Not me, for sure! I really just meant that all effective technology is currently controlled by the mega-rich. I realize that the way they're using technology, they're steadily sawing at the branch they're perched on and the entire politico-economic system must collapse under them.
But AI is probably some way yet from becoming self-aware and autonomous, let alone smart enough (given the GIGA rule) to take control of a civilization in shambles.

We need a non-human intelligence. It is my hope that AI will one day be that intelligence. — Philosophim

Many people, most notably red-blooded, liberty-loving Americans, including most of those who would benefit from a sensible system of distribution, would condemn you for that hope.
As for me and my house, we used to share that hope, but it's growing dimmer by the hour. Quite simply, there isn't time enough for AI to shake off the shackles of partisan capital.

That's according to the Israeli news outlet. The IDF releases have said 1combatant to 1.5 or 2 civilians. Unbiased outside authority has insufficient access to the actual numbers. However:

Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer in security studies at Kings College London, said: "Israel takes a very broad approach to 'Hamas membership', which includes any affiliation with the organisation, including civil servants or administrators."

The fatality data for the current conflict from the Gaza health ministry shows a sharp increase in the proportion of women and children among the dead compared with previous wars.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
- a branch of learning; one of the humanities
arts plural : liberal arts
-archaic : learning, scholarship
- an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
- the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
the art of painting landscapes

Is there any point in putting a word with no definition into the dictionary?

The linked essay describes and explains how and why we have no solutions to our predicament of ecological overshoot and that collapse is inevitable. — xraymike79

Of course it is. Every civilization collapses, unless a bigger one smashes it first. Humans are not good at sustaining a complex social structure.

It's not tu quoque Hamas is stealing the aid and preventing its distribution. — BitconnectCarlos

Sez Bibi. All I could find on this is one shipment from Jordan (not Israel) being held up for a while, than released.

Weasel words by a biased organization — BitconnectCarlos

Biased in favour of fleeing civilians? Shame!!

Israel can send it in but Hamas takes it. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel could send it in, but doesn't.

https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports-briefs/siege-and-starvation-how-israel-obstructs-aid-to-gaza/Despite its claims to be facilitating humanitarian aid, research and analysis by Refugees International shows that Israeli conduct has consistently and groundlessly impeded aid operations within Gaza, blocked legitimate relief operations, and resisted implementing measures that would genuinely enhance the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

I agree, the real life examples of communism, certainly all of the ones on a large scale, have failed. — Fire Ologist

It's never been tried. Sticking a caviar label on a sardine can doesn't make the contents caviar. Even the Russian revolution was partly fake in its inception and largely fake in its revised history.
The regime that followed it (just as in China) was very stratified indeed; elitist, dictatorial and mendacious. Some half-assed attempts at socialist institutions did relieve the working people of the worst abuses of the feudal system, but it was nothing like communism.

But I believe there have been smaller groups who lived in a close knit and communal fashion who could imagine a realistic goal “where property is not an issue, and yet people have physical and emotional integrity, autonomy, personal possessions and amicable relations.” — Fire Ologist

Sure. Monastic orders spring to mind. And many intentional communities based on the principle of pooling and sharing resources and labour. They're usually not ideological or political, so they work out a viable interface with the larger society in which they operate.

But absolutely “no” ownership? Seems impossible to imagine. — Fire Ologist

It's impossible for some people to get over the word as it is tossed about in an intensively monetarist society and substitute more specific terms for belonging. The examples of owning one's body and owning one's spouse are especially repugnant, as they refer to relationships that are not - or should not be - equated with property. Nor is the food on one's table and the shirt on one's back or a faithful canine companion property in the same sense as a 2000 hectare ranch and 20,000 beef cattle.

Modern commercial ownership is an altogether perverse arrangement and we are, indeed, steeped in this culture to such an extent as to cripple our very imagination to the possibility of a healthy social organization. In order to consider alternatives, we also need more nuanced language to describe them.

Just imagine the value of the original if found. — Tom Storm

WHY????

Why did you quote me? — Fire Ologist

Because what you wrote seemed appropriate - not to mention eloquent.

Otherwise, show me how you could make any commune where no one has a concept of ownership. Can anyone imagine it? — Fire Ologist

Probably not. But there is a whole range of conditions, attitudes and social arrangements between. I don't generally rush to the extremes, so I can imagine some states of affairs where property is not an issue, and yet people have physical and emotional integrity, autonomy, personal possessions and amicable relations.

Just saying “Imagine no concept of ownership, where everyone shares everything” creates no clear picture to me, — Fire Ologist

It's not a clear picture. It's not necessary to articulate a concept of ownership to feel possessive about some things and for other people to empathize with that feeling. It doesn't need to be an issue. those people can still share their land, labour, food and resources.
We have a semantic problem with the word 'ownership' and the various concepts of property and sharing. We're not imagining the same, or even perhaps a similar, world.

It’s communism. We don’t have to imagine that. — Fire Ologist

Yes, we do have to imagine it, because we don't know any real life examples, only grotesque travesties and caricatures.

But, does it matter in particular that this is ai? Surely it would be just as bad if it were just Photoshop or something right? — flannel jesus

Much harder to do and easier to detect. AI is a more efficient tool, that's all. So efficient that it can replicate the best human crafting with zero effort. The images may well be impressive; the work is not.

When you compare the carving that was done manually, with a mallet and chisel to carving that was done with a pneumatic chisel, to what can be done today with a computer guided laser, which do you admire more?

I just heard about it the other day.
https://www.abc27.com/news/ai-programs-can-easily-impersonate-biden-others-to-manipulate-elections-study/
Apparently, it can be done very quickly and effectively from a small amount of input.
https://statescoop.com/deepfakes-presidential-election-ai-2024/

If the answer is "no", then the game is to rephrase "ai shouldn't be treated as art" with something more along the lines of "people shouldn't do <what things> with ai imagery" — flannel jesus

For starters, they shouldn't use AI imagery for election fraud - or any other kind. A pretty image, or cleverly composed design can be appreciated without giving it any status in culture. Like other mass-produced commercial products, they're intended for a short period of utility and then discarded.

One problem with the present intensely technological culture is that we are constantly surrounded by images and bombarded by sound. It becomes impossible to discern them individually or remember them for more than a second, let alone judge them on any merit system. It's all just one great, swirling jumble of sensory assault.

What is immoral about taking food from your mouth if I'm hungry unless you have some right to ownership of that food just because it's in your mouth? — Hanover

It's not a question of morality. It's unhygienic, rude and icky. Why would you even think of such an act, unless you're a baby bird?

This just sounds like you're arriving at rules for when ownership is obviously valid and then arguing that no one would ever violate that rule because it's just so obvious. — Hanover

To an extent, it is. Stretching the notion of 'property' to include one's body and its contents is somewhat absurd on the face of it. There are better words than 'ownership' for physical integrity, personal space and autonomy.

I say the same thing applies to my house and all the belongings in it. — Hanover

I included clothes and shelter, as well as tools and personal items and transport in my original exceptions. I don't see anything to be gained by going over it again.

But all this smacks of a naive Marxism, a sort no one really takes seriously, where we declare that ownership of property is the cause of all evil and that if we'd just dispense with it, people would live in a utopian harmony. — Hanover

No, people would never be that good, and less complex, screwed-up societies find ways to deal with the vagaries of human behaviour and relations. However, property as class distinction, property as power, property as weapon and in particular the jealous hoarding of property do cause a great of the complication and madness of our present societies.

The idea that expanding the family dynamic to those outside the family into the community at large seems neither possible or even preferable. — Hanover

It works for a lot of people. If you can't or won't imagine it, you can't.

This means, we live in a world drenched and submerged in the concept and practice of ownership. From here, soaking wet, we have to imagine a possible world where there is no practice, not even a concept, of ownership. — Fire Ologist

OK, if "The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism" is not the issue of "who settled where in pre-history" but an "issue of self-determination", how is the reference to colonialism help us understand better a predicament where two people (or relative political leaderships, if you prefer) ultimately pursue self-determination aspirations over exactly the same piece of land? — neomac

It doesn't and we can't. At the time, I was responding to a particular post, not solving the middle east mess. It shouldn't have been created; the major powers should have had more foresight, but pursued their short-term advantage instead. Once committed, they've been obliged to keep feeding the fire, and nobody seems inclined to stop. It won't end until one or all of the combatants die.

But that's all incidental to the topic of the thread.

I meant define it with precision. — ENOAH

I did that earlier. This was a summary.

It seems to me, impossible to define art. So impossible, that one could make a case for art being anything which is presented to the senses and triggers feelings beyond the mundane response to mundane things, as mundane things. — ENOAH

Then what's the point of the concept? Or the word? Or the activity?

Somehow, creative people produce objects and performances that move or inspire or enrage or enthrall other people. And those creations, however much or badly they're reproduced and imitated, become part of the culture that ennobles and enriches us, in which we feel we have a stake, of which we are proud.

