| |
|
Abstract
The electronic
arts derive their energy and fascination from the relationship between
artist and machine. Attempts to automate art are increasingly successful
as developments take place in artificial intelligence, artificial creativity
and artificial life. However, it may take artificial consciousness to
create a totally artificial life. This in turn requires the resolution
of a the question: is quantum mechanics inextricably linked with consciousness?
The future of a totally artificial art may hinge on this.
Introduction
James Gleick points out in Chaos [1]
that the 20th century will probably be remembered for three great scientific
revolutions: relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory. With only
five years to go it is probably too late for a fourth revolution to emerge
in this century, but we are seeing, in embryonic stage, the first scientific
revolution of the 21st century: studies in consciousness. The claims for
chaos theory are that, unlike for the preceding two revolutions, it relates
to the more immediately tangible world of our experience. Studies in consciousness
relates to an intangible but infinitely more intimate world: our being.
The classical sciences of the previous centuries give us a very different
world however.
The discoveries by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler that showed the Earth
to revolve around the Sun have become a metaphor for the growing realisation
that Man was not at the centre of the Universe, but an insignificant creature
on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system, of which
there are millions or billions. The triumph of Western science has come
at the price of an alienation from the previous natural order, and a haunting
sense of insignificance or angst, to which feeling the twentieth
century has given a unique flavour. One can characterise our present universe
as anthropo-eccentric, that is a universe in which man is no longer
at the centre, in contrast to the previous anthropo-centric universe.
John Archibald Wheeler points this out in his introduction to the Anthropic
Cosmological Principal [2], as does Danah Zohar at much greater length in The Quantum
Self [3] (more of these later). One can reasonably assert that both
the infant and the mystic (mystic in the sense that Evelyn Underhill [4]
and Aldous Huxley [5] use for example) live in an anthropo-centric universe,
and one may speculate that certain tribal peoples may also have done,
to varying degrees. But the average Westernised person now lives in an
anthropo-eccentric universe.
The reductionist, mechanist sciences of Newton and Darwin leave the educated
individual in no doubt that, from the perspective of 'rational' science,
he or she is an accident in an accidental universe and in no way at its
centre. The more recent discoveries of chaos theory show a less ordered
universe, with room for 'emergent' properties, which allow for more poetic
descriptions. Rocks, weather, organisms, society, the economy: these become
non-linear systems with unpredictable developments, but they are still
deterministic. The individual is a system of organs and
cells, the result of a gene pool system, embedded within social
and economic systems. The individual is still alienated.
Until quantum theory.
Quantum theory completes the cycle of scientific revolution and renders
the universe anthropo-centric once more. The job of science is
done.
Quantum theory is inextricably linked to the current debate on consciousness,
which in turn is inextricably linked to debates on creativity. We shall
look at quantum theory, consciousness, creativity, computers, and the
electronic arts, starting with chaos theory and quantum mechanics.
1. Chaos Theory and Quantum Mechanics
The debate on consciousness involves many disciplines, and many theories
from these disciplines are brought to bear. For the purposes of this paper
the two most important sets of theories are those related to non-linear
systems, and those related to quantum theory.
Chaos theory, or the theory of non-linear systems, involves the study
of phenomena whose developments are highly sensitive to small fluctuations
in starting conditions. Examples include the weather, turbulent flow,
and fractal computer graphic images James Gleick gives a popular introduction
in Chaos [6]. An example of a linear system is a bicycle: if you pedal
twice as fast you cover the same distance in half the time. A 1% increase
in speed gives a 1% decrease in time taken, and so on. Some linear systems
can become a non-linear system at a critical point; an example of this
is laminar (orderly) flow in a liquid becoming turbulent flow (indeed
much research into non-linear systems arises from efforts to prevent turbulent
flow in pipes, and to cause it in spoilers, for example).
As previously mentioned, non-linear systems are, in principle, deterministic.
This means that the same starting conditions will give the same end conditions,
and, if we have computers powerful enough, we can predict the outcome.
In practice, because of the extreme sensitivity to the starting conditions,
it may be very difficult to predict the outcome, but this is merely a
problem of computing power a non-linear system is said to be computable
(in principle). However, these systems are of great interest because there
may be an apparent unpredictability, and because of emergent properties.
The philosophers Deleuze and Guattari have applied the principles of non-linear
systems to a wide range of phenomena, including human society. Manual
De Landa gives an interesting account of this in connection with modern
warfare [7].
Non-linear systems, in terms of physics, are classical systems, that is
they conform with Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian electromagnetic theory.
Hence, despite the relative richness of the universe they describe, and
the fruitful consideration of emergent properties, they remain part of
the anthropo-eccentric universe defined above.
Quantum theory represents a far more radical departure in the sciences
from the ordered stream of development in the understanding of the physical
universe going back to Copernicus and Galileo. To some it is merely an
esoteric and specialised field of knowledge dealing with the sub-atomic
level, and represents a small tributary in the growing expansion of an
essentially classical vista of knowledge. To others it challenges the
roots of the objective, scientific world-view.
Quantum theory grew out of a seemingly innocent debate over whether light
consisted of waves or particles. It was assumed that the debate would
be resolved in a straightforward way, as countless other debates over
the nature of other phenomenon had been (and will be). However, in the
last century, it became clear that light behaved as a wave under some
experimental conditions and as a particle under other experimental conditions.
