“The uncanny valley is a common unsettling feeling people experience when androids (humanoid robots) and audio/visual simulations closely resemble humans in many respects but are not quite convincingly realistic.”
“In aesthetics, the uncanny valley is a hypothesized relationship between the degree of an object’s resemblance to a human being and the emotional response to such an object.”
“The Uncanny Valley is a distraction tactic to divert attention (and challenge) from the cleverly-dressed racism of untermensch thinking along the path of least resistance.”
We are fast approaching the capability to make perfect copies of complex organised matter, e.g. 3D printers vs mass labour, robotics vs nature+nurture doppleganger.
Isn’t the rejection just the voice of lazy thwarted narcissism: it’s fooling me, it’d fool others, what am I but fooling everyone, where’s the objective difference? What’s my criteria that ennobles me above others, in selecting detecting real from manufactured?
Key theme here, ties in with the Untermensch stranger absolution and how convenient a way to live life is, using others to validate narcissism or fuel righteous ego or highlight choices by contrast to the other.
Artist creator: projection or personal, the former lazy, the latter IS THE RUB. This is modernism and it is hard. Good reason for society to veer away from the challenge and instead try to kill the pesky author. Deal with the contrast by destroying it.
Artist cartographer: untermensch strangerworld. This post-modernism.
Human like approximation. Art loves false but beautiful equivalency. Isn’t symbolism a version of just that, and deft usage one of the highest human achievements? What if progress only happens in a real sense, on those occasions human endeavour hits notes of objectivity or absolute accuracy – for as long as conditions and genius and good luck let that happen. And in the long run everything else is just chaff. Pretty soon we reach a rock and a hard place: human life is visceral and the viscera is approximate, emotional and egoist. Beauty plays to some aspect of that. Ugliness runs contrary to it. Life without beauty and ugliness is unappealing.
Yet if everything that means progress to meet the universe needs must have none of things visceral – consciousness as an event a distraction or even a cul-de-sac – will it be possible to sell an unfeeling far future among the stars against a blink of an eye lifespan on Earth as an imperfect, emotional, visceral egoist playing out the mostly chance conditions of a short fragile life?