 |
 |
> "What does it > mean to create art when one does not have free will--as science > increasingly shows us--?" Science doesn't show us we don't have free will. Many people think that for us to have free will necessitates we be able to do the impossible and when they realize we can't do the impossible, they think we don't have free will. Suppose we can go back in time just a little bit. When we go back, EVERYTHING is the same as it was at that moment previously. ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. Including us. As soon as we go back in time we lose all knowledge of what happened after the moment to which we are returning. The question is whether we could do anything differently than exactly what we did the first time. I think it's hard to conclude that we could do anything differently than we did the first time unless truly random events can occur either in the world or in our processing (or both). If we admit we have no choice in the matter, then, since the same is true of every other moment, then we never ever have any choice in the matter. And, hence, have no free will. I think it's true that if we admit we have no choice in the matter, we must conclude we have no free will. But if truly random events are possible, then when the clock starts ticking again, it's possible for something different to happen than happened previously. So it's possible for us to do something different than we did previously cuz we're reacting to a different situation. Now, puters themselves are not capable of truly random events. But we don't need them to be capable of truly random events if the world itself is. The modern era is not the first time we've tried to look closer at the mechanisms of our decision-making processes. Psychoanalysis posited an unconscious that was far from under perfect rational control or free will. But I think it's important to note that when we look closely at the unconscious or the machinic and find new insight into who and what we are, that also gives us fresh insight into the nature of our freedom. Our choices. And what we make of them. So, for instance, to understand that we are indeed machines is not to think that we have no free will, but to understand that machines are capable of much more than we previously thought, and if we can have free will, then so can they, because we are machines. I don't think there's any getting around the idea that we do make decisions. And I think machines can be programmed to make decisions also. I don't see science or the theory of computation as diminishing us. Or what art is and can mean. I don't think science is a problem that way at all. I'm more concerned about what art can mean in a society that is prone to valuing things more by their monetary value than anything else. > Good luck with it all, Jim. I think you'll find the courage to take > that final step--and it does take courage--when all the boundaries fall > away and you're planting trees with the followers of Joseph Beuys or > pouring milk on stone, or balancing rocks, like my friend George Quasha > does. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you talking about 'becoming a visual artist'? Well, Jesse, I am a visual artist and a writer. A programmer. An audio artist. A theorist. I think the world needs to catch up with me, in this regard, not the other way around. But I have no control over whether it will or not. I simply press on with the art and the program. That's my best 'control' over that matter. Just get on with the art and the program and poetics/philosophy. And let the world make up its own mind. I went to see quite a beautiful film tonight: Pina by Wim Wenders ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pina_(film) ). A moving tribute to Pina, a thoughtful exploration of her highly expressive choreographic "language", and also a thoughtful presentation of her poetics of life/art. One of the things that stuck with me was a comment that reminded me of Celan's "Attention is the natural prayer of the soul." Pina wanted the dancers to feel the gesture. Its meaning. To pay that sort of attention to each gesture. And, also, the film makes evident that if that happens, a lot of other stuff doesn't matter, cuz if the dancer gets it, feels it, the audience probably can too. Regardless of the set, for instance. Similarly, if one pays attention to each of the elements of media in the art (of the net or whatever), and if one can feel the language(s), then people will get it, or get/create whatever they need to get/make of it. ja ----- Original Message ----- From: <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 4:30 PM Subject: And so it goes--Everything is Everything, and Why Not? > Good luck with it all, Jim. I think you'll find the courage to take > that final step--and it does take courage--when all the boundaries fall > away and you're planting trees with the followers of Joseph Beuys or > pouring milk on stone, or balancing rocks, like my friend George Quasha > does. Are you at all spiritrual in your take on the arts? I'm a bit > conflicted about all of that and am going through my own investigations > of neuro-psychology, free will and the creation of art. What does it > mean to create art when one does not have free will--as science > increasingly shows us--? > > I've taken a look at your site and have seen the written end of it. > > Life is Art and Everything is OK. > > Jess