This simple fact was obstinately unresolveable and its unwanted (by classical
science) implications were twofold: firstly that the observer's behaviour
could not be removed from the experiment thus challenging traditional
notions of 'objectivity' and secondly that science was going to have to
live with the unthinkable: paradox. The Aristotelian law of the excluded
middle (something can be A or B but not both), which is the cornerstone
of rational thought, would have to be abandoned, though only in some circumstances.
Quantum theory as we now know it gives a terminology for the wave/particle
paradox, but does not remove the paradox. In fact a quantum scientist
is required 'to believe three impossible things before breakfast' in the
words of the Red Queen, on a regular basis. Sub-atomic particles are to
be considered as 'standing waves' with discrete energy levels (hence quantisation).
The smallest amount of light energy is called a photon, and can be considered
a particle in the sense that one cannot have less than a photon's worth
of light energy. On the other hand it has frequency and wavelength. Photons
interact with matter by being absorbed by orbiting, standing-wave electrons,
which jump an energy level within the atom. Light is emitted when an electron
falls to lower energy level.
David Bohm lists four basic features of quantum theory [8]:
1. Indivisibility
of the Quantum of Action: this is basic postulate, that wave energy
cannot be divided up below a certain (very small) quantity, proportional
to its frequency.
2. Wave-Particle
Duality: all waves can be considered as particles at the quantum
level, but also as waves it is up to the observer to set up the conditions
for observation that give a wave or particle description of a phenomenon.
3. Properties
of Matter as Statistically Revealed Potentialities: the 'classical'
world of discrete solid objects with deterministic behaviour is a statistical
description of large numbers of quantum particles; for example the half-life
of a group of millions of uranium atoms can be stated accurately, but
nothing can be said about an individual atom.
4. Non-causal
Correlations: quantum theory requires sub-atomic particles to behave
as if they communicated instantaneously over large distances. This is
called instantaneous non-locality, and was one of the aspects of quantum
theory that led Einstein to search for the remainder of his life for
ways to disprove quantum theory. He was unsuccessful.
A deeper
understanding of these ideas requires considerable study, and the grasp
of mathematics. However, quantum theories can be summed up in two terms:
quantum indeterminacy and quantum holism. The quantum physicist Erwin
Schrödinger invented a 'thought experiment' that demonstrates both
of these aspects, usually referred to as Schrödinger's Cat. Schrödinger
imagined a single photon being directed through a half-silvered mirror
(a mirror that allows 50% of light energy through, and 50% to be reflected).
The mirror is arranged in such a way that if the photon (a single quantum
of light energy) passed through the mirror it triggers a photo-sensitive
device which kills an unfortunate cat kept in an opaque box (see fig.1)
Fig.1 Schrödinger's Cat
Because of quantum indeterminacy there is nothing in the history
of any part of the experiment that will allow us to predict, even on a
statistical level, whether the photon goes straight through or is deflected.
Hence the only way that we can know whether the cat is alive or dead is
by opening the box. No well-informed bookie would give you odds on the
cat's survival, even if you repeated the experiment a million times with
a million cats. Photons do not have 'form'. Quantum wholeness enters
with the observer: the person who opens the box. In technical terms the
photon is described as a wave, with a mathematical description known as
a wave function; and when the photon is discovered (by the observer) to
have gone one way or the other, this is known as the 'collapse of the
wave function'. It has become accepted that the observer is integral to
this process, and recent thinking places great emphasis on this.
An alternative version of the experiment involves the decay of a small
amount of radioactive substance, and a Geiger counter to detect it, and
trigger the release of poison to kill the cat. In either case there is
argument as to whether the sensor (photosensitive device or Geiger counter)
which amplifies the quantum effect into the classical universe is responsible
for the collapse of the wave function, or whether it is the cat, or whether
it is the human who opens the box. Most researchers in consciousness accept
that it is the human.
Many commentators have postulated that if we knew more about the fine
structure of atoms and photons we could eliminate these paradoxical and
disturbing implications of quantum theory, but so far there has been no
success in this direction (this approach is sometimes termed the seeking
of 'hidden variables'). Einstein was particularly unhappy about quantum
indeterminacy, as shown in his famous remark that 'God does not play dice'.
Scientists and lay persons alike are entitled to take different views
on the implications of quantum theory. One view, promoted by Niels Bohr,
is that the precise mathematical formulations of quantum theory are successful
as a model for prediction, but the wider implications can be ignored.
A middle ground, perhaps, was the stance now called the Copenhagen interpretation,
which admits that quantum theory is a theory of observations, rather than
a theory of objective independent realities. The more radical position
is that quantum theory places the human act of observation as essential
for the existence of the universe. A more symmetrical way of expressing
this is in a formulation by John Archibald Wheeler: 'The observer is as
essential to the creation of the universe as the universe is to the creation
of the observer.' [9]
The difficulty over the interpretation of quantum mechanics is more a
problem of metaphysics than physics, as illustrated in an interesting
conversation between Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, and Wolfgang Pauli
(all great contributors to quantum theory) [10].They were reflecting on the presentation at the original
conference of quantum theory to the Vienna Circle of positivist philosophers,
which drew no questions from them. Wolfgang Pauli commented that the positivist
stance gives an emphasis to 'facts' if quantum mechanics described sub-atomic
behaviour correctly, then that was enough for the positivists. Werner
Heisenberg pointed out that the wider implications smacked of metaphysics,
which was, for the positivists, a term of abuse.
If metaphysics, i.e. the posing of questions just beyond the boundaries
of the discipline of physics, has been a term of abuse for some thinkers
in the past, it would seem that it has become the pastime of many scientists
today. This might be because Platonic metaphysics was seen as pre-scientific,
or even against the scientific method. Modern metaphysics can ask seemingly
more legitimate and informed questions, and if the answers look a little
Platonic that is just too bad. We live in an era where the prestigious
Templeton prize for progress in religion (£650,000) has gone to
the physicist Paul Davies; where the physicist Frank J. Tipler argues
soberly that his computations prove the existence of God; and where Oxford
mathematician Roger Penrose embraces Platonist views in his argument against
the computability of mind (more on this later). The recent spate of speculative
writings by scientists led the Guardian newspaper to complain recently
that "Atheists, at least, used to find comfort in the sceptical words
of the boffins. But now even the most rigorous of scientists are showing
signs of conversion to the idea of a deity." [11] This may be an overstating of the position Peter Holland,
a professor in the foundations of physics, attacks the 'new-ageist' view
of physics as not just metaphysics but mysticism leading to obfuscation:
'Science still represents a noble tradition of anti-clerical subversion
but society infects all its products. What a historical irony that the
arch-rationalists end up bearing a new-ageist banner'. [12]
However, we are not arguing here that quantum theory gives us back a theocentric
universe, but an anthropo-centric one.
The inclusion of the observer as fundamental to the universe as a result
of quantum theory should finally settle the Zen koan 'does a tree
falling in a forest with nobody there to hear it make a sound?' The answer
now is certainly not.
It is worth pointing out that quantum theory is not the only area in physics
that supports a more anthropo-centric world view. John D. Barrow
and Frank J. Tipler in their excellent book The Anthropic Cosmological
Principle [13] give an exhaustive survey of what they call the anthropic principle,
that there is life-giving at the centre of the whole machinery and design
of the world. The quantum arguments are dealt with as part of a range
of 'pointers', including the extraordinary properties of water and chlorophyll,
and the observations by many scientists that 'the possibility of our own
existences seem to hinge precariously upon the concidences between the
numerical values of the fundamental constants of nature' [14]. There is also a good examination
of the arguments in favour of a revival of a teleological approach (explanations
in terms of purpose), the importance of which has been eroded from the
primacy given to it by Aristotle.
2. Consciousness: an overview of current theories and debates
The study of consciousness has only recently become a respectable academic
pursuit, as shown by the number of recent books on the subject and the
establishment of the International Journal of Consciousness Studies
[15]. However, according to each researcher
and their background, the term consciousness is used in many different
ways, or with different emphases. Aspects of the human experience that
seem closely associated with consciousness include: awareness, will, perception,
thought, memory, intelligence, creativity, identity, and autonomy. A small
survey recently conducted at London Guildhall University amongst 27 participants
at a seminar, asking them to score eight of the above aspects of consciousness
with a mark from 0 to 10, stating that 0 was to be awarded to an aspect
considered to have no importance, 5 to have average importance, and 10
to be essential. Table 1 shows the results.
Aspect of
Consciousness |
Average
Score
0 to 10 |
Maximum
Score
0 to 10 |
Minimum
Score
0 to 10 |
| Perception |
8.30 |
10 |
0 |
| Awareness |
7.89 |
10 |
1 |
| Thought |
6.74 |
10 |
0 |
| Creativity |
6.44 |
10 |
0 |
| Will |
6.15 |
10 |
0 |
| Identity |
6.07 |
10 |
0 |
| Autonomy |
5.22 |
10 |
0 |
| Intelligence |
4.81 |
10 |
0 |
Table 1. Aspects of Consciousness
The small sample and the simplistic nature of the survey mean that one should
not read too much into the results, but it is interesting to note that perception
was rated the highest and intelligence the least important aspect of consciousness.
It is also interesting to note that at least one person in the group was
willing, for every category, to rate it essential, and at least one person
was willing, for every category except awareness, to rate it of no importance
at all. For the purposes of this paper it is also worth commenting on the
rating of creativity and autonomy as slightly above average importance.
A good introduction to the debates around consciousness is to be found in
Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained [16].
The over-optimistic title does not detract from the book, though it does
lead one to expect more than the Multiple Drafts Model for consciousness
that Dennett proposes. He gives a good historical review of the problems
of understanding consciousness, starting with the 'brain in a vat' analogy
and Descartes' mind-body dualism (also referred to as the 'ghost in the
machine'). Dennett's emphasis throughout is on perception (possibly vindicated
by the survey described above), though oddly, he avoids attempting a solution
of the 'qualia' problem (how are we to account for the redness of red for
example).
The problems with Descartes' view of consciousness is in the mind-body split
or dualism that it is based on. The dualistic view is not consistent with
classical physics, because for any perception to impinge on the mind there
must be a chain of energy transformations that reach from the material world
to the non-material (upward causation), and another chain from the mind
to the body (downward causation). Physics cannot conceive of the 'injection'
of a form of energy, however small, into a physical system from a non-physical
system. Upward causation, that is perception, is less problematic than downward
causation, or action derived from the will. However, Descartes proposes
a location in the brain where perceptions come together for the mind to
view them as a whole; this is done by some kind of homunculus. This Cartesian
theatre then presents us with the problems of a reasonable description of
the homunculus, and the danger of infinite regress: has the homunculus got
a homunculus within? (Like the lady who insisted that below the turtle that
supported Atlas it was 'turtles all the way down', are we to accept that
consciousness involves 'homunculi all the way in'?)
The problems of consciousness can be reduced to the two problems characterised
above as upward causation and downward causation, though this barely does
justice to the richness of debate both past and current. The problem of
upward causation in particular has a history of debate around the problem
of the holistic nature of our perceptions, often called the binding problem.
This is related to the problem of the Cartesian theatre, and has evolved
from the time of Descartes through the thinking of Hume and Kant, to the
modern psychological problem of binding. The debate around the downward
causation is even more problematic because there is much less agreement
about will than there is about perception.
While Dennett's emphasis on perception is to some extent reductionistic,
it is the work of Francis Crick that takes this to an extreme. His recent
book The Astonishing Hypothesis [17]
claims that all aspects of human experience, including consciousness, are
to be understood in terms of neuronal activity. This leads him to discuss
the neural correlates of perception, and to postulate that one day
we shall discover the neural correlate of consciousness itself. Crick tackles
head-on the qualia problem that Dennett avoids. Neither Crick and Dennett
have much time for chaos theory or for the notion that quantum-mechanical
effects are involved in consciousness. As such neither are of much relevance
to this paper, though I would argue that the work of such reductionists
are vital to healthy scientific debate, particularly because of their insistence
on rigorous laboratory experiment.
One could characterise the view of reductionists on consciousness as being
epi-phenomenal, i.e. it is a side-effect. The view of chaos theorists could
be described as emergent-phenomenal, i.e. that consciousness arises from
complex systems as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. An
epiphenomenon and an emergent phenomenon could be argued to be the same
thing, but it is useful to see a difference of emphasis in the two terms:
an epiphenomenon is to be largely dismissed, while an emergent phenomenon
is to be taken seriously as an explanation.
We have seen earlier that quantum theory presents a radically different
view of the universe than classical mechanics, and it is no surprise to
find that many thinkers on consciousness have sought to relate consciousness
to quantum theory. There is a growing sense that quantum indeterminacy may
allow a window in the deterministic universe for free will (downward causation),
and that quantum wholeness is directly related to the binding problem of
perception (upward causation). One of the chief protagonists of a quantum
mechanical view of consciousness is Roger Penrose. As a mathematician he
has been interested in the extent to which computers can prove mathematical
theorems. Building on the work of Gödel, a mathematician who demonstrated
the unprovability of a certain class of theorem, Penrose has argued that
computers are therefore unable to 'think' about a certain class of entities
that the human mind can. From this Penrose extrapolates a proposition that
mind is essentially non-computable, at least by our current technology.
Penrose devotes much of Shadows of the Mind [18]
to an explanation of the quantum (i.e. sub-atomic) world and the characteristics
of it that are also to be found in descriptions of mind. He then goes on
to explain how quantum coherence comprises a series of characteristics
of the quantum world translated into the classical world, for example in
superconductivity. He then argues that quantum effects must translate into
the 'classical' world of chemicals and neurons in the brain, and that these
give the window of indeterminacy required for manifestations of consciousness
such as free will. At this point he admits the dualistic position of his
argument (which has led to accusations of him being a 'Platonist'). He is
supported in his approach by neurologists and biologists in their discovery
of 'microtubules', structures within the neurons that could be the seat
of quantum coherence effects. Microtubules are also said to possibly increase
the connectivity within the brain, making it a far more complex mechanism
than its known 10 billion neurons and their connectivity would suggest.
David Bohm was a physicist who specialised in quantum mechanics, and is
also known for his search for profounder meanings, leading for example to
his conversations with the Indian spiritual teacher Krishnamurti. One of
his best-known books is Wholeness and the Implicate Order [19] in which he stresses his two main
concerns. Wholeness to Bohm is a fundamental philosophical problem, often
raised by researchers in consciousness as one of its most puzzling attributes
(mentioned previously as the binding problem). For Bohm, classical physics
is fragmentary, involving the interaction of discrete and separate parts;
relativity goes some way to proclaiming some kind of unity in its quest
for a unified field theory; while quantum mechanics shows the universe to
be a totality. Bohm's implicate order is not so much a theory in physics,
but a way of reading quantum mechanics or science in general. It proposes
an interrelatedness that can be understood by analogy with the hologram:
each small part of the holographic record contains the whole picture. Every
part of the universe is intersected by every other part (a result of quantum
theory), so in some sense every part of the universe 'knows' about every
other part. Bohm develops this theme throughout Wholeness and the Implicate
Order, and then relates it to the question of consciousness. He discusses
in depth the Cartesian dualism of mind and matter [20], which he feels can be resolved by
the idea that they have the implicate order in common. Bohm's thought is
subtle and complicated, but oddly enough has a passing resemblance to Dennett's
Multiple Drafts model.
