Analysis 6: From the Artside In

When we analyze a given domain of existence, we can often only analyze it as far as detecting patterns and then making predictions based on those patterns. We often do not (or cannot) make (or often need) a causal explanation for why the domain exists as it does. By domain, I refer a particular compartment of (the human) experience where a certain “process” is undergone in an “environment”. The definition is necessarily general. A domain could be a hockey game, or a political rally, or situations that bring about jealousy. Any causally systematized phenomenon, on any scale, can function as a domain for the purposes of my arguments.

Think of a person trying a new food. They either like it or don’t, and will eat it or not often based on this fact and side-concerns like nutritional information and social context. But that person does not really need to know why the food isn’t agreeable. As far as practicality is concerned, a full explanation is not always required, which is convenient in situations where the explanations are unavailable. In cases of theoretical complexity, we have the unfortunate combination of a causal explanation that would be very useful to know, but is extremely elusive (for example, economies).

With respect to the mind, we have a very developed sense of how people work. Any average person knows that they think about things and make decisions based on feelings and rational thought, and assumes the same of others. Skeptical digressions aside, we generally have a pretty good surface-level idea about why things between people happen the way they do, and how brains work. This seems somewhat similar to “folk psychology”, which explains human behaviour common-sensically in terms of propositional attitudes, which are basically beliefs, and desires. Hwang bought a smoothie because he had the belief that he wanted one, and Georgina was jealous because she wanted one too.

As useful as that kind of analysis is, it does not explain what consciousness, thought, and indeed propositional attitudes actually are. Unfortunately, cognitive scientists don’t quite have an answer, however much (of what seems like) progress has been made. What some have speculated is that the mind is a complex system, similar to economies and ant colonies. A direct, simple causal explanation seems nowhere to be found, which is not surprising; the mind is one of the most complicated mysteries we’ve come across. Perhaps, then, studies of complex systems will help bring about answers to questions about the nature of how we think.

This is a very important project from someone who wishes to understand the human purpose, for two reasons. First, our mental activity corresponds to the very essence of our existence. How we experience the world could potentially dictate much about how we should experience it. Secondly, one of our initial questions concerned the human purpose as distinct from animals. Given that our intellect represents what we consider to be one of our defining, characteristic properties, an understanding of intellect becomes valuable.

Chaos theory could be a candidate to lead us to an answer. Beyond hints through its presence in nature, it raises many questions about the organization and behaviour of elements in a domain. The human mind may turn out to be explicable through the tenets of chaos theory, where other explanations have failed. Chaos theory, and any physicalist theory, for that matter, could show that we are like computers, and like the beauty of a fractal, our existence could be causally organized despite an apparent chaos. We like to think of art as a characteristically human endeavour, but if that endeavour is structured in definable mathematical terms, do we lose that exclusivity? One may argue that we would not. Domains that are often explanations of other, more practical-level domains are sometimes irrelevant to the situation at hand (like the mechanic in Analysis 1: Standing Up For Our Selves). Perhaps art is a production that is exclusive to a higher level human domain, and to study it at such a foundational, mathematical level might be going down the wrong path.

Comments

[jlan]

Some interesting points indeed. When you think of art, it's beauty, mystery and rarity are what drives our interest. If you can reduce it to a known mathematical forumla, then it takes away what we appreciate. As only the original Mona Lisa has a high value, where as my poster of The Mona Lisa has almost no value, though it is virtually the same.
Thus is the problem with AI. Once we learn to copy human conciousness it is no longer a wonderful mystery to be discussed on forums. No longer are we a rare miracale. To use your economics refernce, if we can copy human intelect and produce it, then supply increases and thus the demand falls reducing the value we have on it. Suddenly I feel redundant and purposless.

[Dana]

I don't think we can actually copy the complexity of humna consciousness, only mimic it ot have AI come close to mimic it. My reason for this is the our perception, awareness and consciousness of time, the passing of time, and the complexity of feelings and thoughs about what has been and what might be...so how do you copy that or geta machine to reflect and or comprehend that?