The Soul of Behaviour: Frank Barron on Creativity

How good is to be alive?  Is a question that Frank Barron reminded us in the late 1960's when speaking about creativity and psychotherapy.  

In the last twenty four months I have been endeavouring to write about creativity and systems thinking.  When re-reading a book of Frank Barron today and when revisiting my diary I then paused to look at this question.  

For myself this question took me again by surprise.  I have tried to be a good person in many respects:  As a father, a husband and as an academic.  Often, I have lost myself in this quest.  It is easy to become trapped in making this quest an impossible one, in particular when I keep being nudged into doing more.  

To make matters more complicated as well as interesting, there is an emerging trend in the UK to use behaviour as a predictor of happiness.  One can just see books like "Happiness by Design" by Paul Dolan (2014) to get a feeling that we could (and should) make better and simpler choices to be happier.  It seems it is possible if we pay attention to what/who gives us a feeling of inner satisfaction.  No need to think too much.  Just do things.  Governments can also be helpful by nudging us in the right direction.  

Barron reminds us however, that the question of how good is to be alive is an important one, not only because we 'could' decide or be nudged on our own happiness, but because there is a history of human kind we need to bear in mind when making decisions.  Those interested in behaviour seem to be in need of be reminded of it.  Creativity has a dark side.  It has led humans to engineer atomic bombs.  Useful knowledge, valuable knowledge can be turned into commercial, political and military weaponry.  

That is why the too good to be true ways to be happy give me a bit of concern.  Being alive should be good for all of us, all of this.  

Sorry is not enough

The cat is out of the bag and our electronic data has been handed in. Any excuse or public apology does not cut it. Those seeking profit by handing our online behaviour might not have fully understood what this meant. But there was intention and with it there needs to be responsibility.

As Alan Watts said a long time ago, the massive use of technology is just self indulgent. It is not helping us to better live the present. Rather, it is pushing us too much in the direction of having to foresee the future.

The past can be forgotten but not relived. We are tricking ourselves to store memories that are not experiences of the past. We think we can predict the future when we know that if certain rules are followed, something can turn out in some expected ways.

What are our intentions? Are we trying to become immortal by doing the above? What will we gain if we cannot just enjoy the present as it is?

Enslaving AI and ourselves or something else

Recently I attended an interdisciplinary event on artificial intelligence or AI.  This is a very fashionable topic.  After 2016 (the so-called declared global year of AI), there is still interest also because we can now see how some AI solutions have entered the market.  Robots that can fry burgers and of course self-driving cars are becoming normal examples of life. 

Still, my sense is that both love for and fear of AI is rooted in either we becoming slaves of new forms of intelligence or subverting them to what we think we need help with.  

Being enslaved by AI seems to many the end of the human species.  AI will decide for us and that will include deciding if we are still worth preserving in the human planet or beyond.  

Enslaving AI would mean that AI will do the less interesting tasks of life whilst human beings move onto the more sophisticated ones.  

As I currently research on creativity, the role of technology and AI is not yet fully decided.  Computers could create beautiful things, they could compose music or poems by sieving through lots of old music of poems.  They could even create new language.  But if we conceive of creativity as a social phenomena where audiences have to accept and adopt creations, then possibly technology and AI could have a different role.

And then there is the ethical question of doing good with what you create.  AI could help us build or operate new armaments (more autonomous drones for example).  AI could help us distance themselves from those that we could harm.  So that AI could take the blame for doing harm.  Or for doing good.  

Will we as human beings delegate ethical responsibilities to AI?  And by doing so will we then enslave AI and ourselves?  Or will AI and us be able to work out other ways of advancing our joint future together?