The Information Philosopher - A common definition of information is the act of informing - the communication of knowledge from a sender to a receiver that informs (literally shapes) the receiver.

You and I see the same cloud, but you see a camel, I see poodle. — Constance

:up: :lol: From my perspective I see the poodle.

The material presence is simply the medium, which is incidental.
Not sure why 'information' is helpful. Information is an affect-neutral term, and its connotative values are entirely counter to aesthetic possibilities. — Constance

Yeah, the material art form is a private ( but can be public ) language invented by an artist ( in modern art ) very similar to the words we now exchange, and also interpret.

Information theory describes this same process of me imbuing a message with meaning, and you interpreting the message, but with slightly altered meaning. The information has to exist in some physical form in order for this to happen.

So no, not arbitrary at all. — Constance

I understand where you are coming from, but strictly speaking, anybody can deem anything to be art.
It doesn't happen often, but this is a definition of art, so this needs to be taken into account.

Thus, it is unfinished, indeterminate. — Constance

That is the intention. Consciousness is endlessly variable and open ended - just like art. How about that? As consciousness changes, so does art historically. A different consciousness creates different art, etc. And on the audience side, it is the same ( as described above ) So art is a meeting of consciousness, where the success of a piece depends on this relationship, rather then on any particular form present in the art work.

I can't imagine a worse word for talk about art. Plain, connotatively UNaesthetic. Like describing a fresh spring morning in terms of molecular bonding. — Constance

:rofl: I, on the other hand, get so tired of the subjective nonsense I hear about art. But you see, I need to be severely logical to define something. If done successfully, then a definition can be used to predict, and I think this one can do that. It is what makes it different, what makes it interesting, imo. The world is full of romantic drivel about art, what it lacks is a definition.

Why not all this, but leave the artist's consciousness out of it? After all, art is as it is perceived, and the artist is just ONE perciever. — Constance

Art about art, creates a certain reality for art. Whereas a definition of art refocuses art to the question of "what is consciousness". And there starts a journey of self discovery, and perhaps discovery of what it is all about, such that it brings back some meaning to the question of what is art. As you have intimated, it is all consciousness, so there are no limits to this question absolutely. I have defined consciousness as a process of self organization, but I do not know what self organization is - the whole universe is self organizing. And this is also what all art is expressing. There are no limits to the form of self organization that we can take, but in understanding this we come to understand ourselves better, and perhaps also what it is all about??

the power to cause change in form — Gnomon

( I was wondering where you were? )

:up: This highlights the potential of information. This is pretty close, and works well in your scheme.

Another aspect of the definition that I thought important, that hasn't been mentioned. Information is always a first person experience, so I was careful to make the definition fit both a first person and third person perspective. Shannon information is well debunked in this interesting read.( download pdf )

"Let us assume that information is the thought process in the mind of the person thinking the contents of the wire. Then what I thought when sending the wire and what the addressee thought on receiving it is not the same information. Information is not one or the other act of consciousness but what is known by the act of consciousness, something that is common to these conscious persons who are otherwise so different". - Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker......... original paper:Matter - energy - information 1969

He is wrong!! information is not equal to consciousness. Information is the interaction of information, which when integrated becomes consciousness. Consciousnes = integrated information, which is different to the process preceding its integration?? Information is the interaction between two, or more, forms, and it is different to the eventual singular form it is incorporated into.

The only difference between the porcelain urinal (before) [not art] and the porcelain urinal (after) [art] is Marcel Duchamp's consciousness.

Can you imagine what power artist's wield? What's next? Shit art? I'm serious of course. — TheMadFool

Duchamp was a great art thinker - a philosopher of art. Modern art asked the hard questions - where are we, who are we, why are we? And what is art? It turns out art can be anything deemed to be art. This is necessary so as not to restrict it, but it can also make it arbitrary, as Duchamp pointed out.

