7 ms·
No. But there are things besides money and math. Like photography!
by VMG 7y ago
No. But there are things besides money and math. Like photography!
- kragen 7y agoI thought the point of photography was primarily so that you (people, in general, not necessarily just you individually) could look at the photos, i.e., experience them consciously, and secondarily to consciously experience the process of photography itself. But perhaps you have a different reason for considering photography worthwhile, other than the conscious experience of the photographs and of the photography process? Or do you consider photography to be a good-in-itself, even if nobody ever sees the photos or experiences the process of taking them?
- Koshkin 7y agoI just like the smell of the chemicals (yes, I know).
- fao_ 7y ago> i.e., experience them consciously, and secondarily to consciously experience the process of photography itself. > other than the conscious experience of the photographs and of the photography process? Is there a way of unconsciously experiencing these things?
- Retric 7y agoSure, various systems can use photographs to automatically do useful stuff like pea sorting even if a person is never aware of individual photos.
- kragen 7y agoThat sounds like a means to making money, not a viable third alternative.
- Retric 7y agoIt’s not just cheaper products, self driving cars are another advantage to machines taking and interpreting their own photos. Extend this to asteroid tracking and it may be the difference between human survival and extinction.
- kragen 7y agoAgain, you are offering ways that photography can be a useful means to an end that we previously accept as good for other reasons, not ways that photography can be a good in itself. Suppose the humans were already extinct; would you then consider it a good in itself for machines to be taking and interpreting photos? Would you set up a video camera with a solar panel in a park, endlessly taking 60 photos per second, then deleting them, because photography is good even if nobody looks at it and it produces nothing else outside of itself? I am fond of the humans and so I would like them to survive, but only because that is a means for them to be conscious, at least in some cases.
- Retric 7y agoEfficiency can turn something from useless to useful, which means the outcome is not inherently useful. Thus if photography is required and the only thing that makes it possible then it as a means becomes and end to it's self. Consider, in a pure nitrogen environment animals will suffocate under no great distress. The goal has become separated from the result.
- VMG 7y agoHigher quality affordable lenses yield more conscious enjoyment of photographs. Hence the question of economic applicability.
- kragen 7y agoYour comment seems to be an attempt to answer my questions, but I can't figure out how it relates to them. Do you have a different reason for considering photography worthwhile, other than the conscious experience of the photographs and of the photography process? Or do you consider photography to be a good-in-itself, even if nobody ever sees the photos or experiences the process of taking them?
- valesco 7y agoPhotography can be likened to painting, it's a form of art.