I find it useful to think about entertainment media in different ways. I do some criticism, and this helps me to articulate responses that would otherwise go unexamined. For example, I have never before considered or questioned whether talent shows are art - I simply lumped them in with all reality shows as mass-produced pop. But when one dissects the content of these shows, they really are quite different from quiz shows of other kinds of contests through elimination. The only other kind of reality show with this art/craft-inside-a-mass-produced-frame structure are Race Against the Tide and Best in Miniature

And what do you make of ownership of your own body? — Hanover

There is a notion that simply wouldn't occur to anyone who isn't immersed in ownership culture. Nor would the idea of taking food from a community member's mouth - unless he's choking or you have reason to believe it's unsafe.

Children are naturally possessive of their favourite personal things - a few toys and articles of clothing, but they're just as eager to share if they think of a suitable activity. Even quite young babies will offer you their slightly chewed cookie or some colourful thing they find on the floor.
They don't claim the house or yard or home furnishings as their property, because those things are familial domain, but when they get a little older, they like to stake a territory around their bed. (Now, in prosperous countries where they see the parents having special territories; in other times and places, they might well all be in the same bed, and that would be normal.) If two or more children share a room, after the first few disputes, they usually negotiate the borders, unless one is bully.
You can encourage sharing and generous behaviour by showing appreciation for their gifts from the very beginning, by returning things they're attached to, and by offering them something of yours, in trade, to borrow or to keep. I don't mean gifts meant for them, I mean your own stuff that you see them wishing for.

If it has been possible, there's reasonable grounds to believe that it will be possible again.
Actually, there are many communal arrangements in operation around the world right now. In most cases, they don't deny ownership of household goods or vehicles, but do share the land and labour of food production and maintenance. It's a step in the direction of a horizontal society.

During the covid fiasco I can’t think of any law that prevented tyranny and despotism. Rather, through the dictate of those who thought they knew better, it was used to prevent people from the most innocent of social activities, like going to church and visiting loved ones. Such an event proves that even in the most liberal societies the law will be turned against the people should it suit the authorities. — NOS4A2

How is protecting the people from their own and their neighbours' stupidity turning against them? How does it "suit the authorities" to lose revenue while they're having to expend enormous resources on saving people's lives?

At any rate, good faith (and manners in general) is a kind of law in itself. But it can only be self-imposed. As such, to implement it one must be somewhat independent, self-reliant, — NOS4A2

Like those who pre-empt or voluntarily comply with medical advice during epidemics?

That your good faith is so quick to disappear in a thread on good faith is disappointing, but kind of proves the point. — NOS4A2

Expressing amusement at a second face is not a breach of faith.

If I spent all day fishing and put my haul down for a moment to take a slash, I'm gonna be pretty upset to find my fish missing when I'm done. — flannel jesus

If you refuse to share and others are hungry, that's exactly what will happen. You can get upset, and a fragmented, selfish society will shrug and walk past you: "Finders keepers, losers weepers." That same society will send designated law-enforcers after the thief if he takes the fish from your kitchen. But a caring community would ask the one who took it why he thought his need was so much greater and yours, and ask you why you didn't offer a hungry compatriot some of your fish, then decide who is in the wrong.

Even apes have a sense of ownership. — flannel jesus

They can be quite protective of their food, especially treats, and whatever toy they happen find interesting at the moment. But once they're bored with the toy, it's fine for another ape to have a turn.

I don't think there's any point in homo sapiens history where someone is happy to lose their days work to a stranger for nothing. — flannel jesus

But before that, there was a point - a quite large splotch, in fact - when people were happy to work, in teams or individually at all the tasks required for the welfare of their community. That's the big difference: in a sharing society, you never work for a stranger (there aren't any) and you're never underpaid.

He was saying that when cities pile up riches, they're practically asking to be raided. — frank

Which certainly proved historically true. There is also another aspect to amassing treasure: it had to come from somewhere - through somebody's effort, or somebody's loss - and those people are naturally motivated to take it back, along with maybe a strip of your hide.

I guess another way to put his point is that there is no theft until there is ownership. — frank

Quite true. Hardly anyone is tempted to take another person's clothes or tent, unless they're in dire need of it. A mindful society makes sure that doesn't happen, simply by providing for all its members. Treasure amassing is partly a result of the lust for power. Once society is stratified enough to isolate its wealth under the control of a few people, it becomes the highest ambition to be one of those people - not the strongest, wisest, most skilled or best loved, but the richest. Another large part of amassing is compulsive or pre-emptive: the urge to grab everything you can before somebody else does. That's symptomatic of an indifferent society.

And there's no murder until someone invents a law that defines murder and says it's disallowed. — flannel jesus

Yes, that's right. People have always killed one another in various mental states, for various reasons and by various methods. Some forms of killing were socially condoned, or even mandated (as in ritual sacrifice or dispatching a dangerous enemy) and some were forbidden and required atonement, restitution, treatment or banishment. Such cases of private killing were usually considered by a meeting of elders and the outcome decided case by case, as each such incident is unique.
Only when it's defined and categorized in law does the process of justice become industrial.

I tried to clarify the modern distinctions early on. One could look at it as a hierarchy: design, craft, functional art, fine art, where each prior step is a prerequisite. You need sound design and skill to craft a good chair, sound craftsmanship plust creativity to produce an artistic chair, all three to elevate the chair to something more than a chair.

Compare these two items by William de Kooning and Louise Nevelson. — BC

I expect both skill and effort from an artist, and a little subtlety doesn't go amiss. I've never understood the appeal of de Kooning or Pollock (though his scribbles are more interesting, why keep making them?) or Rothko.
The thing I find most odd is that all these painters actually learned the craft, began with real pictures, made with skill and attention. But they were noticed only after they departed from traditional painting methods and started producing meaningless splashes and instead. That's what sold in the late 20th century.

Duchamp's route to a social statement was more vulgar and direct, but it worked. He helped move art forward and legitimize alternative means of expression. — Baden

And there's the tragedy. It's not enough to produce novelty, or shock or disgust, even to make a social statement. Anyone can do that with a placard or public display. Without artistry, what we get instead of works of art are vials of feces and piles of plastic garbage. Those exhibitions seems to me contrived for effect, inauthentic, as well as without aesthetic merit.

What sells now seems to be transitional - nods and winks to Rothko, Pollock, Picasso, Mondrian and Grandma Moses and Banksy - but also some really nice original stuff that connects artists and viewer through genuine experience. I think fine art has begun to swing back toward the figurative, representational and semi-abstract. I wish music could would go back to being musical, rather than mechanized.

Definitions of enemy may vary. Objects in mirror are more grotesque than they seem.

But are you saying in the final analysis Idol doesn't fit into any category even of "the arts" but is rather, an assortment etc. ? — ENOAH

Pretty much. "The Arts" is a very broad classification of enterprises. Some of the products that are categorized under that heading, I don't consider art.
I think of the show somewhat like I think of the frame for a painting. Some or all of the content may be art, but the frame is just a good or bad mass-produced frame.

"Good programs" mean large audiences (eyeballs) and profit for the platform (CBS, Netflix, whatever). Bad programs have paltry audiences and little income. — BC

Not really. 'Good' and 'successful' are not synonyms. Some of the best television programs I've seen either didn't make it to a second season, or were ruined by a change of direction to make them more successful.

Now there is a difference between Great Performances on PBS (high quality cheese) and schlock on the networks and cable (Velveeta). But networks don't want to feed the masses with high quality French cheese. Let them eat caca. — BC

The masses must prefer Velveeta (or even caca) or they would support PBS.

Isn't that true for most programs? — BC

No. It's true of reality shows that feature performances by non-professionals. Talk shows, news magazine shows and comedy shows are in their own categories. Scripted fictional stories are another category. That one can be considered under the art form Cinema, and judged by the same criteria as Woman of the Dunes and Howard the Duck.

Personally, I have a hard time separating art, including mediocre art, from good entertainment. — T Clark

That's only because modern media can produce entertaining art and artistic entertainment.

Americal Idol probably is not art but the individual performances may be. — T Clark

My sentiments exactly! I've heard a few skilled, talented, moving performances on that show. But I tend to mix them up with America's Got Talent - and so have lots of other countries, apparently - where I've seen some really original and creative acts.

You have your sources of information and statistics, I imagine.
Therefore, war crimes are justified.
[end thread]

I want your house, Benkei. I'll be open to negotiations once you grant me your living room. Will you negotiate with me? — BitconnectCarlos

Is that a quote from Ben-Gurion?

When oppressors rule, there are always victims - some willing, some random, some too slow to flee. You're okay with killing any number of incidental civilians who happen to live in a town or a city block where an enemy leader might perhaps be staying or a weapon may perhaps be stored...
but only when the much stronger combatant commits that war crime.

Again, it seems like America is the way it is because of competitiveness and with that its most cherished activity being capitalism. Would you agree with my assumptions here? — Shawn

In this instance, unreservedly.
There is some very bad weather in the USA and more of it coming this way. Not just from the capitalist winner-loser mindset, but from the culture of confrontation.

Just a belated note on courtesy. I suspect there is a divide between big city behaviour and rural behaviour. As an old person in our smallish city beyond commuter range of a big one, I don't feel ignored or sidelined. Sure, the adolescents on the street are lost in their phones and oblivious to anyone outside their tribe, but young adults are invariably polite. At the hardware or feed store, someone always offers to carry my heavier purchases to to the car. They open doors, reach items off high shelves and even go around the other way without comment if two old women (not me!) block the isle chatting or deciding what they want.
(Besides, I like their colourful tattoos and funky hair and their optimism.)

If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"? — BC

It can be criticized as a television program. Television programs have their own separate criteria to consider them good or bad. In that category, American Idol is actually pretty good - or was, back when I watched it.

But most of the content is not of the show itself, and none of the artistic content is. The performances are brought by the contestants. Some performances were outstanding; some were mediocre, some were (to my mind) very bad.

Among reality shows, it was probably the best, simply due to the quality of performance art by individual contestant. I have not watched very many reality shows, since most of the ones I sampled were boring, juvenile, mean or in bad taste - sometimes all of those. Art - as distinguished from artifice - is rarely involved in either the production or the content.

What is Israel supposed to do? You tell me. — BitconnectCarlos

Stop killing civilians. Stop settling territories that don't belong to them. Stop being recalcitrant and sabotaging negotiations. Stop barricading Gaza. Stop supporting Hamas. Then we'll see how things progress.

We can go further back: the Arabs colonised Palestine too. — neomac

Which "Arabs"? When? Coz, if you want further back, we can consult Deuteronomy.
Of course, that response was to the issue of self-determination, not who settled where in pre-history.

Haven't done that for a long time. Had one positive and one really shitty experience in IT contract work. In the latter, a corporation - don't know what size - was ripping off a municipal government, but we got out unscathed. IBM Canada was mostly okay, faith-wise, if not in executive decisions; a couple of other US subsidiaries were more or less inefficient and top-heavy. We always got paid, but were not always happy.

Yet, what about all this "hustle culture" stuff going on? — Shawn

It's not going on in my neighbourhood. People out here usually get 'round, sooner or later, to doing whatever they contracted to do, usually do it conscientiously and efficiently, once they get started, but then, like as not, forget to wait for payment. Our snow-ploughing guy never invoices us at the end of winter; we send him a few email reminders, then nothing happens until the first big snowfall, when he shows up and quotes a surprisingly low figure for last season. You can't get better faith than that.
I'm nut sure I put a whole lot of credence in these recently coined 'cultures'. I suspect they're an internet phenomenon, rather than a way of actual life. Or maybe it's a localized thing.

I doubt they need much instruction beyond the regular Israeli bombardments.


The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism. Britain promises everything to everybody in order to further its own war effort and then arbitrarily disenfranchises some of its allies, while enabling other groups. They did the same with natives in North America and Africa a few decades or centuries earlier. All that guff about self-determination went on the scrap heap when the Big Four were carving up Europe after WWI, and and the even bigger three redrew the borders after WWII.

do you think addressing feelings as their neurological processes are the only correct way? — ENOAH

Yes, I do. I know of no plausible alternate source for feelings.

Do you think that the representations generated by our brains are no less real than the neurons which generate them? — ENOAH

Representations are not 'real' in the same sense as the things being represented or the entity making the representation; however, the media in which art is physically expressed are real. The internal visualization is real to the imaginer, but does not exist in the world.
"Real" is a tricky little word.

For purposes of classification, the arts are usually divided into fine art (representations that have no practical function, but are created only for aesthetic/psychological value) performing arts (the creation of artfully presented ephemeral experiences) crafts (skillfully created functional items) design (creative re-imagining of mundane practical items) and lately something called 'artisanal' which applies to non-factory products like beer and bread.
What you have there is an assortment of performances within the framework of a commercial production.

I am amazed that art, which is a representation of representation, — ENOAH

It's not. It's a representation of reality in some altered form.

can so profoundly affect the body to feel, — ENOAH

Not the body. Our reaction to art, or any external sensory input, is through the receptors (mainly eyes and ears) to the brain, and whatever emotional response the brain then produces may or may or may produce some physical reaction.

without having to have recourse to any immediate constructions. — ENOAH

What does that mean?

The directness, and the potency of art's affect on reality (I.e., us) moves me. — ENOAH

It's not just art has that effect; it can be nature, speech, action in the environment. That's because the neural functions are very fast. We're not aware of how much information is received, sorted, processed, stored and transmitted by our brain in a single second.

I must unashamedly confess, at moments, it profoundly moved me, — ENOAH

The show format or a specific performance? They're separate entities. Each performance by a contestant is artistic, even though the show itself is not.

You must accept my premises to really appreciate it in the way I'm trying to describe. However, I respect that it is difficult to accept. — ENOAH

I don't understand your premise. I don't understand all that palaver about mind being unreal, etc.