words like 'artifactuality' (sounds like arty-farty') at all. And
given there is a deep question lots will just trot out the usual 'god
business' and secular equivalents as though producing a rabbit from
the hat will do - in a manner that suggests artifactuality is beyond
most and a chimp with a paintbrush is all we can hope for (or a mad
artist equivalent). And how one longs to be able to say, 'Very
artifactual Chris (add to taste), it's your round'!
On Oct 17, 2:23 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Intentional agency is not limited to human beings. For example, in a
> recent experiment a New Caledonian crow called Betty bent a piece of
> straight wire into a hook and used it to lift a bucket containing food
> from a vertical pipe (Weir at al., 2002). The action required for the
> solution of Betty's problem, bending a metal wire into the form of a
> hook, was quite "unnatural", and apparently an instance of
> intelligent, goal-directed action. Betty's hook may be regarded as a
> simple artifact made for the purpose of gaining access to the food
> bucket. Tool manufacture has also been observed among animals in the
> wild, for example, chimpanzees strip leaves off twigs detached from
> branches of trees and use the twigs for reaching termites or ants.
> (Beck 1980, 117.)
>
> Beck, B. B., 1980, Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of
> Tools by Animals, New York and London: Garland STPM Press.
> Weir, A., Chappell, J., and A. Kacelnik, 2002, 'Shaping of Hooks in
> New Caledonian Crows', Science, 297: 981.
>
> The term "artifactualiity" has to do with the intention of an artist
> to produce a work of art for the art public. I'd generally rather
> watch animals (and possibly talk to plants) than out up with terms
> like "artifactuality". There is some kind of 'constructive force' in
> nature that human ingenuity clearly doesn't match - bumping and
> grinding produces offspring in a way we can't match in vitro. Just
> when we think we're so smart, a bunch of chimps turn up and learn
> stuff with numbers better than us. I'm always amazed to see a
> creature specialised to tap only one tree's sap, and then floored to
> discover there's another that lives by drinking the 'pee' produced as
> the first creature drinks the sap.
>
> It seems the more we discover, the more there seems an
> 'intentionality' other than to do with an individual human
> consciousness (or set of them). Chimps do art and religion- at least
> putatively and certainly better than me. Dolphins may well protest
> they would paint much better pictures, but can't get over the problems
> of perennially wet canvas. One other planets, dinosaurs not hindered
> by asteroid annihilation may be the finest artists of all. Maybe this
> is why I think art is for the birds?
>
> I'm struck that a fish out of water dies rather than transmutes in
> evolution, though one can envisage stuff happening in the margins and
> we can see evolution in real time (lizards and tails in the West
> Indies, bacterial transformations and increasingly in lab experiments
> with DNA, cell membranes and substrates).
>
> I want to know what before the crow makes the crow bend hooks. What
> we can see of intentionality before human intentions. Get out an snap
> some on your camera now Jenkins - yes you boy! And sleep at the front
> of class not the back next lesson!
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário