mattnewport comments on Bizarre Illusions - Less Wrong

11 Post author: MrHen 27 January 2010 06:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (305)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: mattnewport 28 January 2010 08:37:27PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: RobinZ 28 January 2010 09:51:46PM *  1 point [-]

From the link:

After Peter had created a number of paintings, Axelsson chose what he considered to be the four best and arranged to have them exhibited in an art show at the Christina Gallery.

Emphasis added to indicate flaw in experimental protocol.

Edit: This point is much weaker than it appears at first glance. See responses.

Comment author: mattnewport 28 January 2010 10:03:00PM 1 point [-]

I would still be surprised if the monkey King Lear was chosen as the very best of the monkey's literary oeuvre.

Comment author: RobinZ 28 January 2010 10:06:23PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, you're right - odds of a monkey producing a King Lear to choose are quite low.

Comment author: MrHen 28 January 2010 09:57:37PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: RobinZ 28 January 2010 10:01:39PM 0 points [-]

And, on reflection, selection is a very weak form of optimization.

Comment author: bgrah449 28 January 2010 08:45:51PM 0 points [-]

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."

Comment author: mattnewport 28 January 2010 08:49:43PM 0 points [-]

Erasing everyone's knowledge of English is a far cry from erasing their knowledge of "what the kewl kids had classified as 'good art'".

Comment author: bgrah449 28 January 2010 09:07:58PM 0 points [-]

? 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.

Comment author: mattnewport 28 January 2010 09:12:56PM 0 points [-]

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.