Art Lament
by Henri

Some say a piece of art is but a fart,
Transformers save the universe,
And Hamlet only dies, not smart,
Where is the might? Who is real bard?
O art, thy heart, so full of surprise

But the universe is a mix of lawful activity and randomness. — Unseen

What you call "lawful activity" would be a collection of randomly created random laws, ultimately, randomness. Statistically, it is more probable by the order of magnitude that you are insane and don't know the extent of it, than that you came into existence through, ultimately, randomness (including randomly created random laws).

Randomness generates new possibilities which natural selection can keep or reject. — Unseen

Natural selection keeps or rejects? Like, mother nature, a conscious being, keeps or rejects something? But you don't really mean it, it's a figure of speech, right?

It's a spell you are under.

There is no other deciding factor to "random universe" than "randomness". A combination of various random elements, which some men decided to group and label nature, doesn't reject or keep anything. It's all, ultimately, random event. In such world, when something exists, it's random existence. When something dies, it's random death. And that's all it is. The problem is, probability that you exist through, ultimately, a random event, is mathematical or absolute 0%.

Why is Ayn Rand not accepted academically? — jasonm

Because a sting has to look believable.

Maybe, just maybe, it is possible to be of average or even above-average intellect, and not like all of the classics? And maybe, such a person would find more value in artworks that have not historically been highly valued. Crazy, I know, but if such a person exists, there is nothing in the definition of art to suggest that they are wrong...unless you see something I don't? — ZhouBoTong

Piece of art, generally speaking, is one of the, if not the most intricate product human makes, which communicates to the mind of another human with the purpose to impress a human experience. So we have highly complex variables in the mix. If you don't appreciate the intricacy of the product itself, generally speaking, there's not much to be said really.

You could also understand that since art is highly intricate product, one we don't know how to empirically directly measure for quality, a list of "historically valued art" is an approximation mixed with politics and other additional factors, and as such certainly questionable.

But that still doesn't change the fact that one piece of art is better than the other.

You can be brought up with store bought frozen pizzas, and that's what your palate will be trained for and will know. That doesn't mean pizzas cannot be ranked from worst to best, or that fresh pizza makers are snobs. It just means your palate is living in poverty.

Didn't you say we were created modeled after Him? — Unseen

"Creating in likeness of x" is not "creating exactly x". And "creating" is an active tense, work in progress.

And, by the way, a theory of how consciousness works is not necessarily how things are. Mind is quite an enigma for us. For example, you actually believe there is such a thing as "survival value" in a universe established by "randomness".

Atta boy, let them!

Well, folks certainly have a mouth to voice what they want. I don't know how far off am I to guess that for most people here, if you were to be their mouthpiece in life, they would be in trouble. Maybe end up prematurely dead, even.

I made my contribution in previous page, to the OP. Am looking forward to replies from people with whom it's possible to reason with. Que sera, sera.

Take it however you like. Not that you have demonstrated to have a mind that can reason rationally and logically. At least not in what I have seen today. Maybe take a nap. Or just go to some other adventures.

How would we narrow it while saying something accurate? — Terrapin Station

I'm sorry, I have seen quite inaccurate and illogical statements coming from you today, so I don't have confidence that you understand what "accurate" means. So, to answer your question - please don't.

The reasons are that we have ideals, desires, goals, etc. and we can judge whether some things meet them, no? — Terrapin Station

Eh... too broad a statement, no? One can, with irrationality and perseverance, run anywhere with it.

So, like man, God has a pre-conscious mind feeding his passive conscious mind experiences? — Unseen

Oh, so you claim to understand inner workings of God.

BTW, I'm assuming the God you're referring to is Zeus. Or is it Ahura Mazda? — Unseen

Don't sweat it, you'll know when the time comes.

Or maybe you don't understand art, among other things you don't understand, so you create a "problem" to justify your own ignorance, consciously or unconsciously. And you are so blind that you actually do it publicly.

There is a reason why we can understand who is a winner of a game, which food is healthier, and what photo better documents corresponding news article. And there is a reason why certain piece of art is better than the other. Just because it's more nuanced doesn't make it a wild west of subjectivity. But you seem to be so out of touch of many things, let alone art, that this discussion with you is probably one big "much ado for nothing".

