X-Message-Number: 11532 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: one more reply to Mike Perry: on just what is poetry Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:21:07 +1000 (EST) To Mike Perry: You are simply repeating what you said before. That's hardly an argument. There are two questions involved in a computer which might write poetry. (And I will point out that programs that write poetry have already been written, so this is hardly an unreal issue). The first question is whether the verbal output produced is really poetry. It seems to me that some third party (human or otherwise) might respond to it as poetry, quite easily. Whether or not you demand the source of that poetry also be conscious of its nature as poetry depends more or less on your definition. You may recall the experiments with chimpanzee painting. Chimpanzees very likely do have some awareness themselves, and may even have some simple aesthetic responses. But when we ourselves see a chimpanzee's paintings, we probably respond much more deeply than the chimpanzee. So is the chimp an artist or not? And are its paintings art? Or just some natural production in the world, like a landscape or a cloud formation, which excites our own aesthetic feelings? (And note especially that we quite specifically DO NOT call a beautiful piece of rock a sculpture, even though it does excite our aesthetic feelings). And the second issue is that of whether or not the computer producing poetry has any feelings for what it has produced. If that computer is supposed to be conscious just as we are conscious, then it really should have such feelings. If it does not and is not conscious (in our terms) in the first place, then in analogy with the rock above we have no special reason to call its output poetry, even though it excites our own feelings. Since we are discussing definitions here, you have a perfect right to DEFINE such output as poetry. You will naturally also have to define beautiful rock formations as sculpture, to be consistent. And so far as I can see, such a definition won't get you into trouble, so long as you use it consistently. You might find yourself saying some odd things, but that really isn't relevant. As for mathematics, I would argue the same way. Yes, mathematics, unlike any empirical science, has means by which mathematicians may decide whether or not its theorems are "true" (though truth is far more slippery than most would admit, and even now has produced different schools as to what should be thought "true"). But if you've ever done math, you will notice that truth is hardly enough to make a theorem worthwhile; it must somehow satisfy other urges, and it is at that point that our feelings become involved. (And this remains true even for APPLIED math, too). Best and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11532