blingee by L.M.
Could an artwork actually function as an empirical experiment to study consciousness? If so, the viewer would be simultaneously situated as both the subject of the experiment and the scientific observer. This might sound fishy from a scientific perspective, seeing as the scientific method is structured specifically in order to bracket subjectivity off from observation. But scientists who study consciousness are faced with the epistemological problem that consciousness can only be directly observed by the subject who is conscious.
Even if we set aside the problem of AI, the science of consciousness is particularly challenged in the pursuit of empirical evidence. Because we cannot directly experience another’s conscious state, even neuroscientists using MRI are forced to rely on self-report, meaning that subjects tell the observers how they feel, and the observers then correlate that information with the imaging data they collect. And of course this only works for humans. Monkeys provide the most detailed imaging data on neurons and synapses because invasive experiments are done with them that aren't done with humans. But monkeys can’t tell the scientists how they think or feel. So there is another order of correlation going on, which is that between less precise MRI imaging in humans and more precise imaging in monkeys. Much of what neuroscientists understand about the fine structures of the brain are based on inter-species extrapolations. To add to the complexity of the problem, even within species, as Gerald Edelman points out, “no two brains are identical, even those of identical twins.” Gerald Edelman, Second Nature: Brain Science and Human Knowledge, 2006. pg.28
No two brains are identical, not even a monkey and a scratch monkey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scratch_monkey
I just like saying "scratch monkey".
This is a tangential and maybe underdeveloped thought, but do you think that the recent contemporary art interest in animals and art about/with animals might be related to this inter-species investigation into consciousness? I'm thinking of that Power Plant show or Duke and Battersby's "Beauty Plus Pity" installation with all the taxidermied animals and how they both seem kind of preoccupied with death and watching changes in consciousness (from alive and conscious to dead and unconscious) through animals - but sort of in a selfish way, where it's all in the name of furthering understanding of human experience.
Hey Gabby, that's a really interesting question. The two are definitely associated in my mind but I'm still trying to work out exactly how. As I've mentioned elsewhere, neuroscience is a big craze these days, and while I'm obviously into it, I find aspects of the trend unnerving. I keep thinking about this quote from Stephen Jay Gould, in The Mismeasure of Man (pg. 28)
"...resurgences of biological determinism correlate with episodes of political retrenchment, particularly with campaigns for reduced government spending on social programs, or at times of fear among ruling elites, when disadvantaged groups sow serious social unrest or threaten to usurp power."
I do connect the current artworld interest in animals with an interest in considering the human as animal. But of course in the context of posthuman discourse (influenced by climate change) this also has really exciting potential and feels like an important thing to explore. It's all a bit tricky. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on it.
Scratch Monkey! I had no idea.
This from The Scratch Monkey Story (1987), cited as a source in the wikipedia article Rob linked to.
The Digital Field Service engineer came in, removed the disk from the drive, figured it was then okay to remove the tape and make the drive writeable, and proceeded to put a scratch disk into the drive and run diagnostics which wrote to that drive.
Well, diagnostics for disk drives are designed to shake up the equipment. But monkey brains are not designed to handle the electrical signals they received. You can imagine the convulsions that resulted. Two of the monkeys were stunned, and three died. The Digital engineer needed to be calmed down; he was going to call the Humane Society. This became known as the Great Dead Monkey Project, and it leads of course to the aphorism I use as my motto: You should not conduct tests while valuable monkeys are connected, so "Always mount a scratch monkey."
Yike!
|
blingee by L.M.
Could an artwork actually function as an empirical experiment to study consciousness? If so, the viewer would be simultaneously situated as both the subject of the experiment and the scientific observer. This might sound fishy from a scientific perspective, seeing as the scientific method is structured specifically in order to bracket subjectivity off from observation. But scientists who study consciousness are faced with the epistemological problem that consciousness can only be directly observed by the subject who is conscious.
Even if we set aside the problem of AI, the science of consciousness is particularly challenged in the pursuit of empirical evidence. Because we cannot directly experience another’s conscious state, even neuroscientists using MRI are forced to rely on self-report, meaning that subjects tell the observers how they feel, and the observers then correlate that information with the imaging data they collect. And of course this only works for humans. Monkeys provide the most detailed imaging data on neurons and synapses because invasive experiments are done with them that aren't done with humans. But monkeys can’t tell the scientists how they think or feel. So there is another order of correlation going on, which is that between less precise MRI imaging in humans and more precise imaging in monkeys. Much of what neuroscientists understand about the fine structures of the brain are based on inter-species extrapolations. To add to the complexity of the problem, even within species, as Gerald Edelman points out, “no two brains are identical, even those of identical twins.” Gerald Edelman, Second Nature: Brain Science and Human Knowledge, 2006. pg.28
- sally mckay 7-16-2010 3:37 pm
No two brains are identical, not even a monkey and a scratch monkey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scratch_monkey
I just like saying "scratch monkey".
- rob (guest) 7-16-2010 10:47 pm
This is a tangential and maybe underdeveloped thought, but do you think that the recent contemporary art interest in animals and art about/with animals might be related to this inter-species investigation into consciousness? I'm thinking of that Power Plant show or Duke and Battersby's "Beauty Plus Pity" installation with all the taxidermied animals and how they both seem kind of preoccupied with death and watching changes in consciousness (from alive and conscious to dead and unconscious) through animals - but sort of in a selfish way, where it's all in the name of furthering understanding of human experience.
- Gabby (guest) 7-17-2010 4:07 pm
Hey Gabby, that's a really interesting question. The two are definitely associated in my mind but I'm still trying to work out exactly how. As I've mentioned elsewhere, neuroscience is a big craze these days, and while I'm obviously into it, I find aspects of the trend unnerving. I keep thinking about this quote from Stephen Jay Gould, in The Mismeasure of Man (pg. 28)
I do connect the current artworld interest in animals with an interest in considering the human as animal. But of course in the context of posthuman discourse (influenced by climate change) this also has really exciting potential and feels like an important thing to explore. It's all a bit tricky. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on it.- sally mckay 7-18-2010 1:19 am
Scratch Monkey! I had no idea.
Yike!This from The Scratch Monkey Story (1987), cited as a source in the wikipedia article Rob linked to.
- sally mckay 7-18-2010 1:20 am