Whilst Duchamp's urinal is not obviously aesthetically pleasant as an artwork, as a statement it has been tremendously influential - far more successful then any of Duchamp's more traditional pieces. For many artist's - this urinal is a Mona Lisa! - a Masterpiece!

But then, what of the part of art that is not concrete? What of conceptual art? Sure, something concrete there, but the artwork is not just this; it is a concept. Isn't thought all by itself inherently art? Why do we need the concrete? — Constance

This is best answered through information theory. It seems information is something concrete such that it changes our neurology, such that we become conscious of it. So, an artwork can not be immaterial, it needs to be in the form of something material, including sound, such that we can perceive it. The form of the artwork interacts with the form of our consciousness - this interaction creates an experience, where the quality of the experience is normally attributed to the artwork, however we ourselves play the major role in creating it.

A thought itself is not immaterial either, it has it's neural correlates. This definition is an artwork. It comes close to what you are describing.

"Art" is expressed in human consciousness — RussellA

:up:

But - every observed object is an "artwork" — RussellA

:up: If deemed to be so.

Though - artworks don't even need to be physical objects — RussellA

:up:

However - all artworks have a quality as all objects have a temperature — RussellA

:chin: Only when they are being observed, or when the temperature is measured.

However - an artwork's quality is subjective — RussellA

:up:

In summary - the definition of art should include a reference to "quality" — RussellA

:chin: I understand what you mean. It is a good point. It is the normal interpretation that leads people to think art is about aesthetics. Most art theory would say art objects posses innate qualities, but In consciousness theory, quality or qualia exists in the mind of the observer and not the object. This way the same work of art can be beautiful to one person, and ugly to the next. ( there is room for interpretation ) ( Colour, according to science, is not present in the external world.)

You bring up a great thread topic - "Does the quality of an artwork reside in the art work itself, or in the mind of the observer, or artist?"

This is a similar question to: Is the world mind dependent?

If we decide the quality of the art work resides in the mind of the artist, or observer, then this would invalidate probably 90% of historical art theory and definitions, and validate my own - in that an artwork is a meeting of one consciousness and another.

:up: I can see now how I haven't explained it very well.

↪Pop Cool, maybe we'll crash into each other using Dewey as a banana peel.. — Tom Storm

:lol: Yeah, we were bound to self organize. :joke:

Art is not the possession of the few who are recognized writers, painters, musicians; it is the authentic expression of any and all individuality — Tom Storm

The free individuality which is the source of art is also the final source of creative development in time." — Tom Storm

:up: Yeah - Self organization!.

"The term self-organization refers to the process by which individuals organize their communal behavior to create global order by interactions amongst themselves rather than through external intervention or instruction" - sciencedirect

"A dynamic brain state", as I understand, is work in progress.
When you say information exists as brain state is this a conscious state? — Mersi

If you define information/brain state based on a relation of mapping mental activity to brain state then you could try to map what you observe to be concsiousness to the physical state that supports it. — Mark Nyquist

:up: Yeah, that's the way I'm seeing it also.

I think consciousness is effectively work in progress, but not absolutely. There are studies suggesting it lasts 1-400ms, and if this is accurate, then it exists in frames. I think, we can say information is the change of brain state, and consciousness is the integration of this change. This would be consistent with phenomenology. In my understanding feelings cause the information to self organize. In other interpretations, feelings result from this self organization.

But, as you say it is difficult, I doubt it is a single linear process. I suspect there may be multiple streams of consciousness, occurring simultaneously. I imagine those studies can only focus on one stream of consciousness at a time. My wife is able to speak on the phone and type a message to another recipient simultaneously. My head is often in the clouds, whilst I do practical things around the house. Although deep concentration is a single stream, for me at least. How about you?