Aside the fact that it's impossible to show that "There are no objective purposes" is a truth claim, I actually didn't mention "objective purposes" anywhere. So maybe the first thing you don't comprehend is how much you hijack a thread, or try to grind it to shallow waters. With nonsense nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if it occurs relatively regularly with you.

Maybe you are the one who doesn't comprehend? So you resort to insults.

I guess, keep insulting away, since that's better than "anti-conversation".

At least I wasn't labeling you with insults.

There are no objective purposes — Terrapin Station

- I almost puked. I just saw a man eating his own feces, through my window.

- Eating feces? What's the problem? There are no objective purposes.

- You are fired.

There are no objective purposes — Terrapin Station

- Hey man, what the f***? Why are you shitting your pants in the office? Go to the bathroom, what's wrong with you?

- To the bathroom? There are no objective purposes.

- You are fired.

There are no objective purposes — Terrapin Station

- Hey coach, why did you lose all ten games from the start of the season?

- Lose? There are no objective purposes.

- You are fired.

It seems a given in educated circles that Shakespeare and DaVinci created "better" art than, lets say, Michael Bay (makes movies that many would consider "low brow" like Transformers or Armageddon). Is there even a little justification for this? — ZhouBoTong

There's justification for it, and not only a little. Art has a purpose, and when we understand the purpose we can understand which piece of art fulfills it more.

How was art defined in this thread? Piece of art is human product with primary purpose to provide you with an impression of human experience through passive consumption (no interaction), usually through sight and/or sound.

A little exercise regarding quality of art is to think about art genres.

For example, a photograph can be an art, and so can a written story.

Is there a photograph that can give you more depth, width, impression of human experience - as a piece of art - then, for example, Chekhov's play or Dostoevsky's novel? Not only is there no such photograph, but it's impossible for there to be such photograph, since medium of photography itself is constricted (in terms of art's purpose) compared to the medium of written words.

Now, you can certainly see a photograph that can heavily tug your heart. But it's not because you are seeing art, it's because you are seeing a document - a documented picture of (sad) reality.

With that said, how much of a human experience was impressed into you through seeing Transformers movie? A certain amount, just as we can get a certain amount of nutrients from Coca-Cola. But can you find a piece of music or literature that impresses much more, much deeper and wider than that movie, or any movie for that matter? I would say absolutely yes. And if you couldn't do it now, it wouldn't be because of subjectivity, but because of lack of exposure and experience.

Why are we conscious? — Unseen

We are conscious (at the level we are conscious at) because God is creating a man in His image.

If you irrationally presuppose that your existence is a result of "randomness", your question is arbitrary, because everything, including consciousness, would ultimately result from "randomness", which would be the answer for the question. What hinders you is that you not only seem to presuppose that your existence is a result of "randomness", but that "survival value" is a thing in such case, which it cannot be with "randomness" as the root cause. So you shouldn't be perplexed about consciousness' role in adding or subtracting "survival value".

non sequitor — tim wood

You literally have to be a fool in order to be an atheist. That's an absolute. What fool says, then, in this case you, is irrelevant.

Of course, there's an absurdity of me trying to explain something to a fool, which I'll refrain from further on...

Fool says there is no God. Even greater fool says, if there is God, so what.

The main claim of the OP is that human cannot have free will, even without considering existence of God. So, main claim doesn't require your belief. You didn't answer the question, though.

I am sceptical of that claim, as I am of all sorts, for lack of the better word, "supernatural" claims that I'm being told impact my will or actions. — Avro

If God doesn't make your life and actions, then your life is made and acted, ultimately, by randomness. Isn't that something to be sceptical about?

The person who came to be your grandfather might have eaten some bad shrimp and fell out of mood for lovemaking that day. As a result, it happened a couple days after, and because of that, it was not your father who was conceived but a baby girl. And you never existed.

Notice that the activity between the man and the woman doesn't necessarily produce a baby. — Metaphysician Undercover

Neither does activity between the sperm and the egg. Everything what man does and what sperm "does" and what woman does and what egg "does" is part of causal chain. And not one of those is the root cause, which is prior to man, and woman, and sperm, and egg.

If a being is eternal, then it does not have a cause. So it is contradictory to say that an eternal being has an internal cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was talking about an action of eternal being, not the cause of eternal being. So we can say, in keeping the theme of root cause, that the root cause of an action of eternal being is eternal being, and not something prior to eternal being. If one wants to say that there is actually no root cause, or no cause, of an action of eternal being, that's ok too. Eternal being is different category of being than us, so some translation of terms is necessary one way or the other.

I don't understand why you would call this process "external from you". Weren't you internal to your mother, in her womb? — Metaphysician Undercover

You know how babies are made. There is a specific action man does to a woman, before sperm even comes into contact with the egg. That action is part of the process of making you, and you are at that time non-existent.

This is a mistaken premise because it assume that a "cause" must be external to a being. — Metaphysician Undercover

It doesn't assume, generally, that cause must be external. If a being is eternal, cause is internal, within that being. If you are created in time, then the cause is always external, even if the cause is, theoretically, randomness. Clearer way to look at it is not as external but as prior in time. External here means an element of reality which existed prior to creation of x, including (theoretical) quality within reality to produce randomness.

"Your thought" is simply another way of saying "it occurs of (or we could say "in") you. — Terrapin Station

That's fine. A thought given to you without an option to deny it, but which you can then call yours, doesn't make you have free will.

Maybe I wasn't clear. There is no choice in you whether you will do the command or not. You do execute it.

Right, so it's your thought. — Terrapin Station

Who owns the code in a piece of software? Software or programmer?

The phenomena in question is the thought, "I intend to do x" for example. So that's your thought? — Terrapin Station

God gives command that at certain point in time, in certain situation, you have a thought "I intend to do x." And then you do have such thought. In a way, you are executing God's command.

So it's God's thought, not your own? — Terrapin Station

It is not God's thought. It is God's command for what your thought as certain point in time is to be.

And if that phenomena, when it occurs, isn't of you, what is it of? — Terrapin Station

It's of God. Or, theoretically, it's from randomness, which makes the subject inconsequential. You can label randomness produced through your mind as "yours" or not, but it doesn't matter, as I see it. This discussion matters in relation to God. Otherwise, it's a time waste.

What does s required for free will. — Terrapin Station

If free will is a willful act of a conscious being which ultimately originates within that being, then a being has to be eternal, without being created at certain point in time, in order to have free will. Maybe to add, if that's not a given, that such being must not be subjected to randomness.

On the other hand, if a being is created, either by another being as a root cause, God, or through random act, such being doesn't have free will.

What would you say is required other than (a) will, and (b) a lack of determinism in conjunction with will? — Terrapin Station

Can you rephrase the question a bit? What is required for what?

No, I wouldn't say that the originating cause of my existence is myself, that would be nonsense. However, it looks far more likely that the originating cause of my existence is something internal to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aside from contradiction in the two statements, as I see it, what is "something internal to you" that is originating cause, the root cause, of your existence? DNA? Your DNA didn't exist until it was set by a process external to you. Just because your DNA is very similar to the DNA of your parents, you are not your parents and there was no you until you were conceived by them, which is a process external from you, since you didn't even exist at the initiation of conception. Or is it something else?

Say that some phenomena can happen acasually. You'd say that it can only happen acausally via an "eternal being" I suppose. — Terrapin Station

Theoretically, randomness produces acasual act. Although, reality has to already have a quality which allows randomness to occur. Even randomness is limited by laws of nature/reality above it, which allow it to happen or not, at certain rate. Maybe, theoretically, that kind of quality of reality can itself come into existence acasually, randomly. But that doesn't solve the problem. There is no uber law of nature that says: In any given possible reality, randomness must occur.

Anyway, that's sidetracking from the subject. The subject is human being, who is not the first mover in a reality, who is not the first cause in a reality, but is created somewhere on a timescale. As such, we cannot have free will, although we do have a will.

Even if some of decisions you execute could come acasually, which I don't believe is true, just because decision is helped by randomness doesn't make it "free will". Quite the opposite.