= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bgrah449 comments on Bizarre Illusions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (305)
That's not related.
If you took away everyone's knowledge of English, and someone laid King Lear at your feet, what would you do with that? The fact that art is rooted in culture and context, some of which is the result of stochastic processes, does not mean you're dealing in bullshit.
I would be very surprised to discover that a King Lear in an unfamiliar language had been produced by an ape. I am not surprised by hoaxes like this. I think that is indicative of a meaningful difference.
From the link:
Emphasis added to indicate flaw in experimental protocol.
Edit: This point is much weaker than it appears at first glance. See responses.
I would still be surprised if the monkey King Lear was chosen as the very best of the monkey's literary oeuvre.
Yeah, you're right - odds of a monkey producing a King Lear to choose are quite low.
Yeah, I noticed that too. I felt that it was still a valid test of critics' ability to interpret art considering that most artists will do the same thing with their collection before entering an exhibition.
And, on reflection, selection is a very weak form of optimization.
That's a far cry away from "eventually re-recogniz[ing] the same works as being good, with the same relative merit, for the same reasons."
Erasing everyone's knowledge of English is a far cry from erasing their knowledge of "what the kewl kids had classified as 'good art'".
? Was this supposed to be a separate reply to my earlier comment? I think it brings up a valid point, but looks a bit like a non-sequitur where it's at now.
It's a reference to that earlier comment, which is its great-grandparent, but also a direct reply to its parent. I think it makes sense if you read the full thread.
But it does mean that the writing of King Lear is less of an epistemic achievement than, say, the laws of physics, which are not dependent on a particular species' form of communication.
If King Lear is (claimed to be) a good work, given a certain language (humanity? evolutionary history? political history?), does the recognition of its supposed greatness survive deletion of the knowledge about what the kewl kids think is great?
If people continued to speak English, but King Lear fell out of fashion and later was found, but disconnected from anyone's recommendation, would people still decide it was better than most other works? Would they decide it for the same reason?
Do children spontaneously flock to King Lear at a certain age, even when it's not recommended to them by a True Literary Authority?
Of course not. It doesn't even come with 3D special effects!