4 ms·
From what I know about the brain, it is more of a prediction machine than anything else, based on prior input. It seems reasonable for the majority to be unconc
by telesilla 4y ago
From what I know about the brain, it is more of a prediction machine than anything else, based on prior input. It seems reasonable for the majority to be unconcerned with what cannot be reasonably predicted, and as the article states, for artists to imagine possible futures on our behalf.
- pixl97 4y agoI'd say two things. Filter and predict. Both of these things are done to conserve energy and survive.
- pmichaud 4y agoMy guess is that filtering is downstream of prediction, because filtering is making a prediction about which input will be useful, then acting on that prediction.
- theptip 4y agoI think the Predictive Processing model would describe it as each layer only signaling “surprisal” to the layer above when the input diverges from the prediction. You could call this filtering if you like, or just an efficient delta representation.
- hypertele-Xii 4y agoArtists aren't limited to possible futures though, I'd encourage more of them to imagine the impossible, as well.
- coldtea 4y agoThe impossible as opposed to the merely not plausible, isn't really alluring for art, as it's neither a depiction of what's there (art as mirror), nor a warning (artist as Cassandra or sensitive guard), and not even a call to arms (art as politics, utopia). In other words, it doesn't relate to the artist and us. It only relates when there's a thread that connects what's imagined to where we are, where we might be, or where we want to go.
- lostmsu 4y agoObviously false statement, given the genre of fiction. Also, objective impossible is wildly different from any individual subjective one.
- coldtea 4y ago>Obviously false statement, given the genre of fiction. Obviously we are aware of the genre of fiction. Or science fiction for that matter. Or superhero comics, or supernatural stories, and so on. So my point wasn't that e.g. vampire fiction doesn't exist or isn't interesting to writers and reader. But nothing in the genre of fiction is really about the impossible. That is just metaphor and plot device for what was, is, or can be. If there's a superhero with laser eyes and super-strength, it's not about the superhero, but about the idea of heroism, the responsibility of power, the connections with people, the repercusions of actions, and so on. It's the connection with the existing and the possible that makes it interesting. The non-realistic part is just background.
- lostmsu 4y agoArt is background. Without background Romeo and Juliet is just "love could be a strong feeling", and Back to the Future is "time travel has an unsolved grandfather paradox".
- coldtea 4y agoYou got it backwards here. The heart of the art is in the intra-personal conflicts and human aspect observations, and the skeleton is the plot. The background is just (literally) a backdrop. Which is why you can set Romeo and Juliet in 20th century America, or Antigone in space - as many have done, and the heart of the work is still there just fine.
- lostmsu 4y ago> The heart of the art is in the intra-personal conflicts and human aspect observations, and the skeleton is the plot. Precisely what makes it art is the background though. > The background is just (literally) a backdrop. Which is why you can set Romeo and Juliet in 20th century America, or Antigone in space - as many have done, and the heart of the work is still there just fine. Yeah, and I even told you what the heart is.