No More Suffering: technology, art and the connection between human beings

There’s a lot of talk about the difference between seeing a “real” person and seeing an AI-generated image. But what about the difference between enjoying a live band and experiencing the installation “The Visitors” by visual-technological artist Ragnar Kjartansson?

The installation was on show at the exhibition Não Sofra Mais, at the Monastery of Santa Clara a Nova in Coimbra and closed this weekend.

It consists of eight videos, each showing a musician playing his instrument; the musicians are in different rooms; these rooms are part of the same house. In a ninth video you can see the house from the outside, a part of the garden of the house; on the balcony people are singing.

The videos are arranged in a large room, four on each side and the ninth in the background. You can walk around the room and stop to watch each musician separately or simply choose a spot to stand and watch/listen. All the sounds are heard together, because all the musicians in the videos are playing the same music. Why then is this fascinating? Isn’t it the same experience as listening to a live band?

What Ragnar managed to do, in my perception, was to show what our bodies are capable of when we listen to music. Music moves us and there, literally, in front of that installation, everyone moved. They walked, they stopped, they got emotional, they danced and, at the end, when the musicians met in a single scene, in a single video, in the same room, the audience gathered together, everyone in front of the same video. Then, when the musicians left that video to appear in the ninth video, outside the house, people literally walked around the room “following” the musicians. At this point, some viewers were already singing the song they sing in the videos.

People walked together after watching the scenes for minutes, each looking at those details that interested them most.

At a concert or show, the audience tends to be limited in movement by both space and circumstance; this is part of the traditional ritual of listening and watching the performance. Ragnar, in contrast, has set the audience to move. The musicians, of course, move too, and while they play you can realise how playing an instrument involves full body movements. One of them even prefers to play inside a bathtub, sometimes resting his guitar on a wooden stand.

But, among several sensations awakened, what I felt most different and special – besides the beauty of the videos and the idea of the installation, very well constructed – was the following: the fact that this work of art promotes the movement of the public among the musicians / videos. People end up walking around the other listeners/spectators, and then we realise that we are not spectators, but part of the whole context. The scene comes to life precisely when those who watch it move and follow the musicians’ movements, with their whole bodies.

Just as they are each in their own room playing their instruments, we are living our lives individually. But we are individual-collective beings. We do not exist without coexisting, but we can only coexist if we exist individually.

The installation thus reminds us of life itself; we are passers-by taking care of our own corners and paths, but we cross each other’s roads and thus affect each other. We are each other’s path. We each play a part of the music, or contribute with an instrument, a note, a layer. But in the end, we are part of the same symphony, all in tune, even if sometimes, isolated in our corners or rooms of our “homes”, we do not realise it.

Paradoxes:

Stop suffering, you are not alone.

Realise that suffering is part of it and you are alone….

Another brick in the wall

Foi publicado num dossiê temático da Revista Perspectiva Filosófica um ensaio meu intitulado “Another brick in the wall – Threats to Our Autonomy as Sense-Makers When Dealing With Machine Learning Systems”. A tradução em português (que acabou saindo um pouquinho diferente na revista) seria algo “Mais um tijolo na parede – Ameaças à Nossa Autonomia como Sense-Makers quando lidamos com sistemas de aprendizagem de máquina”.

Ter esse ensaio publicado significa muito. Não somente porque uma publicação acadêmica é sempre algo de muito valor para nós que batalhamos para tocar as nossas pesquisas para a frente, mas porque nele eu elaboro uma parte importante do argumento que está presente na minha tese. Ela foi já entregue à banca e a defesa será em janeiro de 2023. Também é uma publicação importante porque está numa edição especial da revista que é dedicada à Fenomenologia, à Cognição e à Afetividade – justamente os temas tratados na minha tese. E, como se não bastassem todos esses motivos de alegria, meu trabalho está publicado ao lado de outros assinados por grandes pesquisadores nessas áreas.

Para quem não conhece bem os trâmites, publicar um artigo numa revista cientifica exige escrever e submeter o trabalho à avaliação anônima de pareceristas que podem ou não aprová-lo para ser publicado. Podem também aprovar, porém sob a condição de que o autor faça certas modificações. Eu recebi sugestões ótimas para o meu, e procurei acatar todas as que achei pertinentes, num processo que foi muito rico para mim.

Optei por escrever o ensaio em inglês porque quis abri-lo a pesquisadores consagrados que não falam português. Porque quis me inserir num debate que está ainda mais forte fora do Brasil. Mas explico as ideias ali presentes na tese, até com mais detalhes, e em breve quero fazer uma tradução dele para postar aqui no blog.

Agradeço a todos que me apoiaram para que essa publicação acontecesse e à Revista Perspectiva Filosófica pela oportunidade e privilégio de estar nesse dossiê. Para ler a revista e o artigo:

REVISTA COMPLETA CLIQUE AQUI

LER DIRETO O ENSAIO CLIQUE AQUI

Are robots the teachers of the future?

Are robots the teachers of the future? Are we going to lose (all) our jobs to artificial intelligence machines? Is the Digital Singularity human’s inescapable future?
 
These questions are on the cutting edge when it comes to the relationship between human cognition and digital technologies. Hence, they also affect the way we glimpse the future of education. These subjects are closely related to questions about the human cognitive system: how do we perceive the world? How do we learn? What makes us cognizers, in the deepest sense of the term? How do we experience the world we inhabit?
 
Our close relationship with technologies transmutes us into cyborgs, according to the philosopher Andy Clark, author of Natural born Cyborgs (2003) and one of the developers of the Extended Mind Thesis. Clark’s thesis advocates that humans extend their cognitive systems through technologies, not only digital but of all kinds. And this ability to integrate these artifacts into our cognitive circuitry, linked to our capacity to transform the environment and be altered by it, would be some of the main elements to distinguish us from other animals. As natural beings, we are in a continuous circular movement with nature, its creatures, plants, all living beings. This connection between experience and nature is part of the philosophy of John Dewey and some ideas that resemble his are also present in the theses of philosophers like Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Hubert Dreyfus. They hold that we are much more than computer-like processing machines, defending that there is much more to human cognition than information processing. Or, as the philosopher Alva Noë and the psychologist James Gibson would say, perception and action cannot be segregated, because we act in order to perceive: without action, there would be no perception at all. This perspective is connected to the enactive cognition approach, one of the contemporary research lines linked to cognition and the human mind.
 
The extended and the enactive cognitive approaches show we are far from being replaceable by robots. Unless artificial intelligence machines become more than input-output information crunchers, they will not be able to simulate some of the most important features of human cognition, and it will be hard for them to substitute us in a range of activities in which our experience is irreplaceable. In what concerns teaching and learning, emotions are a fundamental part of the process – according to philosophers like Dreyfus and the neuroscientist António Damásio, author of Descartes’ Error and The Strange Order of Things. Robots don’t have feelings. Therefore, machines are not able to actually learn anything. So, we could ask: are “creatures” not able to learn skilled to teach? Unless they become sentient, conscious creatures, these systems will probably not be able to become teachers, and will remain, at best, auxiliaries to teaching. So, as these features remain far from reality concerning A.I., we can give a shot at the question in the first paragraph of this text: robots may be the teachers of a distant future, but they are certainly not able to replace our teachers in the present.
 
Some references for those who want to read more: