A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Aesthetics

AI vs Sci-Fi (Publishers)

by 2 Comments

One iron rule of technology is that any technology that can be used for pornography will be used for pornography. Another is that any technology that can be used for grifting will be used for grifting. The latest grift involves people using AI to generate science-fiction stories in an attempt to sell them to publishers.

Amazon has also seen a spike in AI generated works, although some are being honest about the source of the text. Before the availability of these text generators, some people would steal content from web pages and attempt to sell them as books. This sort of theft is easier to catch than AI generated text and given the current state of detection software, it is likely that AI generated text will generally be able to avoid automated detection. This means that if a publisher wants to sort out AI generated text from human generated text, they will need humans to do the work. As would be expected, some types of work are easier to detect as AI generated than others and the current AI text generators are better or worse at certain types of text. As such, in some cases a human reviewer need not discern whether the text is AI generated, they can simply do what they have always done, which is weed out the bad text. Fortunately for the science-fiction publishers and writers, AI is currently bad at writing science fiction.

But the practical problem is that certain publishers are being flooded with AI generated submissions and they cannot review all these texts. Since an AI can generate a story from a short prompt, a person using one can rapidly create a swarm of stories. In terms of the motivation, it seems to mostly be money—the AI wranglers hope to sell these stories.

One magazine, Clarkesworld, has seen a massive spike in spam submissions, getting 500 in February (contrasted with a previous high of 25 in a month). In response, they closed submissions because they lacked the resources to handle the deluge. As such, this use of AI is harming publishers and writers. As would be expected, some have blamed AI for this and point to this as yet another harm caused by AI. But it is obviously unfair to blame AI.

From the standpoint of ethics, the current AI text generators lack the moral agency needed to be morally accountable for the text they generate. They are no more t0 blame for the text than the computers used to generate spam are to blame for the spammers using them. Obviously, the text generators are just a tool being misused by people hoping to make easy money and who are not overly concerned with the harmful consequences of their actions. To be fair, some people are probably just curious about whether an AI generated story would be accepted, but these are presumably not the people flooding publishers.

While these AI wranglers are morally accountable for the harm they are causing, it must also be pointed out that they are operating within an economic system that encourages and rewards many types of bad or unethical behavior. While deluging publishers with AI spam is obviously not on par with selling dangerous products, engaging in wage theft, or running NFT and crypto grifts, it is still the result of the same basic system that enables and rewards (and often protects) such behavior. In sum, the problem with current AI is the people who use it and the economic system in which it is used. AI has simply become yet another tool for spamming, grifting, and stealing. But there is some interesting potential here.

As noted above, AI generated fiction is currently quite bad (although humans obviously also generate mountains of bad fiction, some of which get published). But it is likely that it can be improved enough to be enjoyable, if low quality, fiction. Some publishers would see this as an ideal way to rapidly generate content at a low cost, thus allowing them more profit. This would, obviously, lead to the usual problem of human workers being replaced by technology. But this could also be good for readers.

Imagine that AI becomes good enough to generate enjoyable stories. A reader could thus go to an AI text generator, type in the prompt for the sort of story they want, and then get a new story to read. Assuming the AI usage is free or inexpensive, this would be a great deal for the reader. It would, however, be a problem for “working class” writers who are not celebrity writers. Presumably, fans would still want to buy works by their favorite authors, but the market for lesser-known writers would likely become much worse.

If I just want to read a new classic style space opera with epic battles and powered armor, I could just use an AI to make that story for me, thus saving me the time of finding one already written and paying more for it. And if the story is as good as what a competent human would produce, then it would be good enough for the reader. If I want to read a new work by Mary Robinette Kowal, I would need to buy it (yes, one could pirate it or go to a library). But, as I have argued in an earlier essay, this use of AI is only a problem because of our economic system: if a writer could write for the love of writing, then AI would largely be irrelevant. And, if people were not making money by grifting text with AI, then they would probably not be making AI fiction except to read themselves. So, as would be expected, the problem is not AI but us.

AI Art: I Want a Banksy vs I Want a Picture of a Dragon

by 1 Comment

Thanks to Midjourney and Open AI (which includes ChatGPT and Dall E) people are able to enter a prompt and receive an image or body of text. Since the images and text can be quite good, this has launched a plague of think pieces on the subject, many of which foretell doom for creativity. As a professor, I have also had to listen to fears that ChatGPT and its fellows will usher in a new age of cheating. While I have been thinking about AI for a long time (I did my first debate on it in the 1980s), I have been waiting a bit to write about the latest AI craze—I wanted to think about it in some depth before rushing into the fray once more.

In addition to being a professional philosopher, I also create stuff for tabletop role playing games like D&D and Call of Cthulhu. In addition to writing text content, I also create maps and images for my work. As such, I am technically in the creative class affected by the new AI image and text creators. I make note of this to disclose this as a potential biasing factor. After all, some say that AI is poised to eliminate both professors and creatives. In this essay, my concern is with my creative hobby rather than with my main profession. My concern is also with the economic aspects of the situation. In other essays I will inflict my opinion on whether AI images and text can be art.

Looking back into the shallow depths of human history, we can see that professions are regularly changed or eliminated by various economic shifts. To illustrate, fads in fashion or food can result in significant economic changes. As an example, beaver trapping was once a major economic factor in America because of the use of beaver pelts in men’s hats. But the fur trade era came to an end, and you rarely hear of beaver trapping these days. In other cases, the change is based in technology. For example, my home area of New England was once known for its whaling industry and whale oil was used extensively for lighting. When alternatives, such as kerosene, became available, then this whaling industry came to an end. As such, New Englanders rarely work as whalers these days. Kerosene was itself largely replaced by electricity, also resulting in changes in available jobs. And, of course, there is the specific technological change of automation, when machines reduce or eliminate the need for human workers.

For most of human history, machines tended to eliminate or reduce physical jobs—although there is the obvious example that electronic computers eliminated the need for human computers. Back when I first debated about AI as an undergraduate, there was a general view that AI would not be able to engage in creative activity. This was sometimes presented in terms of the view that machines would never be able to feel (which was assumed to be critical for creativity) or that there was some special human trait of creativity that a machine could not replicate. As a practical matter, this seemed to hold true until recently when AI started producing very good images and high-quality text; good enough to easily pass as created by competent humans. While this had caused considerable concern in various areas, a very practical worry is that AI will put creatives out of work. After all, if a business can get text and images created by AI for a minuscule fraction of what it would cost to pay a human for the same work, a sensible business will turn to AI since the end is maximizing profit.

This, obviously, shows that the true problem is not AI. As science fiction writers and dreamers have noted, automation should be used to set people free so they can spend more time doing what they want to do, rather than needing to grind at tasks just to survive.

While a creative might like creating to earn the money they need to not die, they are creating for economic reasons and most likely not doing what they really enjoy. I do, of course, distinguish between people who make some income from their creative hobby (as I do) and people who must create to earn their living. While someone who depends on creating to live might enjoy their work, AI is only a problem if they must do this work to survive. After all, if they were creating out of the love of creativity, to express themselves, or out of pure enjoyment, then AI would be irrelevant. They would still get that even with AI cranking out images and text. Since I do not depend on my gaming stuff for my living, I will keep doing it even if AI dominates the field. But when AI replaces me as a professor, then I will keep doing philosophy but I will need to find a new task to get the few dollars that the ruling classes deign to allow to trickle down to me.

As such, we should be careful to note that the alleged problem with AI putting people out of work just points out the awfulness of our economic system and that it turns creative works into mere economic products. It just so happens that the new automation threatens creatives rather than factory workers (who can also be very creative). But this threat is not the same for all creatives.

The title of this essay is “AI: I Want a Banksy vs I Want a Picture of a Dragon” because of the distinction between the two wants and its relevance to AI images (and text). Suppose that I want a work by Banksy to add to my collection. In that case, no AI art will suffice since only Banksy can create a work by Banksy. An AI could, of course, create an amazing forgery of a Banksy, just as skilled human forger could—but neither would be a Banksy. While such a forgery might fool someone into buying it, as soon as the forgery was exposed, the work would become valueless to me—after all, what I want is a Banksy.

When people want a work (be it an image, a book, a song or whatever) by a specific creator, the content is of less importance than the causal chain—they want it because of who created it, not because of what it looks like, what it sounds like, or what the text might be. One example that nicely illustrates this is when Harry Potter series author J.K. Rowling wrote a book under a pseudonym. Before the true authorship was revealed, the book sold few copies. After the reveal, it became a top seller. And, of course, exposed forgeries also illustrate this. A work can be greatly valued as, say, a Picasso until it suddenly becomes revealed as a worthless forgery. In these cases, it is the creator and not the work that matters. As such, creatives whose work is sought and bought because it was created by them have little to fear from Ais, aside from the usual concerns about forgeries.  But what if I just want a picture of a dragon for my D&D adventure? Then AI does change the situation.

Before AI became good at creating images, if I wanted a picture of a dragon, I would need to get one from a human artist or create it myself. Now I can just go to Midjourney, type in a prompt, and pick between the generated images. I can even direct the AI to create it in a specific style—making it like the work of a known artist. But, of course, I just want the dragon picture, I am not trying to get a forgery and pass it off as a work by a specific artist. As such, while AI is not a meaningful threat to creators whose works are sought and bought because they created it, it is a threat to the “working class” of creators who toil to sell images (and text) to people who want not an image by person X but an image of X. AI is a real threat to these people, but a real boon to those who want an image of X for the lowest price and quickly.

I use AI to create images for my gaming stuff for three reasons. The first is that I can get customized images that match my vision of what they should be. The second is that I can get them insanely cheap. The third is that I can get them quickly. While I could create my own work to get images that fit my vision, it is cheaper and faster to use AI rather than do it myself. When it comes to human-created works, generic clip art usually does not match my vision and is more expensive than AI images. Hiring a human to do work would be much more expensive and slower, and their work might not match my vision. Also, in all the years I have attempted to hire human artists, they have always failed to come through—often, some existential crisis takes them out of commission, or they decide they would rather pursue some other work (while informing me just before the deadline). As such, from a selfish standpoint, I see the value of AI for people who need images and text. I do tell myself that since I cannot hire a reliable human artist at a cost I can afford for my gaming stuff, my use of AI is morally acceptable. That might even be true.

In closing, AI will be harmful to creators of images and text who are not sought and bought because of who they are. Rowling and Banksy will be just fine, but the “working class” creators will be facing increasing challenges. As always, this should not be blamed on AI, but on us for creating and perpetuating a system that allows people to inflict such harm on other people just because they become less economically useful to the business class.

Is James Bond Essentially a White Man?

by 2 Comments

In my previous essay I introduced the notion of using the notion of essential properties to address the question of whether James Bond must be a white man. I ran through this rather quickly and want to expand on it here.

As noted, an essential property (to steal from Aristotle) is a property that it must have. In contrast an accidental property is one that it does have but could lack. As I tell my students, accidental properties are not just properties from accidents, like the dent in a fender.

One way to look at essential properties is that if a being loses an essential property, it ceases to be. In effect, the change of property destroys it, although a new entity can arise. To use a simple example, it is essential to a triangle that it be three-sided. If another side is added, the triangle is no more. But the new entity could be a square. Of course, one could deny that the triangle is destroyed and instead take it as changing into a square. It all depends on how the identity of a being is determined.

Continuing the triangle example, the size and color of a triangle are accidental properties.  A red triangle that is painted blue remains a triangle, although it is now blue. But one could look at the object in terms of being a red object. In that case, changing the color would mean that it was no longer a red object, but a blue object. Turning back to James Bond, he has always been a white man.

Making Bond a black man would change many of his established properties and one can obviously say that he would no longer be white Bond. But this could be seen as analogous to changing the color of a triangle: just as a red triangle painted blue is still a triangle, changing Bond from a white to a black man by a change of actors does not entail that is no longer Bond. Likewise, one might claim, for changing Bond to a woman via a change of actor.

As noted in the previous essay, the actors who have played Bond have been different in many ways, yet they are all accepted as Bond. As such, there are clearly many properties that Bond has accidentally. They can change with the actors while the character is still Bond. One advantage of a fictional character is, of course, that the author can simply decide on the essential properties when they create the metaphysics for their fictional world. For example, in fantasy settings an author might decide that a being is its soul and thus an undergo any number of bodily alterations (such as through being reincarnated or polymorphed) and still be the same being. If Bond was in such a world, all a being would need to be Bond would be to be the Bond soul. This being could inhabit a black male body or even a dragon body and still be Bond.

But, of course, the creator of Bond did not specify the metaphysics of his world-so we would need to speculate using various metaphysical theories about our world. That is, would a person changing their race or gender result in the person ceasing to be that person, just as changing the sides of a triangle would make it cease to be a triangle? Since Bond is a fictional character, there is the option to abandon metaphysics and make use of other areas to settle the matter of Bond identity. One easy solution is to go with the legal option.

Bond is an intellectual property, and this means that you or I cannot write and sell Bond books or create and sell Bond films. As such, there is a legal definition of what counts as James Bond, and this can be tested by trying to see what will get you sued by the owner of James Bond. Closely related to this the Bond brand; this can change considerably and still be the Bond brand. Of course, these legal and branding matters are not very interesting from a philosophical perspective and they are best suited for the courts and marketing departments. But the aesthetic option is within philosophy.

One easy solution is that Bond is whoever the creator says Bond is; but since the creator is dead, we cannot determine what he would think about re-writing Bond as someone other than a white man. One could, of course, go back to the legal argument and assert that whoever owns Bond has the right to decide who Bond is.

Another approach is to use the social conception: a character’s identity is based on the acceptance of the fans. As such, if the fans accept Bond as being someone other than a white man, then that is Bond. After all, Bond is a fictional character who exists in the minds of his creator and his audience. Since his creator is dead, Bond now exists in the minds of the audience; so perhaps it is a case of majority acceptance—a sort of aesthetic democracy. Bond is whoever most fans say is Bond. Or one could take the approach that Bond is whoever the individual audience member accepts as Bond; thus allowing for Bond subjectivity. Since Bond is fictional, this is certainly appealing. As such, it would be up to you whether your Bond can be anyone other than a white man. A person’s decision would say quite a bit about them. While some might be tempted to assume that anyone who believes that Bond must be a white man is thus a racist or sexist, that would be a mistake. There can be non-sexist and non-racist reasons to believe this. There are, of course, also sexist and racist reasons to believe this.

 

6My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Must James Bond Be a White Man?

by Leave a Comment

Since his creation, James Bond has been a white man. Much to the delight of some and to the horror of others, there are serious plans to have a black actor play the next James Bond. There has even been some talk about having a female James Bond. While racist and sexist reasons abound to condemn having Bond be anything other than a white man, there is the question of whether there are good reasons for James Bond to always be a white man. Before getting into this discussion, I will first look at the matter of the 007.

While James Bond has been known as 007, this is his agent designation and there are other 00 agents.  This can thus be seen as analogous to the number used by an athlete on a team. As such, while James Bond has been 007, another person could replace him and get that number—just as a guy who was 23 on a baseball team could retire and a new person could get that number (although teams sometimes retire numbers). Within the James Bond universe, it would thus make sense for someone else to get the 007 designation and this person need not be white or male. As far as why this could occur in universe, James Bond is not immortal and hence would eventually be too old or dead to remain 007. From an aesthetic standpoint, it would be interesting to see a Bond timeline in which time mattered; that is, a Bond world in which Bond grew old and a new agent took his place. This would have the benefit of keeping Bond relevant to today while also maintaining (in universe) the old Bond. There is, of course, the obvious financial risk: having a new 007 who is not James Bond can be seen as analogous to replacing a star athlete with a new person who just gets the same number. There is the risk of losing the drawing power of that person. But my main concern is with the more interesting matter of whether James Bond must be a white man, so I will leave the money worries to the branding gurus.

One obvious fact about the Bond of the movies is that different actors have played that character. While there are strong opinions about the best Bond, there was little debate about whether a new white man should take the role when the previous Bond aged out of the role or left for other reasons. The actors who played Bond were (in general) accepted as at least adequate for the role and there was no real debate about whether the character was still James Bond despite the change in actors. That is, there is no general issue with a new actor playing the role. There were also, obviously enough, no effort to explain in the Bond universe the change in Bond’s appearance. I mention this because of another famous character from United Kingdom fiction, Dr. Who. When Dr. Who began, the actor playing the doctor was quite old and they ran into the rather practical problem of age. They hit on a brilliant solution: Dr. Who regenerates and radically changes appearance, though remaining the same person. This gives the show an interesting feature: continuity of character through changes of actors with an in-universe explanation.

While Bond movies do feature gadgets and plots that border or even cross into science fiction (consider Moonraker), it seems unlikely that the Bond cinematic universe would allow for such science fiction devices as alternative realities, such as brilliantly done in Marvel’s What If…? As such, the various Bonds are not explained in terms of being alternative or variant Bonds; they are all the James Bond. Now, if Bond can remain Bond despite the changes of actors, then it would seem that he would remain Bond even if he were played by a non-white actor. After all, if switching from Sean Connery did not entail that Bond was no longer Bond, then changing his race should not do that either. After all, the actors that played Bond are different people, with significant differences in appearance, mannerisms, and voice. Having a black actor, for example, would just be another change of appearance.  It would also seem to follow that having a female actor play Bond would also make as much sense; it would just be another change in appearance. But one could attempt to argue that it is essential to Bond that he be a white man. This, of course, gets us into the notion of essential properties.

In philosophy, an essential property (to steal from Aristotle) is a property that it must have. In contrast an accidental property is one that it does have but could lack. To use a simple example, it is essential to a triangle that it be three-sided. It must have three sides to be a triangle. But the size and color of a triangle are accidental properties; they can change, and it will still remain a triangle. So, the relevant issue here is whether being a white man is essential to being James Bond or merely accidental. Given all the changes in actors over the years, there are clearly many properties that Bond has accidentally—they can change with the actors while the character is still Bond. One advantage of a fictional character is, of course, that the author can simply decide on the essential properties when they create the metaphysics for their fictional world. But, of course, the creator of Bond did not do that-so we would need to speculate using various metaphysical theories about our world. That is, would a person changing their race or gender result in the person ceasing to be, just as changing the sides of a triangle would make it cease to be a triangle? On the face of it, while such changes would clearly alter the person, they would seem to retain their personal identity. If this is true, then James Bond need not be a white man.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Race/Gender Swapping: Why Not Just Create New Characters (or focus on old ones)?

by 1 Comment

In fiction, race/gender swapping occurs when an established character’s race or gender is changed. For example, the original Nick Fury character in Marvel is a white man, but this character was changed to a black man in the Ulimates and in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As another example, the original Dr. Smith in Lost in Space is a man; the Netflix reboot made the character a woman. As would be expected, some people get very angry when a character is race or gender swapped. Some are open about their racist or sexist reasons for their anger—they are clear that they do not want females and non-white people in certain roles. Other people criticize a swap by asking why there was a swap instead of either creating a new character or focusing on a less-well-known existing character. For example, a critic of the He-Man reboot might be angry that King Grayskull was changed from white to black and raise the critical question “what about Clamp Champ?”

Such questions can be asked in bad faith; the person asking them makes it clear that they are angry that minorities and women are allowed to take traditional white male roles. As such, it is not that they want new women or minority characters or more focus on existing characters, this is just a cover for their racism and sexism. These questions serve very well in this role since they are not overtly racist or sexist. In fact, when raised in good faith, these are reasonable aesthetic questions. Unfortunately, these questions are now well-established as dog-whistles and allow people to hide their racism and sexism from “normies” while sending a clear signal to those in the know. The fact that other people do use them without racist or sexist intent helps maintain their innocuous appearance. Someone using them as racist or sexist tools can claim, in bad faith, that they are just asking reasonable questions. And then go on to rage against the “SJWS” ruining everything by compelling these race/gender swaps and forcing diversity. Those who call them out on this can seem crazy. But let us ask these questions in good faith.

The most obvious practical reason why race/gender swapping is used instead of creating a new character or focusing on an established character is money. Creating and branding a new character (and building up a fan base) takes time and resources; there is also no guarantee that it will be successful. So, keeping the Nick Fury character while making him black made more practical sense than creating a new character to serve as the head of SHIELD. While less-well-known characters can become a great success (for example, the Guardians of the Galaxy), this is risky. There are usually reasons why the characters are less well known. But this only explains why a new character was not created or why focus was not shifted, it does not explain why the race/gender swap occurred. Fortunately, this is easy to explain and even justify.

While some critics claim that the liberals, feminists and SJWs are forcing companies to gender/race swap, these companies seem to be doing this for the same reason they do almost anything: money. Their marketing and research folks are aware that demographics and perceptions have changed. So, whereas fiction dominated by white male characters was the moneymaker in the past, more diverse character line ups are appealing to audiences now. If these changes were utterly political and truly hated by most, these swaps would be consistent and constant failures. This is not to make the absurd claim that they all succeed, just that they do not seem unusually prone to financial failure. After all, there is a legion of white male dominated failures. No nefarious conspiracies are needed to explain swaps; this is just businesses trying to maximize profits by minimizing cost and exploiting established brands. Demographics and values are changing—this explains both the swaps and the rage at the swaps.

