The book I'm currently reading, about The Anthropic Principle, frequently uses the words "crux" and "crucial". The metaphorical reference is to the point where paths cross and change occurs ( a coincidence). Which is also where "interaction" occurs, and where we "see" inter-relationships with the mind's eye of Reason. One example might be isolated sub-atomic particles that come together (accidentally or coincidentally), and are thereafter "entangled", into a holistic system. — Gnomon

Yes, this interaction is crucial- it is the basis of logic, and the interaction of systems can be reduced to this singular interaction of one part to another. I think Landauer's principle might be relevent to it. I think we are saying something similar just with different language and concepts. :up:

Moreover, the effect of an Observation on the super-position of an intangible "wave", which magically & instantly converts from Meta-physical mathematical "wave-function" into a Physical "particle" of matter, again implies the old mind-over-matter concept that has traditionally been applied to Magic. — Gnomon

In the double slit experiment, an observer is replaced with a measuring device, and the wave collapses just the same. This leads me to believe information is an interaction of form - that the wave must be collapsed to form before it becomes information. This is also the case for entanglement, there is no information before collapse.

Like Einstein, I don't believe in Magic -- in the traditional sense -- but I do believe in the power of Information to affect & influence both Mind and Matter. That's what I call EnFormAction, the power to cause changes in form, of both Objects and Ideas. It's not Magic, it's a Coincidence. And that's the crux of Enformationism. :nerd: — Gnomon

:up:

An art work, once exhaustively analysed as information about what is substantively an inner, consciousness affair, possesses something of that affair itself. — Constance

Yes, it possesses information about that affair, as you put it. It is entirely information about that affair.

Respond? I mean, it's a genuinely interesting piece of philosophy you raised, but only as good as the such things as the above are given their due. (I'm not a fan of philosophy banter). — Constance

You have answered your own question, but don't seem to realize it. I have answered you repeatedly and exhaustively.

(In this is another issue: is conceptual art, really art?) — Constance

Anything deemed to be art is art, end of enquiry. This is because we have a long history of this being the case, and the fact that art was thought to be indefinite.

Second: What your definition lacks is an actual account of what the art IS, in the consciousness that receives it, creates it. I mean, if say X is the definition of art, and the true seat of art lies within and the object is simply that which carries it, deposits it, if you will, then a major part of your thinking should go to what it is that is there, in consciousness that the art work carries and delivers. This, I would think, is central to any definition of art. — Constance

As I have explained a number of times now - we cannot predict what art will be in its form, or what the experiential reaction to this form will be. These things are endlessly variable and open ended, so can not form part of any definition of art.

Hopefully this answers your question - yes an art work is information, and it is information about the consciousness of the artist. It exists in some form, and this form by virtue of being something physical is aesthetic, so is always experiential. But there is nothing definite about the form, or any resultant aesthetic, or experience. We can not predict what the form of art will be in a hundred years, or the experience that will result from it, so can not define art in these terms. These terms are variable, they do not always exist in art, and it is unpredictable how they might exist in future. For a definition, we need to focus on the things that always exist in art, and the only thing that always exist in art is that art work is information about the artists consciousness - everything else is variable! That is why this is a definition - such as it is. :grin: — Pop

There is a limit to art however, and that limit is the artists thinking - an artist cannot make art about something that they cannot think about. So art is an expression of consciousness, and no more. It is not an expression of something beyond the consciousness of the artist - cannot possibly be. So is information about the consciousness of the artist, including the subconscious.

Exactly - that is why the art work is information about what is occurring in the artist's mind, or in other words consciousness. Likewise this art object representing the artist's consciousness, then interacts with the consciousness of the viewer, to become something in their mind. So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information. — Pop

** Art can be many wonderful things, and it constantly evolves into new things. This emergent process can not be predicted, any more than the future can be predicted, so can not be defined. Art can only be defined by the process that gives rise to it. Hence art is an expression of human consciousness, art work is information about the artist's consciousness, but human consciousness grows and grows - art reflects this. It reflects this historically and will reflect this into the future.

Then how is it that I can’t even prove to you that I’m conscious? I could be a series of algorithms or an AI that lacks consciousness. There’s no way you could know and there’s no way that I can prove it to you. You can only know you’re conscious, or as I speculated earlier, somehow actually experience another’s consciousness. — praxis

You are arguing that you are AI, and thus unconscious? :chin:

Nah, an AI would recognize that my definition is logically watertight, so would accept and learn from it.
A human consciousness however, is bound by all sorts of complicated psychology, so will not easily accept the definition, rather it will express this psychology in it's attempt to negate the definition, despite lacking a logical basis.

Can he communicate his consciousness with words? What does it even mean to communicate one's consciousness? Consciousness is a state of being awake and aware. — praxis

We can not express anything other than our consciousness.

What is consciousness?

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning

The singular thing that life is concerned with is to maintain and continue itself, and consciousness facilitates this. It is the one thing we are always expressing. We express it when making art, and it seems art's function is to express our consciousness when we personally cannot - to express it at its best, express it to many, and into the future. — Pop

Since this definition, and due to a wonder about what consciousness is, I came to define consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. But I don't know what the source of self organization is.

**In science, self organization caused life, In systems theory self organization caused order in the universe. That art also expresses consciousness / self organization is quite a big deal - I think anyway.

I'm talking about Property Dualism — Gnomon

:up: Oh, I see.

the Enformer puts "mind into all matter". — Gnomon

:up:

If our reality is a game, who is the player, and who are the pawns? :wink: — Gnomon

This would take some explaining, but just briefly - what I am thinking about is what gives us form? And it is information. So whatever we think about, kind of constrains and shapes us.

Information is the interaction that occurs at all perspectives of such systems.
— Pop
That's similar to what I call "inter-relationships" — Gnomon

I'm glad we have a similar in outlook.

I've only read the Summary. But, "incremental compression" sounds like another way to say "integrated information". Some people are looking for the secret of Consciousness in the Quantum Realm, but they may be missing the Whole, while looking at the Parts. Sometimes we can't see the Forest for the Trees. :smile: — Gnomon

Yes, I agree. I would have to examine it in more detail, but I can not see that information exists at all in the quantum realm. The quantum realm is probabilistic and random. Information, in my mind, only exists in a form, and the quantum realm is formless, at least for now. However, the compression of information, once out of the quantum realm sounds a little like the information game I'm thinking about, and integrated information, as you say. I think the information occurs in pockets of the universe - in these pockets the forms evolve together to create a large self organizing system, which all the subsystems are dependent on and at the same time create. A system integrates information - that is all it does, so I would put my money on a systems understanding.

Nice website and presentation however! This too is something to think about. :smile:

If so, then my problem with you is that you seem to mistake your opinions for something of worth. Your opinions are just noise without substance, you provide no argument whatsoever.
— Pop

As I pointed out, my problem isn't with your opinions, although they are clearly wrong. My problem is with the pompous, smug, condescending attitude with which you present and repeat, and repeat, and repeat them without addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you. — T Clark

Pathetic, your argument has been so defeated, that now you misrepresent the situation and resort to name calling and an attack on character. It is a corruption of the process of debate, that is obvious to intelligence, but a small minded dim witted consciousness like your own would not be aware of that.
Given you understand so little else, perhaps you will understand this - put up, or shut up!

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion. — Pop

So is Clark revealing his consciousness or his opinions? He’s expressing his opinions, right? To actually reveal his consciousness we would somehow have to be able to be in Clarks mind and experience his consciousness. I can’t imagine how that’s possible, and neither can you, apparently. — praxis

He reveals his consciousness through his vacant opinions, and troll like behavior.

It is not necessary to inhabit a persons consciousness to get a glimpse of it.

As we write these comments, to some extent, what we write is equal to our consciousness. Hence when we write, we express our consciousness. Much the same as with art, only the medium is different.

The Gel remark was not aimed at you or anybody specifically, it is just a fact of communication.

But there was an objection in this! The term 'information' fouls up the works, for the painting, say, is not about a state of mind sans the painting. The painting itself cannot be reduced to information about something else, like ones and zeros of a program, because the consciousness that is the seat of art's meaning necessarily includes the painting itself. — Constance

As per the definition, and the OP. Everything can be reduced to information, as otherwise how would you know about it? When you stand in front of a painting, it informs you - literally changes your neural state such that you become aware of it's presence.

Hopefully this establishes that art is information?

Now the question remains - Information about what? An artist is totally free to choose what their art will be. So, what they choose is a direct expression of their self - what they choose is congruous with how they understand themselves and the world that they live in. So it is information about them. It is not information about, say a flower, it is information about a flower as seen through the artist's eyes. This is always the case, in every detail, regardless of subject matter, that it is an interpretation by the artist. So it is an expression of their mind activity, or consciousness. It is always the case, and will necessarily always be the case, that the subject matter will reflect the consciousness of the artist - it does not appear in the artwork on it's own, but is caused to appear there by the artist, so is a reflection of the artist's thinking.

This is always the case, and it is most prominently exemplified in the work of artist's like Van Gogh, Munch, Bacon, Lucian freud, etc. There can be no doubt that it is their consciousness that is being expressed, as it is so different to the consciousness normally seen.

You do not enjoying the vibration of a piano string, you enjoy the arrangement of piano string vibrations, which is different for a Mozart, than it is for a Beethoven. You don't want to listen to some piano string vibrations, you want to listen to some Bach. No?

So, art work is information about the artist's consciousness.

Hopefully this answers your question - yes an art work is information, and it is information about the consciousness of the artist. It exists in some form, and this form by virtue of being something physical is aesthetic, so is always experiential. But there is nothing definite about the form, or any resultant aesthetic, or experience. We can not predict what the form of art will be in a hundred years, or the experience that will result from it, so can not define art in these terms. These terms are variable, they do not always exist in art, and it is unpredictable how they might exist in future. For a definition, we need to focus on the things that always exist in art, and the only thing that always exist in art is that art work is information about the artists consciousness - everything else is variable! That is why this is a definition - such as it is. :grin:

Is this a forum about problems individuals have with other individuals?

If so, then my problem with you is that you seem to mistake your opinions for something of worth. Your opinions are just noise without substance, you provide no argument whatsoever.

Again more opinionated noise, in the face of a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art.

What more needs to be said?

You gloat that people don't understand or agree with your ideas — T Clark

This is an imagination of your mind.

then crow that the forum supports you. — T Clark

Again you reveal your consciousness.



Still no argument. Still no substance. Just opinion philosophy. :lol:

Alas, arrogance unmatched by intellectual content. Your ideas have been deservedly rejected by most members of the forum. Most people would take that as a sign to rethink their position. Anyone unwilling to face the fact that their positions might not be correct or not the only way of seeing things cannot truly considered a philosopher, or even an intelligent thinker. — T Clark

An opinion bereft of substance, in the face of a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art.

Neither do you represent the opinion of the forum, nor have you provided an argument - opinionated noise, nothing more. :lol:

So, the exteriority of the object is not detachable from the interior conscious event. — Constance

Exactly - that is why the art work is information about what is occurring in the artist's mind, or in other words consciousness. Likewise this art object representing the artist's consciousness, then interacts with the consciousness of the viewer, to become something in their mind. So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. :lol:

Yes. I suspect that you envision that Fundamental Information in a form similar to Spinoza's Universal Substance, which is singular, but has "multiple attributes". — Gnomon

I envision a multiplicity creating a system, and that system then interacting with the other systems it is enmeshed with. Similar to Newtons enmeshed clockwork cogs, but caused bottom up in a nonlinear and emergent fashion. This would represent the ordered forms within an ordered pocket of the universe, enmeshed together as informational bodies, ultimately creating the larger body, such as the biosphere, in the case of the Earth.

Information is the interaction that occurs at all perspectives of such systems. These interactions can be reduced to the interaction of one part to another part, which is identical to the basis of logic, which exists in the relationship of one part to another to draw a distinction that is information. Similar to Spinoza, as you describe.

I too, am wary of sounding conventionally religious, when I base my worldview on the axiom of a non-physical (ideal ; eternal ; incorruptible) entity that remains hidden from our empirical eyes. But, I see no alternative, if we are to look at our world, in which less than 5% is empirically knowable, "from every perspective". And in which, we still can't agree on a definition for the only thing we know for sure : our own personal non-empirical Consciousness (cogito ergo sum). :smile: — Gnomon

I would be looking to elucidate this predicament from an information perspective - how we are constrained by the information composing us- both biological and experiential. And how we are free to relate to this predicament, seemingly as we please, due to the facts of the matter persisting regardless of our interpretations of them. This seems an area worth exploring. There seems to be an information game at play, where information informs and constricts our reality, and how we are in this sense an informational body. So much new philosophy on offer!

I was simply amused by the image of Philosophers being unable to "draw distinctions" about immaterial non-physical subjects. — Gnomon

Without getting into a debate about this. I do not see a reason to assume dualism? If information is fundamental, then the integration of information is also fundamental. That information integrates is due to forces. The information integrating would feel forces acting on it to cause it to integrate. So the world seems monist and panpsychic, and experiential universally, though only some of it can posses self awareness.

Take the God out of pandeism, and you get panpsychism. Put mind into all matter, and you don't need dualism.

So I wonder why the need for an immaterial mind? All the instances you pose can be explained by physical neural pattern, so there is no need to think of mind as immaterial, yet you and others do, and I wonder why? What would you lose if mind had a physical basis? - Of course, what you believe is your own affair, but I would be grateful if you could answer this one question, that I have difficulty understanding.

My strong impression is that order in the universe exists in material form. Things exist in some form - perhaps only temporarily, but in order to know anything we have to know it's form. Information seems to be the interaction of material forms. The change in the form of a material seems to be information. That a material is perceived is information, and the perception exists as a change in neural state, and neurobiology has elucidated a good deal of this.

That would be a gag-order for the whole profession, and for us amateurs. — Gnomon

No I don't think so at all. The information that Floridi is elucidating is implicit in systems theory and constructivism, which are main stream science, then Enactivism integrates these two from a biological perspective, which neurobiology agrees with, then IIT uses these theories to arrive at an evolving informational body view of everything. These are all logical and philosophical theories that agree with observation. They are accessible to all, no lab necessary, and there is lots of room for interpretation.

I think I see what you are getting at. Let me see if I can clarify a bit. Phenomenalogically speaking, art is creation. Man creates himself and his world through art, and it is through the prism of art that man and the world appears as it does to man. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes basically. This definition of art is an artwork, in the form of a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art, to the extent that art can be defined. Clearly art is information about human consciousness. I am amazed about the fuss.

It is often thought art is about aesthetics, but really it is about an artists interpretation of aesthetics. So it is aesthetics through their eyes, so their consciousness, entangled into the form of the art, to then be reinterpreted in terms of the consciousness of the viewer. So a consciousness to consciousness communication. Art needs to be in some form, so will have an aesthetic quality, but aesthetics need not be it's focus. It is unlimited in focus.

Or: you are saying artworks are essentially an index to states of mind, that they "carry" information about this inner experience, — Constance

Yes, that is a good way to put it.

the interior experience is the locus of the REAL artwork. — Constance

Art work is information about the artists consciousness.

Consciousness, or evolving process of self organization, is an umbrella term for the inner information that creates it, which you call - the interior experience or locus of the real artwork.

Consciousness, as an evolving process of self organization, encompasses all things mental and experiential.

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning — Pop

it's a wild animal now and taming it, which a definition is, is futile. — TheMadFool

"Hard to see, the future is" - Yoda. :grin:

Is the "Enactivist fashion" a physical event, or meta-physical? How do both "aspects of reality" co-exist in a world where two real things cannot occupy the same space at the same time? In what sense, does "Enaction" create material reality? Out of what raw-material? If Energy is Real, what is Information? Can both of those "aspects of reality" be integrated empirically, like fusion, or integrated conceptually, like the notion of Holism? — Gnomon

This needs to be understood within a theory of information, and we are still working on the definition of information.

The theory seems to be pretty simple - If information is fundamental, then everything is information from every perspective. :grin: But what does this mean? It still needs to be interpreted. If we assume monism, it leads to a theory of everything existing as informational bodies, where consciousness is the latest state of integrated information of any object, so panpschism. The more complex the object, the more complex the consciousness. This, I believe, would be the information theoretic running through systems theory, constructivism, enactivism, and IIT, so it has a lot of momentum. It makes the most sense to me. There is only one possibly immaterial thing amongst this, and it would be the source of self organization - the forces causing the creation of ordered / informational bodies. This might be Gnomon's pockets of order - perhaps a phase state off energy, perhaps the anthropic principle, the Enformer, or it might be wisest just to call it consciousness and so leave consciousness as something undefined and fundamental, as people like Donald Hoffman are inclined to do.

There is quite a lot of philosophy in what we choose to call it and how this shapes us, which is very interesting to me. Ultimately, logically, we are, in essence, the same thing as the source of self organization. So we are all the same in essence, just different in formation :grin: I like this view and think it is something worth promoting.

Yes. I'm obstinate in my belief that Generic Information is, not just "immaterial", but also "meta-physical". — Gnomon

This is similar to the information philosopher, and I'm glad information philosophy can accommodate both monism and dualism, although it will probably lead to two distinct information philosophies.

I found your assertion that "there are no distinctions in immateriality" amusing, On this philosophical forum, what do we do, besides draw distinctions (general categories), like lines in the air? Ironically, you referred to "physical manifestation" as-if it was a ghost materializing. — Gnomon

These physical manifestations are assumptions based on all external information having a physical basis. But I don't want to get into a debate about it with you. There is room for different understandings.

By that, they mean an invisible Idea suddenly appeared in their mind, — Gnomon

At the same time, neuroplasticity is constantly evolving along with these new ideas?

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion.
— Pop

Nuff said. — T Clark

What I meant is - the definition is not opinion.

What's the problem with it? — praxis

It trivializes art. Imagine philosophy for philosophy's sake.

Of course it's opinion. Do you think your thoughts are somehow something somehow grander than your opinion? — T Clark

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion.

You want to develop a criterion that includes everybody in the room but then you don't have to develop a criterion; you could simply say all people in the room. — TheMadFool

I don't think this follows. Art was thought to be indefinite, but it is definite as per the definition, and then beyond this it is indefinite, for now at least. :smile:

You are not objecting to the definition, but to its utility. I have given my reasons, now several times, about how a definition is potentially useful.

and I don't know what it is supposed to mean — praxis

It means art for arts sake.

It wasn't about words, so no, I wouldn't be satisfied with that erroneous assessment. I could post something about words and then you could accurately say that I posted words about words. — praxis

The point I was trying to make is that you would not be satisfied with somebody calling your post arbitrary and indefinite - words about words. But some people are happy to leave art in a such a situation - as art about art.

It is pretty well established that the structural elements of language are innate. — T Clark

Even before language was created - before humanity possessed language?

We can make art about art and philosophize about philosophizing, or make art about philosophizing and philosophize about art. Use your imagination. — praxis

So if I was to say the comment you just made is words about words - you would be satisfied?

** I don't think you would.

With the one caveat that a term like "mind" we have in itself an open question — Constance

Yes, and this will remain an open question. This is what art is information about. Note how you have described how a changing social mind results in changing art. Mind or consciousness continues to evolve, and always will - and art will reflect this.

One should look at the artwork as the outward manifestation of an actual consciousness, and its value reducible to palpable consciousness. — Constance

Yes!! Now we are on the same page. That is all I am trying to say with the definition. Art is always some manifestation of this - an expression of human consciousness, for the consumption of another human consciousness. This is what it provides - constantly, and everything else is variable. This defines art.

If you are going to call something information, then it has to information ABOUT something. — Constance

Art is always information, and it is information about the artist's consciousness, and this information is entangled into the form of the art object, to be interpreted by another consciousness.
So, art is a process of communication, which depends on information, and the information, at all times, is about the artist's consciousness ( mind activity ) as it cannot be about anything else. This mind activity does not have any limits.

No one is fooled by an untrained violinist pretending to be a master, for instance. — praxis

This is true regarding the violinist, but notions such as art about art are so dim witted! :grimace: Similar to philosophy saying - life is about life, no more needs to be said!

means art can't be — TheMadFool

But I have defined it. You have to invalidate the definition, or otherwise accept it.

We get it, we just don't think it is a useful way of characterizing or defining art — T Clark

No you do not get it. It has nothing to do with your opinion, or whether you think something is useful or not. It is to do with whether the definition is valid - is this a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art - this is the only issue that is relevant! All the rest is noise and opinion.

Can you invalidate the definition? If not, you have to concede it is a valid definition of art. End of story.

IE, in discussions about art, as with philosophy in general, communication can break down when different contributors attach different meanings to the same words. — RussellA

:up: Thanks for the great post. With so many contrarians to attend to I forgot to comment on it. Yes, I also believe post modernism has made a mockery of art. I suspect neoliberalism and it's post modernist art, will be seen by future generations, in the midst of climate change and other environmental and social disasters, as similar stupidities.

The realization that information is fundamental, is growing , and so ultimately art also will have to be understood as being fundamentally information. And so then the question will be - art is information about what? And the answer to that is obvious.

I imagine the intuition was always there, however, guiding the process unconsciously / subconsciously. — Yohan

I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts.

It would seem, there would have to have been some sort of cognition / intuition but it would have been a far cry from what we enjoy now.

I was trying to highlight how indebted we are to socially derived knowledge for our present state of consciousness, and I wonder what we could have intuition about without this socially derived knowledge?

Why restrict the artist or, more accurately, why would the artist give a damn about your definition? — TheMadFool

It does not restrict anybody. There are no artist's lining up outside my door in order to give a damn about the definition. :lol: However, the definition IS scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable.

There you go. Are you now going to desist from trying to define art? — TheMadFool

Why would I do that?

This is exactly the attitude your definition attempts to address. — TheMadFool

Yes by pointing out that even BS about art is an expression of consciousness.

Then the definition in your OP is wrong? — Banno

:roll: Ok, lets have it. What is your argument?

What has? — Banno

That anything deemed to be art, is art.

It seems that the more one falls from the essential, the more one has to rely upon more indirect means.
Intuition is most direct, logic/reason less direct(further from essence), while sensory observation is furthest. — Yohan

Your entire Op is informational structure. The words that you use represent concepts that are entirely socially derived. Without this socially derived informational structure, what sort of intuition would you posses at all?

So everything is art. — Banno

This has been the understanding in art circles for the past 100 years or so, since Duchamp's urinal.

Ce n'est pas de l'ar — Banno

This is not art?