I think if we can just conceptualize a single stream of information processing that gives rise to consciousness we will have done well. I don't think absolute brain functioning will be resolved any time soon. :smile:

As we analyze information ever more deeply, we will inevitably depart from it's normal understanding.
The normal understanding is that information can be written to a HDD and the HDD moved to another room, so we have moved information. But this is not actually the case. Whether there is any information on that HDD can not be known until it is read in the absolute sense. So it is only probabilistic that the HDD contains information until we prove it does by interacting with it and our brain state is changed due to this information. This is consistent with the Schrodinger cat scenario. This would suggest this is the case for all information. This illustrates the wave function collapse nature of reality, and suggests consciousness is probabilistic, until collapsed to a point. This would validate the notion that consciousness exists in frames - exists at the point of collapse of probabilistic information.

However, thankfully, new information has to fit old information, in a constructivist fashion.It has to fit existing informational structure. So having an existing body of information keeps things on track - to evolve in a deterministic manner, with just a slight element of randomness, to allow for emergent / novel thought.

What is the big deal about all this?? Information philosophy is the future of philosophy, imo. All disciplines are realigning their understandings to incorporate information as the fundamental.
The really fun part about this is that it is all currently emerging, so as we start to develop an understanding about information and how it works, we start to develop an information philosophy. :nerd:

↪Pop Good luck! :sparkle: — Wheatley

:up: Gonna need it. :smile:

Yeah, im not following you. :confused: — Wheatley

You can not avoid expressing your consciousness in any activity that you partake in, so how can you avoid it when making art? You can not. So, what art expresses, is the artists consciousness.

I have defined consciousness as "an evolving process of self organization".
So, what art expresses is the artist's evolving process of self organization.

This would seem to agree with observation, and it validates the logical coherence of the definition.

Who's going to gather all the data?? — Wheatley

Not sure what you mean. My point is that art must reflect mind activity - that is the constant in art - the only constant - everything else is variable and open ended, just like consciousness! How about that?

Most structures in the universe are the result of an organization but not all are self-irganized. If I make a painting it doesn't self-organize. Nor do my photographs... — Thunderballs

These are expressions of your self organization, but you are a function of universal self organization. :smile:

** So ontologically what are your paintings an expression of?

But self organisation cannot stand on it's own. It needs to be immersed in the right habitat. So the habitat is even more universal — Thunderballs

Self organization gives rise to order in the universe.

Who self organized first - God or us? :chin:

But this doesn't address the different forms. It just says there are different forms — Thunderballs

The forms are endlessly variable and open ended, and so can not be defined. Art can not be defined in terms of it's forms, which is the mistake most people make, including Wit, when trying to define art. So they think art can not be defined.

I don't think Art (with a capital 'A') can be boiled down to a definition. — Wheatley

Art work is information about the artist's consciousness.

This is a definition of art that is falsifiable by providing an art work that it does not contain?

So you think. But the thoughts you see are not universal. You say they are. I say they're not. — Thunderballs

My thoughts are not universal, but the underlying process giving rise to them is - self organization.

We are the same, just different in formation. Remember??

"Whatever that means". Indeed. What doescit mean? — Thunderballs

This is where the definition comes into its own. it tells us that the artist - audience relationship is a relationship of consciousness in relation to consciousness. Where what is great about any art is that another consciousness can relate to it, rather then any particular physical quality that the art can posses.

IE, the above definition relates more to that of the Post-Modernism that arose in the 1960's, where the artist has become more important than the artwork, rather than any definition of art that preceded it. — RussellA

In arriving at the definition, I looked for the things present in art always - for all time. This , of course is mind activity - art reflects mind activity. This allows art to be defined in terms of mind activity. It is the only constant about art. So the only way possible to define it. So, by defining art in terms of mind activity I was able to capture all art for all of time, as how can art not reflect the mind activity of the artist?

That art reflects mind activity, is an idea about 100 years old in art. But no definition of art, that I am aware of, exists to express this. Not in this way.

This definition doesn't relate to Modernism and Pre-Modernism — RussellA

It relates to all art ever. It is a scientific definition. It focuses on what is always present in art, stripped to the bare bones. Please read my posts above for more detail why.

Yet, someone can present anything under the sun as art. What's the difference between letting anyone determine what art is and you defining art as anything you want? — TheMadFool

Please read my reply to Ambrosia above.

Are you willing to accept that letter written by an ordibary person is art and it is as artistic as an epistle penned by a great writer cum calligraphist? After all both are information on the artist's consciousness. — TheMadFool

The definition itself is intended as a work of art. The fact is : "art is an ungrounded variable mental construct" - Pop. Anything can be art - absolutely. But great art, whatever that may be, depends upon a great mind, whatever that may be.

Well, you have it as part of your definition of art. So, back to you, what is consciousness? — TheMadFool

I am working on it. Thus far consciousness is self organization, but what is the source of self organization? Whatever that is is what is being expressed as art. And I doubt very much anybody has made this connection before. Whilst art representing mind, is not new, what is mind is as murky in art circles as it is anywhere.

It, art as expression of consciousness, doesn't appear in the definition because experts deem it trivial and not because they didn't know. — TheMadFool

No, most definitions of art are rather shallow and trivial, and similar. I have read many of them. This one is different. This one defines art scientifically within a work of art. Nothing like it has been seen before.

And to address the points and objections I made would be nice. — Ambrosia

I have addressed the relevant points. It may surprise you, but I am not interested in your opinion of what a definition of art should be. Nor am I interested in your opinion of how well I write. I am only interested in whether the definition prevails, and I’m glad you have acknowledged that it does.

It's like saying "all people eat food" ,what does my definition elude? — Ambrosia

Aha, but it is not a definition of food is it? It is a definition of art, and it is absolutely nailed – definitive! It defines the boundary of art – all art, for all of time. And due to how we feel a sense of ownership about art, this presses peoples buttons. I do expand upon this in the definition body. This is a deliberate provocation on my part.

Your not the first in anyway to have this view,and worst your view is pedestrian,egotistical and preachy. — Ambrosia

It is a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art ( Popper ) And at the same time it is a work of conceptual art in the vein of Duchamp’s urinal. Had you bothered to read some of the previous posts you would be aware of this. And you would be aware of my attitude to post modernism, and why I do this.

You are saying nothing new,and you original OP is overblown,flowery,dogmatic and verbose. — Ambrosia

Are you saying you have seen falsifiable definitions of art before? Show me?

You also seem oblivious to the fact that art can also be dishonest propoganda,and that mainstream art is in the main bourgeois hegemony. — Ambrosia

Without a definition of art. We can not be certain we are talking about the same thing in a conversation about art. Even with a definition this is a difficulty. The definition is not groundbreaking art news, as I have stated several times previously. However if we had a definition of art, then our understanding of art would self organize around the definition. The definition of art would become the powerful player in the question of what is art, and what is good art, rather than the people who currently are.

A definition of art, and I’m not saying my definition is necessarily it, has the potential to shift the power balance in the art world, back into the hands of the intellectuals and the artists. This is my primary goal. It is a long shot indeed! but what is there to loose? it is worth a try, imo.

The definition is useful in these potential ways rather then as something providing clarity about art, or the art world today - whose clarity, and integrity, at present, as you may know, was recently well represented by a banana nailed to the wall.

And which of these eludes my definition ?

It is a definition of art. When defining something you don't get a choice as to how it exists! :lol:

It is irreducibly defined. It may not be what you would like to hear. No doubt you would prefer to hear the typical irrelevant and subjective drivel, but such is the nature of the beast. The definition can not be reduced any further, and any expansion of it is not a constant characteristic of art. What is left, is what always exists.

So you are left with the bare bones, so that you can know precisely what art provides – every time you interact with an art work. It brings to the fore the pertinent aspect of what art is. Which, of course, is an expression of consciousness. Of course the question is - “what is consciousness” ?

Clearly a very dim and murky concept for some.

As I said, your notion of what art is - information on the mind of artists - is old news in the art world. — TheMadFool

There must be hundreds of definitions of art that I have read, but none are like this one, and when people speak of art, it is often a shambles because they understand it differently.

↪Pop All I'm saying is this: There are many aspects of nature, where consciousness is not involved, that instill the same emotions as when viewing a human art piece — TheMadFool

How is this relevant to a definition of art? Can you produce an art work that is not captured by my definition?

Artists and philosophers don't organize themselves the same way. Thus, art and philosophy, using your logic, are different. — Noble Dust

Are you serious? :chin:

:up: No ill will in philosophy, just endless debate! :smile:

↪Pop I can't and I bear you no ill will. Just don't see your point. I am very interested in what people say about art. Even critics. :fire: Seems to me art and religion spawn the most elaborate theories and reactions. — Tom Storm

This is the central difficulty of all art discourse; essentially we are talking about different things. We vaguely agree on a central concept, but we experience it differently When we understand how the notion of art is related to personality and consciousness, we can predict that two very different personalities, or cultures, must as a result of this difference, construct different conceptions of art. So the resultant discourse about art is immediately disagreeable, and if any progress is to be made, an agreement about art must first be made. We have all experienced this, and it is illustrated in the difference in the art of native cultures, subcultures, the art of the mainstream, and the elite. — Pop

One last try, and I am done.

Art is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization.

Philosophy can be defined in exactly the same way.

Philosophy is information about the philosopher's evolving process of self organization.

These are the constant elements in art and philosophy, everything else is optional - endlessly variable and open ended.

Well you can not say I haven't tried. :smile:

Please read my reply to Madfool, RusselA, Netzolief above.

:up: Yes, now we are on the same page. It often takes a few posts. :smile:
I don't think it is possible, at present, or ever, to absolutely define the neuroplasticity that is seen evolving, but we need to conceptualize it at some level. I like the way Integrated Information Theory does this by calling consciousness a state of integrated information, and then overlapped by new information. Yes, the information is the physical change in brain state. And the impression arises that consciousness only exists in this dynamic state of change, of information. And what is evolving is the form of the state of integrated information ( consciousness ), in an endless process.

In the abstract, new forms seem to be evolving. A body of past integrated information exists in a form, and this interacts with a novel neural form. So information would seem to be "an evolutionary interaction of form" ??

Bear in mind, such informational structure exists universally, and I am trying to capture a panpsychist definition of information, that is universally applicable.

It's possible that what you're really saying is anything to do with the human mind is art; after all, everything we think/speak/do provides a glimpse of our consciousness. If so, what's unrelated to consciousness is not art. How do you explain the warm, fuzzy feelings one gets when watching a sunset, the sky ablaze yellow, red, orange? A sunset isn't a human artefact ergo, not linked to consciousness at all and yet we're moved by it as much as we would be looking at the Mona Lisa. — TheMadFool

I have defined art in such a way as it could be defined. In irreducible terms, and at the same time defined the limits of art. I don't think my definition is something new to many practicing artists. What is new is that it has been done - in no uncertain terms! It is a conceptual artwork itself - literally, and intentionally.

Art can be far more then what I have defined it as. It can be awesome and inspiring, but it need not be anything much at all. I am highlighting that it is the consciousness of the artist that is special, not art per se. But I am not being judgmental in this. A simple consciousness will be appealing to simple people, so the success of art can not be judged from any particular perspective.

I am however, saying that being beautiful or ugly are optional elements of art. The elements I have identified are constants in art - all forms of it, for any culture and time. These are the elements present in every work of art. These are the elements Wit could not find, and so he gave up on a definition of art. Saying there were no constituent elements that make something art, so it is indistinguishable from anything else. But it is distinguishable by the consciousness of the artist!! Consciousness is unique in every instance, and it is information about this that art provides.

Does creativity originate in the brain, mind or consciousness. — RussellA

I have defined consciousness as an evolving process of self organization, but I do not know what is the source of self organization in the universe, however I do know that it is this that art is expressing.

Exactly! An art showing our relation to Nature and the gods (no relation at all, I hope, but the simple fact of acknowledging their being and presence), how can information interpret this? Or dissipative systems? Or entropy evolving on a rotating Earth, between heat and cold, day and night? The daytime breaths out. The nighttime inhales. How do you, Pop, interpret Aboriginal art or the Hopi art? I like your paintings and understand them. But they reflect your view.It can't embrace all art. Well, it can, but then you destroy it. — VerdammtNochMal

At least you acknowledge this much. An artwork is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization. We dont know what self organization is, but it is this that ultimately all art expresses, regardless of time or culture. And we have spoken about this variously. What is being created is forms - endlessly variable, and open ended forms.

This is interesting. Art provides something? — Tom Storm

Yes, art provides information about an artist's consciousness - we came full circle by way of questioning, since, it seems, you did not really understand what was meant by this.

This seems to me to be an example of romantic, selective exaggeration — Tom Storm

There is nothing romantic about this, just your misinterpretation. I am making the point, If everything is an expression of consciousness how can art not be? Making the point that expressing ones consciousness is an unavoidable fact.

Pop My mistake? I thought you stated you wanted to 'publish' something. — I like sushi

Initially I did want to publish it, but then I changed my mind.

It is a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art, something Wittgenstein gave up on, thinking it impossible. But the main thing it has going for it is that it is a work of art. It is a work of art defining and challenging art. It is conceptual art in the vein of Duchamp's urinal - by far my best work so far, so I would not be interested in changing it in any way.

Either way have fun with it :) — I like sushi

Am having a ball with it, thank you. :smile:

You could also say, and with no greater meaning, that my tastes are elements of my psychological essence - of my personal identity. What does this contribute? — Tom Storm

An understanding of what art provides.

No idea. Does anyone really know? — Tom Storm

These are elements of your consciousness - of your self organization.

That's your vision on art. What are the consciousnesses you are talking about? People? What about tribal art wrt to the gods? — Nosferatu

This is a definition of art - it captures all art for all time, for all cultures. Lay out your own art chronologically and look at yourself evolving.

Pop You're failing to address what expressions of consciousness are not 'Art'. — I like sushi

Ha, ha. There are many expressions of consciousness, but only some are deemed to be art.

​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

Can you give a concrete example? — Philofile

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586578

Pop I don't really see much here tbh — I like sushi

That is obvious from what you have written.

This is a definition of art. It defines precisely what art provides - information about the artist's consciousness.

What is consciousness is what you seem to be asking? I have defined consciousness as "an evolving process of self organization". So when we put these two together we get: art is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization.

Make sense?

The way I think of brain state is that what your brains mental content is, at any given moment, would physically exist as a specific brain state. So you define information as this relation. Information is specific mental content existing as a specific brain state. — Mark Nyquist

Whilst you are thinking about this then it is information, but when you stop thinking about this and think about the football, then it is not information, then the football thought is information. Information only exists in interaction.

Schrodinger's cat in a box does not contain information, no matter how certain we feel that it does. It only contains information once we open the box and interact with the cat's form

Information is the interaction of a brain state, with something that has caused a change to the brain state, whether this be an externality, or something imagined.

This gets back to the moment of consciousness we discussed previously. Nothing exists outside of a moment of consciousness, and a moment of consciousness does not exist passively as a brain state, but as an interaction of a brain state with something that is causing it to change.

Likewise outside of brain, when something incurs a change in state, it has integrated new information - it has incurred a change in state, due to an interaction with something.

That fact is arbitrary. What sensibility you have and what you are drawn to is an arbitrary fate of subjective experience. — Tom Storm

It's not consciousness - it's personal taste. — Tom Storm

How does personal taste arise? What is subjectivity a function of?

I would hate for there to be agreement as to what constitutes good art. Art is simply what people put on display and call art. Whether it is good or not only matters in certain shared contexts — Tom Storm

An art created by a particular consciousness, will be appreciated by a likewise consciousness.
But not by an unlike consciousness.

This fact, prevents art from being arbitrary.