It is also worth noting that despite the hyperbole about Hollywood not having new ideas, new characters do get created quite often. Netflix, for example, floods its service with new shows with new characters—which often include females and non-white people. And attempts are made to focus on characters that have been overlooked. These efforts often make the people who ask, “why not create a new character?” very mad; this tends to expose the fact that they ask this question in bad faith. Aside from money, are their good reasons to race/gender swap rather than simply creates a new character or focus on an existing character?

One excellent aesthetic reason is that doing so can make for an interesting plot that explicitly explores the influence of race and gender on the character and story. For example, one episode of Marvel’s What If..? Explores what would have happened if Peggy Carter had become a super soldier rather than Steve Rogers. This swap has a meaningful impact on the story in part because of the assumed gender roles of that time (and now). I think this is one of the best aesthetic justifications for such swaps.  Obviously, some people get very angry about such explorations.

A good aesthetic reason, especially in a reboot, is to use the gender/race swap to create new story and character dynamics. While the focus is not on exploring race/gender issues, these do become new elements for an old character in telling a new story. This also tends to make some people very mad.

There are also various moral reasons to make such changes. One reason is to provide people with characters they can more easily identify with. While critics will claim that people should be able to identify with any hero, this would favor allowing such swaps—after all, if people can identify with any hero, then it would not matter if they were race/gender swapped. Another moral reason is to help foster parasocial relationships using the power of established characters. One reason racists and sexists dislike diversity in fiction is that people can form parasocial relationships and this can make them more tolerant—something racists and sexists oppose. There are, of course, bad reasons to race/gender swap.

Some might consider the “make money” reason to be a bad one, which is not unreasonable from an aesthetic or moral standpoint. If the swap is purely to make money and it has no aesthetic or moral justification, then criticism would seem warranted. But a swap could make money and be independently warranted on ethical or aesthetic grounds. Also, one would need to be consistent in such criticisms. To use an analogy, the Toyota Corolla of today is radically different from when I was a kid; yet the brand name is kept because doing so is advantageous and helps make money. But people do not get very angry about that.

As noted above, some claim that the swaps are compelled by political actors such as the liberals, SJWs, and feminists. If a swap were just the result of political compulsion and it lacked all ethical and aesthetic merit, then that swap should be criticized. But a swap could be compelled but also independently warranted on ethical or aesthetic grounds. It is also worth mentioning again that companies are motivated by profit; even in their political stands are shaped by the bottom line. And even if they were driven by politics or ideology, one would still need to show that the politics and ideology are bad. I mean they usually are, but for different reasons.

While most swaps are motivated by hope of profits, there are good reasons to race/gender swap a character rather than creating a new one. But creating new characters or focusing on less well-known characters are also good options—it all depends on what one is trying to do. Ideally, the swap would be to tell a better story; but there is nothing inherently wrong with swapping for any number of other reasons.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

The Problem of Other Minds: The Aesthetic Solution

by 1 Comment

In epistemology the problem of the external world is the challenge of proving that I can know that there are entities that exist other than me. Even if it is assumed that there is an external world, there remains the problem of other minds: the challenge of proving that I can know that there is at least one other being that has a mind. The common version of this problem tends to start with the assumption that other beings exist, and the challenge is to prove that I can know that these other beings have minds (or lack minds). Our good dead friend Descartes offered the best-known effort to solve the problem of the external world and in trying to solve this problem he also, perhaps unintentionally, attempted to solve the problem of other minds.

In his Meditations Descartes set out to create an infallible foundation of knowledge by his method of doubting his beliefs until he found a belief he could not doubt.  As part of this project, he hoped to solve the problem of the external world. After his doubting spree in the first Meditation, he took his belief that he thinks and the belief that he exists to be certain and indubitable.  In trying to prove that something exists other than him, Descartes attempts to prove that God exists—that is, he attempted to solve the problem of the external world by solving a version of the problem of other minds. Proving that God exists would prove that another mind exists, thus solving a limited version of each problem.

While Descartes grinds through a plethora of proofs, his key reasoning for the purposes of this essay is his notion that the cause of a belief must contain as much reality as the belief itself. Roughly put, you can think of this reasoning as analogous to reasoning that whatever charged a mobile phone battery must have at least as much power as in in the battery (assuming the battery charged from zero). Descartes based this reasoning on the principle that something cannot arise from nothing.

Roughly put, Descartes claimed that his idea of God is such that he could not be the cause of this idea—it had to be caused by something external to him. For example, Descartes notes that God is perfect and argues that he could not get the idea of a perfect being from his imperfect self. As another example, Descartes claims that God is infinite and that he (Descartes) could not create the idea of infinity from himself. From this he infers that God exists. He then goes on to argue that since God is perfect it follows that God is not a deceiver. Descartes then concludes that since God created us, we can generally trust our senses and thus we can infer that there is an external world. While this does not address the common version of the problem of other minds, it does offer a solution to the narrowest version: it does attempt to show that Descartes is not the only mind. In philosophical terms, success in this challenge would refute solipsism. That is the philosophical view that I am the only being in existence. Or, alternatively, it could be taken as the view that I am the only mind (thinking being) that exists. While I think that Descartes’ efforts to find certainty failed, his attempted solution to the problem of other minds provides a model that I will steal to attempt a solution to the problem of the other mind. My goal is modest: I am not trying to prove that other people have minds, I am just endeavoring to show that there is at least one other mind. I will do this with an aesthetic argument that was inspired by the combination of watching Wandavision and teaching Epistemology via Zoom this semester.

While teaching my Epistemology class at squares on Zoom I mentioned Wandavision as an example and had the realization that the quality of the show could be used to argue for the existence of other minds. While Descartes argued that the cause of an idea must equal or exceed the reality of the idea, I will replace this with the principle that cause of an idea must equal or exceed the quality of the idea in terms of creativity. As such, to show that something exists other than me, I just need to find an idea (or ideas) whose content exceeds my own creativity. That is, I need to find ideas that I could not create. This is extremely easy.

Wandavision, the show that inspired this argument, exceeds my creative abilities—I lack the skill and talent to write such a series. I can obviously say the same about many other movies, books, and stories—they are beyond my skill to create. As a writer, I am aware of the limits of my abilities and hence can safely draw these conclusions. I can also add in other art, such as music and drawing. I know my skills at music (none) and drawing (very limited) and know that I lack the ability to create most works I have heard or seen. Since I could not create such works, then there must be at least one other mind that is creating these works. There might be only one mind—it could be electing to create works of varying degrees. Or there might be many other minds creating these works. This does not, of course, show that there is an external world of the sort I think exists—it could be (as Descartes considered) just me and one other being who is causing all these ideas in my mind. While I would condemn the deception, I must thank them for the high quality works they create for me. As such, I can infer that at least one other mind exists and that I am not alone. But there are counter arguments.

One obvious counter argument is that I have an unknown talent or skill that allows me to create such works without being aware I am doing so. That is, I cannot consciously create such quality, but I can do so without being aware I am doing so. One could point to dreams as an obvious example of such creation: the best explanation for dreams is that their content is coming from me although I lack conscious control. My reply is to point out that my dreams do not match the quality of the works I encounter in the waking world in terms of the stories. Any art I see or music I hear in my dreams are always mere copies from when I am awake (or think I am awake) or of low quality. As such, I would seem to lack such a hidden and unknown faculty of creativity. I do agree it is not a logical impossibility that I have such a faculty, but there is no evidence for it existing beyond explaining my aesthetic experiences without any other mind existing—which would seem to be ad hoc.

A second obvious counter is to allow that something exists other than me, but this is not another mind. That is, the aesthetic experiences are created in a “mechanical” way without the sort of thinking that would be done by a mind. To use an analogy, this would be like having an AI art creator creating art without having a mind. There are two responses to this. The first is that this would still entail that I was not the only being in existence—there would also be this creator entity. The second is that such a high degree of creativity would seem to require a mind. It would pass tests analogous to the Turing test and thus is would be reasonable to infer there is at least one mind behind these creative works.

In closing, there are two main possibilities. The first is that I alone exist, and I have an unknown faculty of creativity that vastly exceeds my known skills and talents (and I can never consciously use these hidden abilities). The second is that at least one other being exists and is creating these works.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: