religious context, that word has a lot of connotation and meaning, and perhaps even a tinge of a sense of magical wonder, and I wondered, 'How do interpret that into something definable?' I also have other questions I am still mulling over.
Today I was thinking of interpretation. I interpret a lot of things. I think that's a good word to put to my process of taking a lot of input and making an output that I feel will have significance in a realm beyond my personal self. I am interpreting emotions, thought processes/concepts, words, into a visual language. Other words I think might be synonymous are 'translating,' or 'encoding.' Often times I have heard the word 'feel' used in critiques, or have thought it to myself, where something simply feels consistent, or right, or something feels like it doesn't belong. It is a way of interpreting things across different areas, from visual to emotional, or visual to psychological--a synesthesia of emotion, subconscious, and physical senses.
I read some interesting articles about synesthesia and creative processes, and I think that is something significant to art making--the ability to have ideas cross over from one realm to another, or one language to another, while still maintaining a certain degree of integrity or self sufficiency.

Validation

A lot like Bryan, I was having a hard time submitting adjectives to Darci. Every time I entered what I thought to be an adjective, she denied it as such. At first I was a little miffed. I am an English major, and shouldn't have problems with words. But after the exercise in validation, this last Thursday, I realized why I have such a hard time. It is the fault of my exposure to the English major. Often times the simple, clear adjectives are looked upon as boring. But when I use a unique word in place of an adjective, to make an adjective, I am praised. Because of this validation scale I have altered my thinking. I rarely can think of an adjective that Darci accepts as such, because I rarely use dictionary adjectives.

The internet as friend with bad influence.

We network friends. Likewise in art making we seek the other - we put our limitations into the freedom the other has to critique our art-making. Their freedom is our limitation. We choose our friends therefore we choose our capacity to be limited. (For some of us who want a real challenge we choose Joe:)

--

I like the idea that DARCI's Dads (3 Men & a Baby-processor) are making sure DARCI is making good friends. Otherwise DARCI's network of friends would be the network she's built into -- the internet. And that is a friend with bad influences.

--

Fyi:

Machines are People // Not the other way around. + System 1 & 2; Jan 28

Treating people like machines: There is a fear in art making. It is disguised as laziness, procrastination, lack of self confidence. etc. This came up in an interesting conversation I had talking to my brother about the drive that propels someone to obsess over art making. We tried to pinpoint attributes that made someone an artist. One attribute discussed was the overtly positive view artists are able to take on problems. It's a necessary mind-set that needs to be achieved in order to be an effective problem solver in art. Not all people start off with that. Self confidence is a big issue - early in art-making we tend to fall short in execution of what we imagine an art-work should look like. My brother said that we are a lot like machines in this aspect - continuously self diagnosing the problem set before us, executing possible solutions and eliminating the ones that don't work. In response to the view that we are like robots, I reminded my brother that robots are our creation, made in our likeness. That we don't act like robots but robots act like us.

--

I wonder if DARCI cannot emulate a similar stage of growth where she overcomes her insecurities in order to become an obsessively positive art-making human?

--

Also: Thanks to everyone who put up with my game a couple of weeks ago:)

Creative Process

When I look at an artist, I see a "black box".  Computer scientists talk about algorithms as black boxes when they can see the inputs to the box and can see the outputs from the box, but can not see anything that goes on inside the box -- they cannot see how the inputs are transformed to outputs.  That is how I see you as an artist.  When I ask about this, you might start talking about your experiences, or your feelings or the weather, etc.  In my black box model, these are all considered inputs (yep, even the feelings).  So, in my black box model, we have Inputs (sights, sounds, feelings, experiences, smells, weather, memories, etc.) and we have Output (some visual artifact), and we have some (hidden) Process that transforms Inputs -> Outputs.  What I'm very interested in is that process -- what happens in the black box to transform those inputs to that output.  Can you tell me what happens in the box?

quick thought on 'teaching DARCI'

So, for a while I have been considering why it is so difficult for me to apply adjectives to imagery. I went to the public DARCI more than a week ago (I haven't since--and I only contributed to one image with only one adjective). I was surprised because I found it very difficult for me to think of adjectives. Maybe that sounds a bit crazy, but it did. It took ten minutes to for me to come up with one adjective.

I went to DARCI today, and am still there currently, and had a sort of epiphany.

I was thinking of adjectives in a specific way. There is a difference between describing and interpreting an image. There are descriptive adjectives and interpretive adjectives. The adjectives we use in describing what is visually happening in images is simple, direct, and fairly easy. But to put interpretive adjectives to an image (happy as opposed to bright, or creepy as opposed to dark, etc) takes a lot more. It also seems to me that interpretive labels and adjectives or ideas are based on descriptions of characteristics of what visually happens in an image. To interpret, we process the various descriptive qualities through our own context of experience to find correlations that we can then use to contextualize and interpret the image that has more meaning, more significance, or transcends simply being a re-description of something.

Pictures from class

Here are the paintings/drawings we did in class. We have the original image plus the modified version.

Bromerly:





Orfly:



Flamping:

Agency

During each class discussion, the topic I have found my thoughts constantly returning to is that of agency.

My main question is, from whence comes agency?

We have been trying to figure out through projects and discussion what sets us apart as artists. A current theme I have noticed in our thoughts is that agency is essential in determining the validity of and artistic action. What I mean to say is, we tend to value an art object when we know that someone exercised personal agency, made choices, and of their own accord created the piece.

But how do we determine what is agency, and where it comes from?

Can DARCI develop something akin to agency, or is it only considered agency when it applies to humans?

Similarly, we are products of everything that came before us. We may feel original or unique but we simply are not. Do we have more agency than DARCI because we are human, or are we just trying to tell ourselves that?

Where did our agency come from? We know from the Doctrine and Covenants that we were intelligences before we were spirit children, and that intelligence can neither be created nor destroyed. There are some that believe that agency is inherent with intelligence, therefore our agency was not given to us or created for us. If agency is not inherent with intelligences, than it was created by God. So did God create an environment for us to exercise our agency, or did he create our agency completely?

Is it possible to create agency for DARCI?

Why...

So as I read Paige's post below, it got me thinking, am I even an artist. I made this little video last night. I wouldn't call it art, I made it just for fun. I also wouldn't call it very creative; stuff like this has been done lots before. I was actually inspired to make this because of Annie Poon. I made the video because the song was stuck in my head, and I just felt like doodling.

Therefore based on my own ideas of what is art, my little video isn't because it doesn't have any real intention, not much craft, and isn’t innovative in anyway. But then, how come Annie Poon’s little videos are considered art. Is it quantity that determines if something is legitimate? And what determines if something is creative? I’m sure my fellow art friends would agree my video isn’t very “creative”, however my roommates think I’m the bees knees, (yes I said Bee’s Knee’s.)
So does being creative mean to simply create something, careless of what it is. Or does being creative have to do with its synonyms, according to word: original, imaginative, inspired, artistic, inventive, resourceful, ingenious and innovative.
I think these synonyms better explain what the aim of Darcy is, rather than to have her simply create something, the goal is to have her be innovative, create something new with a set intentions.
So how does one cross that line, of simply creating something, to actually doing something innovative? I’m sure the answer is worth some sum of money?