Are you an expert critical thinker? I don't think you are, because you don't seem to know what follows from what. So, once more, your views on what does or does not demonstrate good criticial thinking are not views you should take very seriously.

You wouldn't know a good critical thinker from a bad one. The only distinction you'd draw is between one you agree with and one you don't, yes?

But art doesn’t always answer to the concept of art. — Brett

Yes it does. It's true by definition. Art is that which answers to the concept of art. It is exactly what that concept is the concept of that is the matter over which disagreement is had. But there cannot coherently be any disagreement over whether art is that which answers to the concept of art, anymore than there can be coherent disagreement over whether a chair is something that answers to the concept of a chair.

Do you have any expertise in psychology? Or are you once again talking about things you know nothing about?

No, I mean the concept of art. A concept is an idea. The 'idea' of art, then.

We have the concept - that is, it is in our intellectual warehouse, as it were - and then we notice that there are things in the world that answer to it.

The concept of a chair is an idea - an idea of a chair. An actual chair is 'that which answers to the concept of a chair'.

Likewise, the concept of art is an idea - the idea of art. Actual art is that which answers to the concept.

What is it considered to be?

Some kind of a fertility symbol, yes? Not a work of art.

Perhaps it is a work of art - perhaps there's a degree of ambiguity over what to classify it as - but then that just shows us that it is sometimes unclear whether something is a work or art or not, even once we've cancelled cultural noise.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the existence of unclear cases means all cases are unclear.

If someone dug up Duchamp's urinal, it would not be classified as art, but as a urinal.

And if someone dug up the Mona Lisa, it would be classified as art.

A small, dumpy, weirdy thing with no feet and no face? Well, probably not art - probably a fertility symbol or some kind of cultural junk. Not entirely clear.

That's not equivalent to what I said. Persons, minds, create art. But we're talking about what it takes for something to qualify.
What I am saying is that 'what it takes' is a matter we investigate - a matter we use our reason to try and discern - rather than a matter that is in our gift.
So you are confusing that which answers to the concept with the concept itself.

That which answers to the concept is 'art' (and we create it). But we did not create the concept.

To put it in the terms discussed - what if the archaeologist dug up Duchamp's urinal ? — Pop

Well, I expect they'd think it was a urinal and not a work of art. Thus we should take seriously that it is not a work of art.

Artists create art, but that doesn't necessarily make them experts on what it is that makes something art rather than something else (or mean that everything they create is art).

For an analogy: let's say a strange substance starts seeping out of me whenever I think of a strawberry.
I know how to create the strange substance - I can just start thinking of a strawberry and out it seeps. But that doesn't make me an expert on what this curious substance is.

They're not 'defining' art.

If you want a definition for art, here's one: art is cheese and cheese is art. There.

That's obviously a false definition, for we recognise that some things are art yet not cheese, and some things are cheese and not art.

We don't have a rival definition in our heads, do we? After all, how would that rival definition show there to be anything wrong with my one?

We already have the concept of art. When we try and 'define' art we are not 'creating' the concept, rather we are trying to capture it.

Big difference.

That's why my definition above should be rejected. Art and cheese are not synonymous. My definition made them so - but so much the worse for my definition.

So, let's be clear about what way around things are. We have the concept of art - a concept given to us by our reason.

We then wonder what it is that qualifies something as art. We have already started recognising some things as art and some things not - so we don't need a definition in order to do this - but we are just wondering if there is something systematic to it.

Hence we speculate about what may qualify one thing as art and another thing not.

But again: we don't need the definition in order to be able to recognise that there is art in the world.

You don't need a definition of a mountain in order to be able to recognise mountains, or a definition of 'you' in order to recognise that you exist. We can try and formulate definitions, but it is a mistake of the first order to think that our definitions are what's in charge.

The archaeologists in my example are less likely to make this mistake.

Other examples of this mistake: thinking that whales are mammals; thinking that peanuts are not nuts; thinking that tomatoes are fruit.

but I’m no expert. — praxis

Exactly. Take a moment to reflect on what that actually means.

You know when someone says "I'm not a racist, but...." We all now know that we're about to hear something horribly racist, yes?

When someone says "I'm no expert, but..." we all know that the person believes with total confidence in the truth of whatever follows that 'but' and doesn't think anyone knows more about it than themselves.

That's you that is.

As I see this what you’re suggesting is that this approach cancels out a bias in what art is and is not — Brett

It would lessen it, but it is not guaranteed to cancel it altogether. The claim is not, then, that if an object passes this test it is necessarily a piece of art, or that if it fails it is it necessarily not. It is just a pretty good test given that whatever it is about the artefact that makes the archaeologist think it is a work of art is going to be some quality that transcends culture, for clearly the archaeologist will assume that the artefact is not an object from their own culture - and thus will resist the temptation simply to speculate on what their own culture would say about it - and they will also not know from what culture it originated. Thus they will see it for what it is, and not for what this or that culture says it is - or at least, they are more likely to. The voice of Reason will be more clearly heard about such matters, now that the cultural noise has been turned off. That doesn't mean it will be perfectly clear what Reason says about the matter, only that it'll be clearer and thus more likely to be correct.

Clearly much 'modern art' would not pass this test. I mean, even an archaeologist who loved modern art would not, if they dug some of it up and assumed they were digging up an object from an ages old unknown culture, classify it as art.

Well, doesn't that tell us something interesting about those pieces? It tells us that they are considered art not on the basis of some detectable timeless quality, but simply because the culture in which the archaeologist happens to live insists that these pieces qualify. And doesn't that then imply that they are not art after all, but objects that - due to cultural indocrination - some are duped into treating 'as if' they are art? I'd say that's the reasonable default, even if it is not guaranteed to be true.

So next time you go to an art exhibition imagine that instead what you are visiting is a museum on objects from an unknown culture in the distant past, and then imagine whether you'd think you're seeing art from a different age, or just a collection of junk from another age. If you'd judge it to be junk from another age, then probably what you're looking at is junk from this age, albeit with the banner 'art exhibition' strung above it.

By your own admission, you have no expertise whatsoever in metaphysics. And by your own admission, you probably have below average intelligence. Given those apparent truths, why do you keep listening to yourself on metaphysical subjects? Do you think that's wise?

Just try and keep inside the lines and resist the temptation to eat the crayons.

'no yo'? Hmm. Look at the pretty unicorn - it's all sad. Make it happy with colour.

I am going to draw you a unicorn too.

Yes, by all means.

You want an example of what, dementix? An example of a metaphysician making a metaphysical claim about God's existence that isn't a metaphysical claim?

Well, I can't do that as anyone who isn't as thick as a thick thing on thick day would know.

Or do you want an example of a metaphysician saying something about God's existence that isn't metaphysical?

Well I did that: a metaphysician who says "God's existence makes me feel lovely" has made a claim about God's existence that isn't metaphysical.

Look, why don't I just draw you a unicorn and you can colour it in?

You have dementia? Is that what you're saying?

Are they acting in the capacity of a metaphysical authority when they say such things? — praxis

No.

So why don't you give a relevant example, being the expert that you are? — praxis

An example of what, exactly, Pratis?

I also didn't claim to be an expert. That you are not an expert does not entail that I am.

But they are closely related to us, their cells are virtually identical to ours, why would they not be conscious, is it because they don't apparently have a mind? — Punshhh

No, it is because they don't have a brain and minds seem to be associated with brains, not mere cells. For example there seems to be precisely one mind - my mind - associated with this body - my body. Yet my body is composed of many, many cells. It has one brain, but lots and lots of cells. And doing things to my brain clearly affects what goes on in my mind. Thus the evidence is fairly overwhelming that minds are associated with brains. Trees and bacteria do not possess these things, and thus it is unreasonable to attribute minds to them.

And they don't produce art, do they?

Remember you're trying to support the claim that metaphysicians are the authorities on the subject. This suggests otherwise. — praxis

er, no it doesn't. You're not getting this are you. You don't need to 'remind' me. Why don't you remember what you admitted in the last post.

To make it clearer for you: you no teacher. You pupil. Pupil listen, not blurt. Pupil learn, not try teach teacher.

Metaphysicians are experts on the question of whether a god, or God, exists. If you had any expertise in this area, you'd know that.

If you were above average intelligence you'd also realise that it does not follow from this that everything a metaphysician might say about God's existence is metaphysical. For instance, if a metaphysician said that "the existence of God makes me feel lovely" then they have said something about God's existence that is not metaphysical. Thus your claim that anything a metaphysician says about God's existence is metaphysical is false.

It's not left field, are you familiar with the threads on consciousness? — Punshhh

Not really - I don't engage with threads that have 'consciousness' in the title because right at the outset they invariably conflate consciousness with that which is conscious - that is, they conflate states with the things they are states of.

So a spider is conscious and has a mind, I agree, does a bacteria, or a tree as well? — Punshhh

No, I don't think there's any good reason to suppose that a bacteria or a tree has a mind.

Well that's somewhat out of leftfield. If they have brains sufficiently similar to ours, then it would seem a reasonable inference to make, for our brains are clearly inhabited by minds and so it would be reasonable to infer that theirs are too.

If true, you should be able to give an example. I won’t hold my breath. — praxis

Well, it doesn't follow from it being true that I should be able to give an example. But meh. As for an example, the claim "God's existence makes me feel lovely" is not metaphysical, yet it is about God's existence.

do you have any credentials in this area at all? — Bartricks
No, and worse, I probably have below average intelligence. — praxis

Yes, that sounds about right.

I would like to point out that you are wrong. There is no dispute that to be conscious is to be in a mental state of some kind. And a mental state, is, by definition, a state of mind.

What there is debate over is what kind of a thing a mind has to be in order to be able to be in that kind of a state.

And there are some who deny the actual existence of mental states - but they would eo ipso deny the existence of consciousness.

But congratulations on being so confidently confused.

Well, I doubt that. But no, not necessarily. Whether God exists or not is a metaphysical question. But it does not follow from that that everything that one might say about God's existence is metaphysical. That point holds regardless of who is doing the saying, incidentally.

Now, a) do you have any credentials in this area at all?

See if that works for you?

No. First, why do you think you know more than me about this? Why do you assume that I'm the confused one, you the enlightened one?

The Piaget stuff is nonsense.

Consciousness is a state - a state of mind. That is, it is a state minds can be in. Just as 'solid' is a state water can be in, 'conscious' is a state minds can be in.

It's relevance to art, I take it, is that art is something that minds alone can produce. If we find that something that otherwise appeared to us to be a work of art was, in fact, the production of something entirely mindless, we would cease to consider it a work of art.

That doesn't give us a definition of art, it just puts a limit on what qualifies.

You're not making your earlier claims 'simpler', rather you are asking different questions.

To make it simpler for you - you earlier made ludicrous claim that

A metaphysician can necessarily only make metaphysical claims about the existence of God. — Bartricks

That. Is. False. Do you know what 'necessarily' means?

If the existence of God is a metaphysical question then how can any claim about it be anything else but a metaphysical claim? If the claim were somehow supported by science. — praxis

I do not understand what you are saying. "If the existence of God is a metaphysical question" - "the existence of God" is not a question. Does God exist? Is a question - a metaphysical question.

People with no expertise in metaphysics have views on it. But having views on something is not the same as being an expert on the matter.

A biologist who insists God does not exist, is no different from a baker who insists God does not exist - they're both talking outside their area of expertise and only a fool would take their claim that God does not exist to have some kind of special authority.

And similarly, a biologist who is confident that the metaphysical implications of his/her discoveries in biology are that God does not exist is, once more, someone who is talking outside their area of expertise, just as a baker who thinks his/her baking discoveries imply God does not exist would be too.

I'm not aware of any such studies. I wrote that science can support or debunk metaphysical claims. Your reading comprehension could use more attention, my friend. — praxis

Again - the implications of scientific discoveries for metaphysical matters is itself a metaphysical matter.

Do you have any expertise in metaphysics? Do you have a PhD in the area or publications in peer review journals in the area? Or are you someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but isn't letting that stop them - an empty kettle?

It's off topic. Plus the fact you put "proof" in inverted commas tells me that not only do you lack credentials, but you also lack the humility that should accompany that recognition. For clearly you have already decided that it is no proof at all. True, no? Despite having no expertise in this area, you are confident it is not a proof - confident that no such proof exists. And the basis for that belief? The spoutings of others who, like you, have no expertise in this area, yes?

That would be off topic. The point here is that whether a god exists or not is a question in metaphysics, not maths, or science, or psychology (and thus those whose expertise is exclusively in those other areas are not experts on the question of whether god exists - and not expert on the implications of their discipline's discoveries for that question). Plus without a background in metaphysics you'd be unlikely to recognise it for the proof that it is. You're likely to play the radical sceptic card the moment the going gets tough (you can't prove a god exists, because nothing can be proved!) or fault the argument for being an argument.

A metaphysician can necessarily only make metaphysical claims about the existence of God. — praxis

Er, no. That's a metaphysical claim, and it is false.

Those expert on the issue of whether God does or does not exist are metaphysicians. But it does not follow that everything a metaphysician might say about God's existence is metaphysical.

The metaphysical implications of discoveries made in the empirical sciences is a matter metaphysicians, not scientists, are expert on. (But because many academics are hacks and know full well that the ignorant public do not know exactly what they are or are not expert on, they think nothing of writing confident garbage on topics outside their areas of expertise and flogging them to the likes of you).

Whether a god exists or not is a metaphysical question.

The implications of evolution by natural selection for that question is a metaphysical question.

the implications of evolution by natural selection for morality is also, for instance, a metaphysical question (metaethics being a branch of metaphysics).

the implications of morality for the existence of a god is a metaphysical question.

And on and on and on.

These are metaphysical questions investigated by metaphysicians. They're the experts. But there's no law stopping those with no expertise in the area pronouncing on them - and they do. And there is no law stopping others who lack expertise believing everything they say and believing, falsely, that biologists, physicians and psychologists are all experts in these matters. Being stupid is not yet against the law.

Anyway, you, for instance, are clearly not a metaphysician. Yet you are confident that the empirical sciences do investigate questions such as whether a god exists. I rest my case. Just know that when you take biology thinking you'll be investigating whether a god exists, you're in for a big disappointment.

But I clearly do. And unlike you, my knowledge is not gleaned from Wikipedia pages and youtube videos.

The wider context is that I don't think God can be demonstrated on paper, or proven to exist. However I do think practices can demonstrate it. So, I am disagreeing with your reactions to others - and I find some of their reactions confused at best - but going off on a tangent. — Coben

A god's existence can be proved, and God's existence can be shown to be more reasonably believed than not. But the point here is not whether it can or cannot be, but simply to note that the whole issue is one in metaphysics, not physics, not biology, not chemistry, not psychology, not theology.

Again, it is metaphysicians who search for arguments for and against such matters and metaphysicians who carefully assess these arguments. They do not just pronounce, but analyse. And if you want to learn about the arguments - and truly understand whether they do or do not work - it is in metaphysics alone (broadly construed) that you do so.

I suppose in the sense of how to argue for that assertion, yes. On the other hand that might not be the best way to demonstrate the existence of God. The best way might be through encouraging and mentoring practice. — Coben

Note too that someone who was one justified in believing that God exists might, through encountering arguments against that belief - arguments that they do not know how to counter - come to be unjustified in their belief, and thereby lose their knowledge.

Knowing that God exists does not, I think, require knowing arguments for God's existence. But knowledge depends on the existence of a justification. You can be default justified in a belief, and that belief can be true, yet something can happen - one can, for instance, encounter what seems to be good evidence that the belief is false - and through that encounter the default justification can disappear. Thus, what one once knew, one knows no longer. The belief is still true, but now one is not justified in believing it. So knowing that God exists today, does not guarantee that you'll know he exists tomorrow.

I suppose in the sense of how to argue for that assertion, yes. On the other hand that might not be the best way to demonstrate the existence of God. The best way might be through encouraging and mentoring practice. — Coben

Well, I don't agree with that. To 'demonstrate' the existence of God an argument is needed. And it is metaphysicians who are in the business of discovering and assessing such arguments.

A true metaphysician is, as a philosopher, interested in what's true, not in promoting belief in God per se.

Many are poor at introspection and communication, but in the specific case of demonstrating what my self is like, I should at least be on the panel. — Coben

Again, I disagree. There are plenty of people here who know they exist, but have thoroughly confused ideas about what kind of a thing they are, due to being very stupid.

But if someone asked me how to find out about God, or how to find out how to come to the belief or how to experience God, I am not going to refer them to a philosophy department at a University or to the people who write academic texts on metaphysics. — Coben

If someone wanted to find out about the arguments for God's existence then you most certainly should refer them to a philosophy department and it'd be mad not to - for it is in philosophy departments alone that these questions are rigorously explored by experts.

There are lots of experts on the question of whether God exists, so I don't really know why you'd say such a thing.

I think your post is generally correct - in that anyone who is an expert on whether God exists is a metaphysician, but must one have taken a course in philosphy to know God exists? — Coben

Those are not equivalent claims. Someone could know that God exists, yet not be an expert on the question of whether God exists. For example, someone can know that they themselves exist, yet not be an expert on what selves are.

The point is just that the question of whether God exists is a question in metaphysics, not science. And so a scientist is not an expert on the matter - they won't know the ins and outs of the various arguments.

No, I meant 'metaphysicians'. That's why I used that word. It too has a Greek origin.

erm, is you understanding English be? Are you fluent being?

McTaggart - whom you've never read - argued that time is unreal. That doesn't mean I think time is unreal. Mentioning someone doesn't mean you endorse their views. Do you not realize that?

McTaggart - the person whose work you've never read, but is the first person you read when you do philosophy of time - argued time is unreal. I don't. He does. I don't. I'm not him, see? He's not me, and I'm not him.

I think time is real. Real. R.e.a.l. Really really realingtons.

Now, when I said "that concept of time is incoherent' I was referring to the idea of time being relative. That is, the idea I'd mentioned in the previous sentence. That - you know, the one just mentioned - is incoherent.

That doesn't mean the same as 'the concept of time is incoherent'.

Btw, do you own a watch or a clock of any kind? Do you ever make appointments, and how do you know when they are? Ever take a trip on an airplane? Even a train? Or do you just ask people what time it is? — tim wood

Do you have a cerebrum?

I note too that you still - still - haven't answered any of my questions.

I told you what relativity involves. I asked you to explain to me how the twin paradox (and it really isn't a paradox) implies that time is relative. I asked you to explain to me how drawing that conclusion would be any less stupid than concluding that time passes more slowly in fridges. And I asked you if you'd read McTaggart.

The thread isn't actually about what it takes to change sex.