 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Can a computer... |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Thayer Fuzz Ball Level: 38  Posts: 516/988 EXP: 349428 For next: 21019 Since: 06-28-05 Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
Originally posted by Kario A brush isn't necessary to paint. Painting is not limited to brushes, and there are many types of media that would still be considering painting and fit under the category of no brushes. I don't believe it's really that hard to see a computer making art, especially abstract pieces. And incidentally, computers already do paint. |
|||
Zer0wned Cheep-cheep Level: 17  Posts: 126/181 EXP: 21472 For next: 3271 Since: 08-16-05 From: Hermosa Beach, CA Since last post: 30 days Last activity: 30 days |
| ||
| Dammit.. I had a full response earlier, and my computer froze.. damned 125 watt power source.. oh well, replaced it with a 300 watt and things are now ~smoooth~. Anyway... It is my belief that living things are in fact programmed (no quotations for emphasis), via DNA. Computers use binary from various mediums and manipulate machines, gadgets, and visual mediums. The body, on the other hand, is programmed via a (greek word for 12)inary base of chemical pairs of adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine that manipulate a more chemical medium, and is "upgraded" overtime by way of trial and error (survival of the fittest/evolution/whatever). Now sticking with this reasoning, I'd call the brain an operating system. Limbs, organs, skin, etc. are more like programs. But instead of the way of the harddrive, where there is a space limit, and the code is written onto it, the cells react to their base code, and create the "program" accordingly by multiplying, arranging, and changing their balance of chemicals according to the code provided. Now, like a very advanced, machine-based computer; the body/mind reacts to various chemical presenses (internal and external), system statuses, sensory input, and keeps a stored database of cause and effect. Some machines (living things) are hard-coded differently (different DNA), and will react differently based on all of these inputs. Where I'm getting at is, how can "creativity" not be programmed? It already has been! Now I don't think a computer can be creative like us, per se, because our form of programming is heavily reliant on chemical levels which translate into thoughts and emotions. But I think a computer can be made to be "mused" and "inspired" by outside forces that it can detect, what it does detect, what relevance and priority the detected things have, how they will be used, and what creative display it will be transposed upon is up to the programmers. I think if some form of self-growth (in the live and learn sense) were implemented, like interperetation of feedback, (like say it "learns" what patterns and methods score higher in its creations). ***********Read this if you want to just get the short end of it*********** So in review, I believe that computers can have some form of independant thought, although it's subject to interperetation, but, I don't believe it's likely to make one creative in a human manner. |
|||
paraplayer Snifit Level: 22  Posts: 279/280 EXP: 57271 For next: 1079 Since: 06-06-05 Since last post: 44 days Last activity: 44 days |
| ||
| you seem to be looking at this the wrong way. remember the human brain is nothing special. The only diffrence is it's ability to defy logic with emotion (and even then is it really defying logic if the emotion is invoked to achieve your goal?) if an advanced computer could learn the same way a human could would it have creativity? Where do we draw the line between creativity and logic? |
|||
|
Zer0wned Cheep-cheep Level: 17 Posts: 137/181 EXP: 21472 For next: 3271 Since: 08-16-05 From: Hermosa Beach, CA Since last post: 30 days Last activity: 30 days |
| ||
| Actually, it seems like you've mis-read my post. I addressed all of those things, except maybe the difference between logic and creativity. Not to mention there was no "wrong way" for me to look at this, as the topic is extremely open ended to begin with. The difference between logic and creativity: Spontaneousness. But even then, I don't think that humans are at all spontaneous in their creativity anyway, as explained in my above post, it's about chemical levels, external influences, and how the brain is both hard-wired and taught (self taught or otherwise) to react. So the real line between creativity and logic is in whether or not an onlooker chooses to call it either a complex logical output based on external events, how these events were interepereted, and emotions (the chemical levels I was talking about) thusly invoked as a result of the interperetation, or creativity. A computer would have to have an extremely complex system of emulators to even begin to think and learn like a human to a convincing degree, But, for pretend sake, it's kind of self defeating to ask that if a computer could learn like us (and therefore think like us, can't really have one without the other), could it have "creativity". Of course! it's one of the definers of human thought in the first place! The human brain is nothing special, eh? It's one of the most complex things in the known (bolded for emphasis) universe, and its complete abilities have yet to be understood, and we USE the damned thing, I fail to see the lack of specialness in that. |
|||
Edea Red Goomba Level: 8 Posts: 28/36 EXP: 1824 For next: 363 Since: 08-23-05 Since last post: 11 days Last activity: 11 days |
| ||
| *Opens up a fractal generator, prints.* Looks like a painting to me. I certainly can't make a fractal picture on my own. If it's emotion that seems to set the boundaries for creativity, then human beings simply don't know how to program emotions yet. But for humans themselves, it was a spontaneous process that took billions of years to resolve itself into our current forms. Computers have taken about 50 years total. The growth is artificial in nature, so it seems very incomplete. It'd be nice to find another planet with silicon based lifeforms on it to compare computers to. |
|||
candrodor Micro-Goomba Level: 7 Posts: 16/19 EXP: 909 For next: 539 Since: 07-04-05 From: Lancs, England. Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| My music teacher was ranting on the other week about a style of music in the first half of the C20. It involved "serialising" music, making a piece with sequences, that would have the sequence played 12 times, and would end once it was played in all 12 keys (ignoring relative keys.) It was later realised you could do the same with 12 different dymnamic levels, pppp to ffff or something silly. Same with rhythms, so you can end up with a sort of scientifically made piece. Wouldn't have creativity, but it would be "legal" music. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Can a computer... |
| | |
