did we have much in the way of poetry/art/culture before agriculture? has there ever been an epic poem which does not in some way include some very specific reference to farming? my point can be distilled to this: agriculture gives us an inneffable connection to the seasonal cycle, which is crucial to the continuingly healthy production of art. if we stop doing agriculture entirely and let robots do it, we will not have a very healthy sphere of poetry and art.
it is arbitrary, i will give you that. but it is certainly not as arbitrary as office spaces, and my point has little to do with the anatomy of human beings
And where did you get the idea that robots would create art work? The whole idea is that robots would do things no other human would want to do, whereas I can think a good chunk of the human population would love to have free time to produce art work as they please (including myself). Arguably, the amount of art work would increase with people having more free time and access to better technology, as the trend has been over the last century.
To argue that art requires an agrarian lifestyle to be produced is a foolish statement that is contradicted by any knowledge of art over the last few centuries. I really hope you're just high as balls or messing with me.
Also Hicky what the fuck happened to you on page 3 of this thread?
And you ticked my OCD off as well, why did you distinguish poetry as some sort of separate entity to art in your earlier posts? Poetry IS art.
Is it possible that at some point computers might be able to perform more complex tasks through learning, a la Cleverbot (with non-shitty programming)?
maybe. one of the problems with answering questions like 'is it possible for a computer to think intelligently?' is that we have such a vague idea of what intelligence is. is an intelligent machine one that has the same capabilities as that of a human? there exist computers which can perform a variety of tasks much faster and much more efficiently than humans can (arithmetic) but which are atrocious at things that human children excel at (pattern recognition in images). there are well researched, efficient algorithms designed to get computers to 'learn' specific tasks (such as classifying documents under various genres based on the text in them, which was an assignment i did yesterday) but there is no real answer to whether computers can accomplish the 'holistic learning' that humans are capable of. then again we're trying to accomplish in 40 years what took millions of years to happen to us so id way we've made great progress.
Though I do enjoy the prospect of self-driving cars. Reduced accident rate and taking a nap on the way to school just seems so nice.
The main point of your post is true though, machines have to be programmed/maintained by humans. I don't know how far in the future we're projecting here, but eventually, at least for the average person, a lot of manual labor/ repetitive tasks will be replaced by the performance of machines and the focus would probably shift toward research, design, creative expression - all the tasks that are important to the society as a whole that cannot be replaced by said machines.
Originally made by LM:
~Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute. -- Josh Billings ~
Or, y'know, you could just build a robot with a built-in hydraulic lift
of course there has been art in the last couple of centuries, but it's a different kind of art to the kind of art we had when we all tilled our crops which is less specifically connected to a very specific kind of engagement with the natural world.
i am not differentiating between art and poetry, i was just emphasising the importance of poetry to my argument.
of course art doesn't require an agrarian lifestyle to be produced. but my point is that a certain societal connection with agriculture creates a different and more enhanced appreciation of aesthetics and therefore a much different (and in my opinion 'better') notion of aesthetics. and of course i'm not saying that agriculture was a 'precursor' to art, but it certainly spawned poetic genres like pastorals (and, to a lesser extent, epics), a tradition from which poetry today is developed from. we would have (and do have) a different kind of art today because we have to some extent lost the agrarianism of the past, and i see a certain state of complexity as an ideal for a very specific sense of aesthetic in society. is this really controversial?To argue that art requires an agrarian lifestyle to be produced is a foolish statement that is contradicted by any knowledge of art over the last few centuries. I really hope you're just high as balls or messing with me.