Bohm's work is dense and sometimes appears to be contradictory. His emphasis
is on a holism, but also on an order, and it may be his emphasis
on order that leads him to revive Einstein's failed theory of hidden variables
to explain quantum indeterminacy. This aspect of his work has not been accepted
however.
Another researcher proposing links between quantum theory and consciousness
is Robert Jahn, a specialist in aerospace engineering until one of his students
requested permission to pursue a project to see if the mind could influence
a circuit board. Jahn thought the results would be negative but gave the
go-ahead anyway because of the pedagogical value of building the circuit
itself, which was a random-event generator. To Jahn's surprise the experiment
gave a small, though positive result. The experiment was well-enough defined
and carried out to cause Jahn to investigate further, resulting in a stream
of positive indications: an electronic circuit designed to give random fluctuations
about a mean can be influenced by the mind to record results above or below
the mean in quantities that were outside any statistical variation, though
by only small amounts. That Jahn pursued these studies eventually led to
his demotion, and the scepticism of the academic community, including journals
like Nature which refuse to publish his results. (Jahn comments wryly
that Nature's refusal was only partial: they would accept his article
if he could transmit it telepathically.)
Jahn attempts to explain the interaction of minds and circuit boards through
quantum mechanics, and elucidates on his theories in Margins of Reality:
The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (co-authored by Brenda
Dunne). Jahn's work is largely ignored by the other theorists who favour
a quantum explanation of consciousness, which is a shame, as he puts forward
many interesting and complimentary ideas. For example his evidence that
minds can reach out beyond the bodies that carry them, both in upward causation
(perception at a distance) and downward causation (manifestations of the
will at a distance), is linked in his work to the wave/particle duality.
Minds exhibit wave properties when interacting at a distance, and particle
properties when 'enclosed' within their bodies.
Dana Zohar's books, The Quantum Self [21]
and The Quantum Society [22]
explore quantum theory firstly as a range of metaphors, but also as evidence
for the holistic nature of the universe and the self. Her views derive partly
from quantum theory itself, and partly from interpretations leaning to the
mystical such as that of Bohm and that of Fritjof Capra [23] and Gary Zukav [24].
However, her interpretations are more accessible than Bohm's, less populist
and mystical than Capra's and Zukav's, and less radically paranormal than
Jahn's, which gives her work an appropriate stature to complement Penrose's
mathematical approach. Her approach to consciousness starts with the metaphors
of quantum theory, allowing for the discovery of more evidence of its involvement
with consciousness as they arise. She is not in favour of an interpretation
that revives the Cartesian dualism of mind/body, and leans towards the realist
approach. Penrose, less wary of dualism, is pursuing more directly the evidence,
including mathematical, biological and physical.
3. Creativity: the link with consciousness
Religions like Christianity and Buddhism are often criticised for an emphasis
on ethics and morality, in contrast to forms of religion that emphasise
celebration of the creative aspect of the universe. The three religions
of the Book show a view of the Creator as having finished his work in six
days, a description often compared to the Big Bang of modern physics: the
universe is 'wound up' and then proceeds to evolve according to its inherent
laws and tendencies. Pagan religions, and perhaps Hinduism, find a continuing
role for the creative principle, often allocating a particular god, or aspect
of the divine, to that role.
Western philosophers such as Descartes, Hume and Kant have however placed
considerable emphasis on the concept of imagination as central not only
to creativity but to our understanding of the world. The philosopher Mary
Warnock has had a life-long interest in the imagination, stating that its
cultivation should be the chief goal of education [25].
For Warnock, imagination is the key to perception and all our values, as
well as the driving principle behind creativity. In Imagination [26]
she charts the developments of our understanding of this faculty, from Descartes
through Kant and Hume and Schelling to Sartre and Wittgenstein. For Hume
imagination is linked to the everyday ability to receive an interrupted
and chaotic sequence of sensory impressions and derive from this a belief
in the continuous existence of objects. Using my terminology, this is an
anthropo-centric view, as distinguished from a view that there is
an existence of objects independent of us (the realist view, taken by Einstein,
and, oddly enough, Zohar). Hume postulates that from this belief follows
the independence and distinctness of objects. Kant calls this faculty the
transcendental imagination (because it is universal, and possibly related
to Plato's essences) to distinguish it from an empirical imagination, the
fiction-making power which varies from person to person. Warnock's work
has been to seek out the common ground in the different forms of imagination,
in particular the creative sense and the world-ordering sense.
Margaret Boden is another philosopher with an interest in imagination, but
in the narrower sense of creativity. Her work, based in computational psychology,
involves an investigation of creativity via attempt to simulate it with
computers. Her book The Creative Mind [27]
covers many aspects of research into creativity, especially those debates
around Artificial Intelligence. Her interest is not primarily with consciousness,
however, or the kind of world-ordering imagination of Warnock, but rather
in the emergent property arena, i.e. in chaos theory. She is editor of a
more recent volume called Dimensions of Creativity [28], which is a compilation of different types of analysis
of creativity, including papers by Simon Schaffer and Gerd Gigerenzer which
both stress that creativity cannot be separated from justification and authorisation.
Their point is that neither scientific discovery or artistic creativity
can be regarded as significant without a system of evaluation to give them
status.
In chapter 13 of The Quantum Self Danah Zohar turns to the link between
creativity and quantum theory. For her the main question in the creative
act is the selection of one outcome from all the possible outcomes, a process
that she associates with the collapse of the wave function: this is the
function of consciousness. One could see this as a special case of a quantum
interpretation of the creative world-ordering imagination of Kant and Hume.
From both the Hume/Kant tradition expounded by Warnock and the emerging
quantum consciousness position of Zohar et al. we can assert that consciousness
is at the heart of creativity. There are however two competing claims to
an explanation of creativity: chaos theory or quantum consciousness. As
outlined earlier, chaos theory describes both consciousness and creativity
in terms of emergent properties. The battle between the two systems of thought
will be fought out in an area of relevance to the electronic arts: artificial
life.
4. Automated Electronic Art
Since the 1950s artists and scientists have been experimenting with electronic
devices in the production of imagery, and more generally in the arts. Herbert
Franke and Ben Laposky used oscilloscopes to produce images, and were soon
amongst a number of computer art pioneers who began to use the digital computer
and its display screen or plotter. See fig. 2.
Fig.2 Oscillons
These developments are well documented in books such as Franke's Computer
Graphics - Computer Art [29], and Cynthia Goodman's Digital Visions [30]. The author looks at the use of programming
for artists and animators in a recent article in Leonardo [31], and the reader is also recommended the many articles by
Professor John Lansdown on algorithmic art from 1970 on. His own experiments
with algorithms for theatrical performances (including custard-pie fights)
are documented in an ACM paper [32], while a good overview is to be found in a recent paper
"Artificial Creativity: An Algorithmic Approach to Art" [33].
Evolutionary electronic art is a branch of algorithmic art that uses the
concepts of Darwinian evolution to generate family trees of images or forms
that are then selected by the artist for further breeding. Karl Simms [34] and William Latham [35] are two computer artists who have been working in this
field, and who have been extensively commented on by Margaret Boden. See
fig. 3 and fig.4.
| |
Fig.
3 The work of Karl Simms
Link
to Karl Simms's Website
|
The difficulties
with the work of both Simms and Latham lie in them having to make the
selections themselves: they have not been able to automate the aesthetic
survival function as a parallel to the natural survival function. This
problem has been avoided in the work of Harold Cohen, originally a successful
modern painter, who set out to incorporate his own rules of composition
into an artificial intelligence program called AARON.
If we recall the distinction made by Schaffer and Gigerenzer regarding
the creative act and its authorisation by society, then we can see that
the issue of design criteria or computable aesthetics becomes very important.
Latham's and Simms' work fails to include this aspect (not that this detracts
from their work: it merely means that there is an opportunity for further
research and development of their ideas). In evolutionary art the selection
mechanism becomes paramount. For other forms of automated art, such as
Cohen's, there must be algorithms at the outset that control design, composition
and aesthetics. The field of algorithmic aesthetics has its origins outside
of the electronic arts. Franke [36] gives a good introduction to the German thinkers in this
area, including Wilhelm Fuchs and Max Bense. Franke also relates the story
of how analysis of Mondrian's compositional rules by Michael Noll led
to a series of computer images that were found by a (selected!) audience
in a blind selection to be more attractive than the original [37].
Stiny and Gips suggest a computer-based aesthetic, giving as part of the
justification a quote from Knuth:
It has
often been said that a person doesn't really understand something until
he teaches it to someone else. Actually a person doesn't really understand
something until he can teach it to a computer, i.e. as an algorithm
[38].
Stiny and
Gips quote this in the context of aesthetics, but we can see from the
range of topics covered in this paper that are influenced by computing
that Knuth's insight is far-reaching. The simulation of creativity helps
us understand creativity, and the simulation of consciousness should help
us understand consciousness.
We are now approaching the point where we can ask what would be a totally
artificial art? Clearly it would involve computers and the simulation
of both a creative and a critical function. Cohen's work is based on his
ability to formalise his own compositional rules (though he looks beyond
his own aesthetics in the formulation of these rules): what is lacking
is the spontaneous generation of work beyond his own formulations. In
the evolutionary art of Latham and Simms we have the potential for an
infinite creativity, as images and forms mutate from generation to generation,
but we lack the automated aesthetics to select from them.
5. Artificial Consciousness and the Electronic Arts
Artificial Life or a-life for short, while not originating as an art-form,
has been explored as such by computer artists such as Steve Bell [39] and Clifford Pickover [40]. A-life has originated in the biological sciences as computing
power became available to them to simulate evolutionary algorithms, biological
behaviour, and eco-systems. By abstracting from the physical world simple
rules and constraints governing entities that live, breed, consume energy,
fight for resources, and die, biologists have programmed a-life systems
that have given them valuable insights into living systems. Steven Levy
[41] gives a good overview of the emergence of a-life, including
its applications and philosophical implications. A-life theory, as shown
in Levy's book, is firmly located in the debates around chaos and non-linear
systems: the attributes we normally associate with 'life' are seen as
emergent phenomenon. There has also been little attempt to endow a-life
entities with artificial creativity, perhaps because of an intuition that
the parallels between evolution and creativity are rather weak, as discussed
in some depth by David N. Perkins in Boden's Dimensions of Creativity
[42].
