AI — praxis

art — Pop

Art is an expression of human consciousness — Pop

1. Is AI conscious & human?

OR

2. Is something wrong with your definition Pop?

They do work that way, when it comes to things like art, culture, society, religion. These terms don't work the way a term like "table" or "astronaut" do. — baker

I could have sworn that I said something like “Suggesting that the definition of art can be so readily shifted only underscores its nature of being a social construct and subject to the whims of culture and speculative value.” Oh yeah, I did write that.

I see many art works as actually dealing with philosophical problems, but the artists themselves and their audience often don't see it that way. — baker

If the artists and audience don't see it, maybe it comes from you. That's not a criticism. The experience of art includes how it fits in with the rest of our experience.

Both these paintings are done by elephants:

I visited the Louvre once and out of the dizzying amount of painting you couldn’t get within 10 yards of the Mona Lisa because of all the people crowded around it. Elephant art really stands apart.

Elephant art really stands apart. — praxis

I'd rather have the elephant art on my wall than the Mona Lisa. It matches the rug in the living room.

The artwork is a mirror of the spirit — Constance

If this were part of the Stanford University undergraduate progam in philosophy, it would be costing me $58,000 a year - so I can't complain at $40 a year.

There is no correct definition of art

The definition "art is a bottle of Guinness" is as correct as any other. Definitions are determined by Institutions and the majority of interested people.

Various definitions of art

@Constance - "Art has this, I say. It is called the aesthetic"
@Constance - "The question of art lies with one question: is there anything that is both the essence of art, what makes art, art, and absolute?"

My personal definition of visual art is aesthetic form of pictographic representation

Definitions of the aesthetic

@Constance - "As to Beauty, I don't think, frankly, Hutcheson has a clue"

I would define the aesthetic as unity in variety, along the lines of Hucheson. Hucheson is giving an objective definition of the aesthetic, not attempting to describe the subjective experience.

I can describe objective facts about the colour red - seen in strawberries, sunsets, etc, has a wavelength of 625 to 700nm. I can also describe objective facts about the aesthetic - unity in variety, observed in a painting by Matisse, a book by Cormac Mccarthy, a song by Sade, etc. But I can never describe the subjective experience of the colour red or the aesthetic to someone who can never experience the colour red or aesthetic. However, I can use language to communicate my subjective experience of the colour red or aesthetic to another person who has also experienced the colour red or aesthetic.

IE, language can communicate general things about subjective experiences but can never communicate the particular subjective experience.

Aesthetics has value of two kinds

@Constance - " in aesthetics and ethics, there is value. Value is non cognitive"

The aesthetic can have two kinds of value, and these two meanings of value are independent of each other.

1) Value as the regard that something is held to deserve, the judgement of good or bad, in that the aesthetic of a Rembrandt is better than the aesthetic of a child's crayon sketch.
2) Value as a numerical measure, magnitude, quantity. Note that aesthetic value is not binary. It is not the case that an object either has an aesthetic or doesn't. As every object has a temperature , objects may have different temperatures. As every object has an aesthetic, different objects may have a different degree of aesthetic value.

Judgement of value as regards good or bad
The good of the aesthetic may exist in either the observer or the world.

@Constance "Wittgenstein thought that Good was divinity, and I think this problematically right"
My belief is that the source of the Good is human pragmatism

1) As regards the observer, the judgement of the Good certainly exists in the observer
2) As regards the world, the question as to whether morality exists in the world independent of any observer is open to debate. Moral realism says that morality does actually exist, and it exists in a knowable, universal way. Moral subjectivism claims that morality is not real or universal, and it does not exist outside the mind.

Judgement of value as regards degree
The degree of aesthetic may exist in either the observer or the world

1) As regards the observer, the judgment of degree certainly exists in the observer.
2) As regards the world, if the aesthetic is unity in variety, meaning a particular relationship of parts to the whole, the question as to whether relations ontologically exist in the world or merely attributions made by conscious entities and expressed in language is open to debate.

Evolution explains why we have the aesthetic

@Constance - "Evolution has always been uninformative, anyway, for it could never explain meaning, aesthetic, ethical"
@Constance "Evolution, at this level, says nothing"

In the world is chaos. Sentient life is able to survive and evolve by its innate and intellectual ability to discover patterns within this seeming chaos, ie, by discovering unity in variety. In other words, humans have an aesthetic sensibility. Evolution does not explain what the aesthetic is, but evolution does explain why the aesthetic originated in sentient life.

The brain has evolved in the world to be able to survive within the world.

Human a priori knowledge is that knowledge necessary to survive in the particular world we find ourselves in. It would follow that a sentient life evolving in a different world, whether hotter, silicon based or higher gravity, would have different a priori knowledge suitable for that different world. Rorty and the neo-pragmatists accept a mind-independent reality, whilst maintaining that this world can never be knowable. The human develops beliefs and habits which allow them to adapt to their environment with success. If humans had no a priori knowledge we would be back at Hume's problem of inference regarding the observation of a constant conjunction of events. This is the problem Kant attempted to solve with his concept of the synthetic a priori.

IE, the truth is a matter of perspective. Rather than as the neo-pragmatists propose, humans can only make sense of the world by applying reason to what they observer through their senses, it is more the case that sentient life, not separate to the world but as a part of it, have evolved innate a priori knowledge of the world. Such a priori knowledge allows them an understanding of the world even before experiencing it through their senses.

Our conscious mind has transcendent connection with the world bypassing the senses

@Constance - "Art may be an open concept, utterly, but it is grounded in the pragmatic authority of our times"
@Constance - "for to speak of a world of which we are a part is to speak of something not witnessable"
@Constance - "Rorty and others deny that knowledge can in any way align with "reality" at the foundational level"
@Constance - "The real issue lies in meta-aesthetics/ethics: what is the Good?.............The understanding is pragmatic, I claim, which is why the aesthetic cannot be spoken"

Sentient life, including humans, are born with certain innate knowledge - such as the colour red, bitter tastes, acrid smells, what is hot to the touch, the pain of a headache, as well as the aesthetic. In line with Kant's view, a priori intuitions and concepts provide a priori knowledge, which also provides the framework for a posteriori knowledge. This a priori knowledge does not need to be taught, in that the brain is not a blank slate when born. IE, children don't need to go to school to learn how to have the subjective experience of the colour red.

But this is particular knowledge, in that I am not able to imagine an bitter taste independent of experiencing through my senses an object in the world that gives me the subjective experience of a bitter taste. This a priori knowledge is about the possibility of being able to experience a particular subjective experience, not the subjective experience itself. The point is that this a priori knowledge of the possibility of experiencing a particular subjective experience exists in the brain prior to any observation of the world through the senses.

IE we have a priori knowledge of certain subjective experiences prior to ever experiencing them through our senses, in that we can speak of a world which we have not witnessed.

Summary
Art is important because it is aesthetic form of representative content. The aesthetic is important because it is an innate foundational ability of sentient life to discover patterns in a seemingly chaotic world. Art is therefore an outward expression of the innate character of the brain and conscious mind.

There is no correct definition of art — RussellA

Perhaps, but there are incorrect definitions of "art." There are also definitions that are of very little use. Several of those have been expounded in this thread. Art is not magical. It's a means of human expression and communication. We don't need no highfalutin definitions.

I would define the aesthetic as unity in variety, along the lines of Hucheson. Hucheson is giving an objective definition of the aesthetic, not attempting to describe the subjective experience. — RussellA

Keeping in mind that "aesthetic" actually has an accepted meaning - Concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty.

But I can never describe the subjective experience of the colour red or the aesthetic to someone who can never experience the colour red or aesthetic. — RussellA

I've always hated this idea - that we can't explain sight to a blind person, color to someone color blind. Of course we can. And by explain, I mean to give an intuitive understanding of what the experience is like. I'm sure it won't be as good as a sighted person's grasp would be.

Value as the regard that something is held to deserve, the judgement of good or bad, in that the aesthetic of a Rembrandt is better than the aesthetic of a child's crayon sketch. — RussellA

Ok, as long as you aren't selling that more sophisticated means better. I have a drawing my younger son (five when he painted it, 31 now) that I love as much as anything I've seen. Not just because it's from him. It's a night time view of a simple dark blue sky over a black ground surface with a bright yellow flash of lightening cracking across the sky. It was shockingly beautiful when I first saw it 26 years ago and it still makes me smile. It was up on his door until he left home a few years ago. There's a saying in country music - three chords and the truth. There is a connection between technique and beauty, but it is not a simple one.

Evolution does not explain what the aesthetic is, but evolution does explain why the aesthetic originated in sentient life. — RussellA

Well, maybe. Sure our brain evolved to establish patterns, but it also evolved to assign value. As far as beauty is concerned, value may be as much or more important than pattern.

Human a priori knowledge is that knowledge necessary to survive in the particular world we find ourselves in. It would follow that a sentient life evolving in a different world, whether hotter, silicon based or higher gravity, would have different a priori knowledge suitable for that different world. — RussellA

It is my understanding that humans are not born with much a priori knowledge of the world. We are born with inborn instincts for certain ways of processing the world, learning about it, e.g. language.

Sentient life, including humans, are born with certain innate knowledge - such as the colour red, bitter tastes, acrid smells, what is hot to the touch, the pain of a headache, as well as the aesthetic. — RussellA

I don't think we are born with a priori knowledge or color, acidity, bitterness, pain, or heat. We are born with the equipment to collect sensory input and the processing ability to interpret and use it. We have sensors in our mouths that are sensitive to acid, bitterness, saltiness, and sweet. We have sensors in our eyes that are sensitive to light and three colors (if my memory is correct).

But this is particular knowledge, in that I am not able to imagine an bitter taste independent of experiencing through my senses an object in the world that gives me the subjective experience of a bitter taste. — RussellA

I'm sure someone could induce a bitter taste in your mouth with direct stimulation of specific taste buds with no contact with a substance we would call "bitter."

The aesthetic is important because it is an innate foundational ability of sentient life to discover patterns in a seemingly chaotic world. — RussellA

I don't know if this is true or not.

I was going to say that I think you are over-simplifying things, but I think what you are really doing is over -complicating them.

When information informs you, it changes your neural state such that you ultimately have an experience. — Pop

But the art object did not carry or transfer or simply "inform" about something else. Rather, when the art object is absent, and one is left with the "information" we actually find the presence of the object. What is it that is there in consciousness, the authentic locus of art, that is not the object, but rather, what the object delivered, told about, informed about? When I think of Dvorak's Slavonic Dances, it is the same music I hear in the "object" of the performance. What does a Dickens tale tell that is not the tale itself?

Suggested here is the myth of the art object: There is no object that properties inhere in. All along, the consciousness itself is what inheres in the art work. for boundaries fall apart in analysis. The art work and its affect and ideas are one "object". Thus, (and this is very much Dewey) there is no separation in anything, but rather, all separations (like Kant's reason) are analytically abstracted. Information, in cognitive, truth bearing vehicles like paintings and novels, cannot be distanced at all from consciousness, for they are an intrinsic part of it.

Is information inherently aesthetic for you? There never really was any consciousness-neutral object that informed simply, for to even mention the object, to conceive it is to "make" a conscious construction. Perhaps you think the object is a transcendental medium, appearing to consciousness AS information (for this is what we do at the moment of apprehension), but in itself without any identifiable features. After all, once such features are posited, we are then IN consciousness. If the art object is a transcendental medium, then there is overcome the objection that the object and conscious apprehension of the object are the same thing, for the object now has no features at all. There is no symphonic performance out there and in here (my consciousness) the artistic event, for the performance itself is a conscious event. I actually come close to endorsing this.

But you do insist on that one big point of contention: Information???? Here I am enjoying this novel or aesthetically enraptured (Clive Bell) by a Van Gogh: Is it the case that I have been "informed" by the actual object. whatever it is? Informed by a newspaper, yes, but....One is not informed when have an aesthetic experience. This is cognitive, this being informed.

The art object is not information bearing, it is evocative, arousing, empassioning, and so forth.

Both these paintings are done by elephants: — T Clark

:rofl: A nose job!

"art." — T Clark

@T Clark - "There are also definitions that are of very little use" (y)

@T Clark - "Keeping in mind that "aesthetic" actually has an accepted meaning - Concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty"

Not exactly.

Aesthetic as an adjective is the study of beauty.

But beauty as a noun surely has a different meaning to aesthetic as a noun. For example, taking the examples of Picasso's Guernica 1937, a moving and powerful anti-war painting, and Bouguereau's 1873 Nymphs and Satyr, mythological themes emphasising the female human body

Dictionary definitions generally agree that aesthetic as a noun means a set of principles governing the idea of beauty, such as "modernist aesthetics" and beauty as a noun means qualities such as shape, colour, sound in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses.

Both the Picasso and Bouguereau are important paintings and have aesthetic values. Whilst the Bouguereau may be said to give pleasure to the senses, the Picasso certainly doesn't.

IE, it follows that the aesthetic must be more than being concerned with beauty

@T Clark - "I've always hated this idea - that we can't explain sight to a blind person"

I know the subjective experience of colours in the visible light spectrum, red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, violet. It seems that reindeer can also see the colour ultraviolet, which is useful to them in spotting lichens that they can eat.

The trick is, can you explain to me in words the subjective experience of the colour ultraviolet !

@T Clark - three cords and the truth. (y)

Exactly. Matisse's Cut-outs are some of my favourite artworks, minimal yet sophisticated.

@T Clark - value may be as much or more important than pattern. (y)

@T Clark - We are born with inborn instincts for certain ways of processing the world, learning about it...................We are born with the equipment to collect sensory input and the processing ability to interpret and use it" (y)

I agree.

I wrote "Humans have a priori knowledge", and I agree that my use of the word "knowledge" may be problematic, but I stick with it

"Knowledge" is defined as "facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject" which seems fair enough.

1) Our inborn instincts could be said to include "facts, information and skills"
2) Our "experience and education" has been acquired through billions of years of evolution rather than the schoolroom.
3) As regards innate "theoretical or practical understanding" of the colour red say, "understanding" may be defined as the capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars and the power to make experience intelligible by applying concepts. Then it must be the case that the brain has the innate capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars and does have the innate power to make experience intelligible.

IE, I stick with the concept of "a priori knowledge"

The viewer experiences the art work in a Enactivist fashion, where the consciousness of the viewer and the form of the art work, interact to cause an experience. The experience is not entirely the result of the artwork, nor entirely the result of the viewer, but is an amalgam of the two - experienced by the viewer. In the best of cases, these two gel to cause a pleasant experience, rather than repel, which would be an unpleasant experience, or one that is bypassed altogether. — Pop

Enactivism? If a person wants to examine at the basic level the interface between things and their subjective counterparts, one will NEVER be able to distinguish the two. You can argue against this if you like, but analytic philosophers gave up on this impossible idea long ago. They now simply put the whole epistemic embarrassment aside and imagine Kant through Heidegger never existed.
If you are interested in, as Hegel put it, the truth, then basic level assumptions have to be dealt with, and this leads only to one place: phenomenology.
So the information bearing object has no status at all until it is received. I would call this a qualified information bearing transcendental object (hermeneutically defined AS art upon arrival. This "AS" of course, puts art back in the hands of the aesthetic and its nature. This is inherently affective); but information has to be redefined in a way that defies its essential meaning.

Dictionary definitions generally agree that aesthetic as a noun means a set of principles governing the idea of beauty, such as "modernist aesthetics" and beauty as a noun means qualities such as shape, colour, sound in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses. — RussellA

That definition is not inconsistent with my meaning. The definition said "beauty," not "prettiness" or "pleasurableness."

The trick is, can you explain to me in words the subjective experience of the colour ultraviolet ! — RussellA

I think I could, but not just in words. It would have to be related to how the person uses their other senses. I can imagine what a bat's echolocation might be like. If I could talk to one, I could probably get a better feel for it. Never as good as a bat, but something at least. As for color, I could never transmit the actual experience, but I could explain how it works when I see something. What things and types of things have which colors. Shadows. I don't know whether a blind person would be interested in those things.

Matisse's Cut-outs are some of my favourite artworks, minimal yet sophisticated. — RussellA

Three chords and the truth is a vote for the value of unsophisticated art. The truth, in this sense, is not a matter of sophistication. It's what comes from the heart.

Our inborn instincts could be said to include "facts, information and skills" — RussellA

You're stretching the meaning of those words to match reality.

Our "experience and education" has been acquired through billions of years of evolution rather than the schoolroom. — RussellA

Again, you are distorting the meaning of "experience and education."

Then it must be the case that the brain has the innate capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars and does have the innate power to make experience intelligible. — RussellA

Two points. First, I think you're distorting language again. Second, it is my understanding that a lot of the sensory "knowledge" you are talking about comes from the actual machinery, e.g. taste buds for specific chemicals and rods and cones for specific ranges of light and color. Calling that "knowledge" is more than just a distortion.

2. Is something wrong with your definition Pop? — TheMadFool

We have already been through this. Whilst an Ai can be programmed , and an elephant taught to create a repetitive picture, they neither choose to do so, nor do they deem it to be art in the human tradition. An artist chooses to make something and deems it to be art – in the tradition of art. You may find Chimpanzees might choose to make paintings if left with paint and they have been shown how to, but they do not, cannot deem what they make to be art. The definition is watertight and I am tired of repeating why.

You can not invalidate the definition for obvious self evident reasons. Instead why not choose two different art works and compare them, and ask yourself why are they different? What are the elements that make them different? Ask yourself will an Australian aboriginal make the same art as an 18th century Russian peasant, and then answer why. Perhaps then we can take this conversation out of mid high school, to perhaps upper high school level, and maybe beyond.

In any case I am otherwise occupied with three Kidney stones, in the midst of school holidays , and lockdown, and no relief in sight, so wont be around much.

Enactivism? If a person wants to examine at the basic level the interface between things and their subjective counterparts, one will NEVER be able to distinguish the two. — Constance

:100:

So the information bearing object has no status at all until it is received. I would call this a qualified information bearing transcendental object (hermeneutically defined AS art upon arrival. This "AS" of course, puts art back in the hands of the aesthetic and its nature. This is inherently affective); but information has to be redefined in a way that defies its essential meaning. — Constance

:up: Yes information needs to be redefined, or perhaps better put - it's original meaning needs to be reinstated - which is to inForm - literally change the shape of, including changing the shape of mind.

Information and consciousness are related and enormous topics in information philosophy which is the way of the future, imo. I think we are near enough in our understanding. I will do more information threads in the future, so perhaps we can discuss in more detail later. This relates to your previous post.

We have already been through this. Whilst an Ai can be programmed , and an elephant taught to create a repetitive picture, they neither choose to do so, nor do they deem it to be art in the human tradition — Pop

Your definition does not include the elements of choice and belief that something is art and if it did, then we're in territories that seem alien to art (choice) and arbitrary (if I deem this :point: * is art then it is).

I dunno!

I stumbled onto Dr Rupert Sheldrake, something of a pop * C O N S C I O U S N E S S * guru, and he seems to think that mystical experiences validate the belief in universal consciousness. Remove the self and the self becomes everything, the reasoning seems to be. Rather anthropomorphic if you asked me.

Your definition does not include the elements of choice and belief that something is art and if it did, then we're in territories that seem alien to art (choice) and arbitrary (if I deem this :point: * is art then it is). — TheMadFool

Proof of the definition:

​1.    Art is an ungrounded variable mental construct: Objects are arbitrarily deemed to be art. Art’s only necessary distinction from ordinary objects is the extra deemed art information. Art can be anything the artist thinks of, but this is limited by their consciousness. — Pop

something of a pop * C O N S C I O U S N E S S * guru — praxis

Consciousness has nothing to do with religion or Gurus. In phenomenology and neuroscience consciousness can be broken down into moments of consciousness lasting 1-400ms according to these studies. From this point of view life is a procession of moments of consciousness - nothing exists outside of moments of consciousness, and everything that you do , you do in response to these moments, including make art.

nothing exists outside of moments of consciousness — Pop

How exactly do you know that?

How exactly do you know that? — praxis

Read the linked studies. Brush up on phenomenology. Produce something that exists for you outside of consciousness of it. I think you will find it is impossible.

Summary
Art is important because it is aesthetic form of representative content. The aesthetic is important because it is an innate foundational ability of sentient life to discover patterns in a seemingly chaotic world. Art is therefore an outward expression of the innate character of the brain and conscious mind — RussellA

:100:

** I think this video, where Van Gogh visits a gallery in the future, and how his work is interpreted by the gallerist is a really good illustration of this.

Produce something that exists for you outside of consciousness of it. — Pop

I don’t know what exists beyond of my consciousness. I’m not even sure about what ‘exists’ within my consciousness. If you want to be a player in the consciousness guru game you will need to learn how to embrace the unknown, or at least learn how to pretend that you can.

If you want to be a player in the consciousness guru game — praxis

I don't want to be a player in the consciousness guru game. I want to be a player in the art definition game. :lol: I also would like to understand myself, and the world that I live in, and consciousness and information are absolutely pertinent considerations to that end, imo.

I don't want to be a player in the consciousness guru game. I want to be a player in the art definition game. :lol: — Pop

What these games have in common is the desire to influence rather than the desire experience the aesthetic. This disparity is worlds apart.

What these games have in common is the desire to influence rather than the desire experience the aesthetic. This disparity is worlds apart. — praxis

Who is trying to influence now?

Objects are arbitrarily deemed to be art. Art’s only necessary distinction from ordinary objects is the extra deemed art information. — Pop

Inconcistency detected. Art, by the first sentence, is arbitrary. Then the second sentence mentions there's got to be something "...extra..." (art information).

Inconcistency detected. Art, by the first sentence, is arbitrary. Then the second sentence mentions there's got to be something "...extra..." (art information). — TheMadFool

This is what distinguishes art from ordinary objects - art has this extra deemed art information. ( Duchamp's urinal ) ( readymade art ).
No there is no inconsistency - an artist can bite his patron on the leg, and deem it to be art. An artist can do anything and deem it to be art.

I'm not answering any more questions of this nature. If you wish to focus on how art reflects the consciousness of an artist, through an examination of various art works, then I would be happy to oblige, but this type of questioning, now 17 pages long, has been done to death, imo.

No there is no inconsistency - an artist can bite his patron on the leg, and deem it to be art. An artist can do anything and deem it to be art. — Pop

In other words, anything and everything is art. Why define it then, definitions being restrictive criteria?

Van Gogh — Pop

(y) If only in real life were there Doctor Henry Black's who were present in art museums explaining to the passing public the importance of the paintings they were looking at.

(a priori knowledge)............"You're stretching the meaning of those words to match reality. — T Clark

In a sense I am stretching the meaning of the words a priori and knowledge within the phrase "a priori knowledge".

But in the case of the phrase "a priori knowledge", it is the phrase as a whole that has meaning rather than the particular words within it. It is the same as if I said "In my job interview I had to jump through hoops", where the concept "jump through hoops" is not determined by the particular words jump, through and hoop. Or if a said "Mary is a breath of fresh air" or "John flew off the handle". In the same way, expressions such as "a priori knowledge", "synthetic a priori" and "transcendental idealism" are more idiomatic expressions than literal descriptions. The phrase "a priori knowledge" then becomes a key phrase when used in search engines conveniently leading to more extensive explanations, such as in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Wikipedia.

IE, "a priori knowledge" is an idiomatic expression and is only a guide to the concept rather than a literal description of it.