Artificial Stupidity (AS)

I’m wondering if an attempt to model irrationality, in programatic structures, can yield any insights into thought.

I’m pretty sure that thought is very different to software programs… but that doesn’t matter. Its just an attempt to express an understanding of irrationality. This is not academic. It is creative. Its just wild curious speculation. It is unfounded and I am ignorant of other attempts to do anything similar … nor am I all that interested to discover if someone else has done something similar. Here goes …

No one has programmed thought, so as thought progresses it must not know what the next step is. I suspect that the next step is actually determined by the results of the current step. There’s my first hypothesis. Thought moves dynamically towards its destination. Ultimately, all programs are procedural. Thought is not. After each processing step, the destination is (kind-of) re-evaluated. So I’ll express these ideas thus (I’m using a kind-of rubby-ish syntax):

while (there is at least one need) {
	all_known_functions.each { |nextFunction|
		result = nextFunction.process( newObservation )
		allNeeds.each { |need|
			if (result serves need) then move this need to the front of the need list // i.e. keep this need as central ... keep thinking about it
			else if (result threatens need) then discard newObservation // i.e. think about something else
			else process the next need // i.e. thought just moves on

I will refine the above, as time goes on. But let me try and speculate on the implications of such a structure:

  1. a thought can only serve one need
  2. when a need is served, thought stays on that track (i.e. that need stays at the top of the list)
  3. when a need is not served, but rather threatened, the thought is discarded. The aim of thought is to satisfy needs, there’s no point in going down a path where the need is threatened. So thought thinks about something else.
  4. when there are no needs, there is no thought (that’s one for the Buddhists 🙂 )
  5. contradictory needs can perfectly well co-exist, but the linear path that thought will take will get bumped and pushed from side to side as each contradictory need is satisfied or denied by each thought and raised to the top of the current need stack.

And that last point, point number 6 attempts to explain the difference between a debate and a dialectic. The person who collapses into a debate will have a need to convince the other of their opinion (for whatever reason) … and this is a need which will conflict with the need to find the truth about a particular matter. That bumping and pushing and shuffling of the currently active need (the need at the top of the list) is what I am speculating creates irrationality. In other words, contradictory needs create irrationality.

What does this have to do with spatial audio composition you might ask?

Xenakis’ compositional intent was essentially a reflection of his understanding of the world. He used science to make observations of the world which he then generalised into structures that he applied to sound. My understanding of the world centres around human thought, not science. And so I am attempting to generalise this understanding into some structures that I can apply to sound. It may not lead to anything … but if it does, I have a name for it already: Neurotic Synthesis 🙂

This entry was posted in artificial stupidity. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Artificial Stupidity (AS)

  1. Pingback: Artificial Stupidity 0.2 | Etienne Deleflie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s