To date there seems to be only one serious attempt to create an artificially
conscious entity. This is the goal of Igor Aleksander at Imperial College,
where he has created an artificial neural net (ANN) called Magnus, designed
to be conscious in the sense of being able to tell us what it is like
to be Magnus [43]. Again, there has been no initial intention to make Magnus creative,
or to locate the work in the electronic arts. However, two computer animators,
Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann and Daniel Thalmann, in their quest for synthetic
actors have picked up on the work of Aleksander in the hope that it will
provide a missing element in their simulations: autonomy. In the Thalmanns'
book Artificial Life and Virtual Reality [44] Aleksander contributes an article called
"Artificial Consciousness?" [45] in which he sets out his emergent-phenomenon
position on consciousness, and, in contradiction to Penrose's non-computability
stance, give the mathematical background of his attempts to create an
ANN in which consciousness, in effect, grows out of complexity. Magnus
has only 16,000 neurons compared to the brain's 10 billion, so any failure
of Aleksander's venture can be explain in chaos theory terms as due to
a lack of complexity of the right order.
As we saw in table 1 autonomy may not be the most obvious attribute of
consciousness, and other researchers have taken a different approach in
simulating autonomy. Distributed computing, that is a model of computing
where the single processor is replaced by many, possibly arranged in an
artificial neural network, has required new approaches to writing software.
The development of autonomous programs is one solution, described in another
article in Artificial Life and Virtual Reality [46]. A further article in the same book gives an account
of how algorithms for autonomy are developing from work in artificial
intelligence [47].
The Thalmanns are the first to consider the use of artificial consciousness
in the electronic arts. For computer simulations to generate truly artificial
art, they will undoubtedly have to incorporate some aspects of consciousness;
creativity, intelligence, will, and autonomy. It may be that other aspects
such as identity, perception and awareness will also be essential, if
the artificial art is to have any status against human art, leading us
to the position that we require not just artificial life, but artificial
beings at least as complex as humans. This plunges us into the chaos versus
quantum debate: is mere complexity sufficient for artificial art to come
forth as an emergent property, or is a quantum dimension required? As
yet there are no attempts to deliberately introduce quantum indeterminacy
and holism into computer simulations, yet ironically the hardware that
our deterministic software runs on is based on quantum-mechanical effects
in the transistors of the digital microchips. Penrose seeks quantum-mechanical
effects in the microtubules in the brain; Jahn finds conscious interplay
between mind an electronic circuit-boards. Perhaps Aleksander is right:
just build the thing and consciousness will emerge.
6. Programmed == Damned
Programmed == Damned is a series of images by the author based around
the concept of an artificial being questioning its own autonomy. See figs.
6 - 11. The work is not artificial art in any strong sense of the term,
but takes its inspiration from many of the themes debated in this article.
The imagery
is created using a system called RaySculpt, a Windows programme derived
from an earlier modelling system called Sculptor [48] and a ray-tracer written by Richard Wright. The system
is partly a test-bed for user interface design [49]
(including methods for navigating parameter space [50]), and partly a means for personal artistic expression.
The series of images are loosely based on the journey of an artificial
being from a state of mild disturbance through a partial recovery to a
state of catatonic schizophrenia total shut down. The artificial being,
called Maxine, is imagined to be a descendent of Aleksander's Magnus.
7. Conclusions
The attempt to hand over part of the creative act to machinery has a long
tradition going back to musical compositions based on the throwing of
nails [51]. Algorithmic art
on digital computers represents a substantial move in this direction,
while progress in AI, a-life, and artificial autonomy bring together more
of the components of a truly artificial art. In the context of chaos theory,
no radically new developments are required to reach this goal: only a
certain level of complexity. However, in the context of quantum theory
and proponents of quantum consciousness as the ultimate creative principle
in the universe, artificial consciousness is, at present, the missing
ingredient. Some of the best thinkers of our time believe that this is
non-computable, but if it were (perhaps with technology not yet dreamed
of) quantum mechanics would not just have restored to us an anthropo-centric
universe, but also a cyber-centric one.
References
[1] Gleick, J. Chaos: Making
a New Science, London: Abacus, 1994, p.6
[2] Barrow, John D. and Tipler,
Frank J., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford: Clarendon
Press 1986
[3] Zohar, Danah, The Quantum
Self, London: Flamingo, 1991
[4] Underhill, E. Mysticism
- The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness, Oneworld
Publications, Oxford, UK, 1993 .
[5] Huxley, A. The Perennial
Philosophy, Chatto and Windus, London, 1950
[6] Gleick, J. Chaos: Making
a New Science, London: Abacus, 1994.
[7] De Landa, M., War in
the Age of Intelligent Machines, New York: Swerve Editions, 1991.
[8] Bohm, D. Wholeness and
the Implicate Order, London: Ark Paperbacks (Routledge), 1980
[9] Wheeler, J.A., At Home
in the Universe, The American Institute of Physics, 1995.
[10] Wilber, Ken, Quantum
Questions - Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists, Boston
and London: Shambhala, 1985, pp. 33 - 38.
[11] Peter Lennon, "Science's
new God Sqad", The Guardian, May 3rd 1995.
[12] Peter Holland "Conjurors
of Conjecture" The Times Higher, May 12th 1995
[13] Barrow, John D. and Tipler,
Frank J., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford: Clarendon
Press 1986.
[14] Gleick, J. Chaos: Making
a New Science, London: Abacus, 1994, p. xi (paraphrased)
[15] Journal of Consciousness
Studies - controversies in the sciences and humanities, Thorverton
UK: Imprint Academic
[16] Dennet, Daniel C., Consciousness
Explained, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1991
[17] Crick, Francis, The
Astonishing Hypothesis - The Scientific Search for the Soul, Simon
and Schuster, 1994
[18] Penrose, Roger, Shadows
of the Mind - A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, Oxford
University Press, 1994
[19] Bohm, D. Wholeness and
the Implicate Order, London: Ark Paperbacks (Routledge), 1980
[20] Bohm, D. Wholeness and
the Implicate Order, London: Ark Paperbacks (Routledge), 1980, p.
196 onwards.
[21] Barrow, John D. and Tipler,
Frank J., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford: Clarendon
Press 1986
[22] Zohar, Danah and Ian Marshall,
The Quantum Society, London: Bloomsbury, 1993
[23] Capra, Fritjof, The
Tao of Physics, London: Flamingo, 1992 (3rd edition)
[24] Zukav, Gary The Dancing
Wu Li Masters London: Fontana, 1979
[25] Warnock, Mary, Imagination,
London: Faber, 1980, p.9
[26] Warnock, Mary, Imagination,
London: Faber, 1980.
[27] Boden, Margaret, The
Creative Mind, London: Abacus, 1990
[28] Boden, Margaret, Dimensions
of Creativity, Cambridge, Mass., London: MIT Press, 1994.
[29] Franke, H. W. Computer
Graphics - Computer Art, London: Phaidon, 1971.
[30] Goodman, C. Digital
Visions, Abrams, New York, 1988.
[31] King, M.R., "Programmed
Graphics in Computer Art and Animation", in Leonardo, 28,
No. 2, pp. 113 - 121, 1995.
[32] Lansdown, John, 'Computer
art for theatrical performance', in Proceedings ACM International Computing
Symposium, ACM, Bonn, pp. 718-735
[33] Lansdown, John, 'Artificial
creativity: An algorithmic approach to art', in Beardon, Colin (Ed.) Digital
Creativity, University of Brighton, 1995, pp. 31-35.
[34] Sims, Karl, "Artificial
Evolution for Computer Graphics" in Computer Graphics Vol
25, No 4, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 1991, pp. 319
- 328.
[35] Todd, S. and Latham, W.
Evolutionary Art and Computers, Academic Press, 1992
[36] Warnock, Mary, Imagination,
London: Faber, 1980, pp. 106 - 118
[37] Warnock, Mary, Imagination,
London: Faber, 1980, p. 113
[38] Stiny and Gips, Algorithmic
Aesthetics - Computer Models for Criticism and Design in the Arts,
Berkely, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1978, p.
6
[39] Bell, Stephen, "Creative
Participatory Behaviour in a Programmed World", in Leonardo
Vol. 28, No. 3, 1995, pp 171-176
[40] Pickover, C.A., Computers,
Pattern, Chaos, and Beauty, Stroud: Sutton, 1990.
[41] Levy, S., Artificial
Life - The Quest for a New Creation, London: Jonathon Cape, 1992
[42] Perkins, David N. "Creativity:
Beyond the Darwinian Paradigm" in Boden, M. (Ed.) Dimensions
of Creativity, Cambridge, Mass., London: MIT Press, 1994.
[43] Patel, Kam "Matter
over mind for mighty Magnus", Times Higher Education Supplement,
6th March 1994
[44] Magnenat Thalmann, Nadia
and Thalmann, Daniel, Artificial Life and Virtual Reality, John
Wiley and Sons, 1994.
[45] Magnenat Thalmann, Nadia
and Thalmann, Daniel, Artificial Life and Virtual Reality, John
Wiley and Sons, 1994, pp. 73 - 81
[46] Magnenat Thalmann, Nadia
and Thalmann, Daniel, Artificial Life and Virtual Reality, John
Wiley and Sons, 1994, pp. 84 - 95
[47] Magnenat Thalmann, Nadia
and Thalmann, Daniel, Artificial Life and Virtual Reality, John
Wiley and Sons, 1994, pp. 97 - 114
[48] King, M.R., "Sculptor:
A Three-Dimensional Computer Sculpting System", in Leonardo,
24, No. 4 (383-387) 1991.
[49] King, M.R. "Syntax
Channelling and Other Issues affecting Innovation in the Graphical User
Interface" in Computer Graphics Forum, Eurographics 1995
[50] King, M.R. "Manipulating
Parameters for Algorithmic Image Generation" in Beardon, Colin (Ed.)
Digital Creativity, University of Brighton, 1995.
[51] Lansdown, John, 'Artificial
creativity: An algorithmic approach to art', in Beardon, Colin (Ed.) Digital
Creativity, University of Brighton, 1995, p.31
|
|
