No real view on whether this is art, but to me it looks like the kind of kitsch, heavily derivative, CGI fantasy design you might find in a Marvel movie like a Doctor Strange. — Tom Storm

One of my thoughts is that it would make a good cover for a science fiction novel.

After looking over this and your other threads, I'm starting to get a feeling you're not a strong supporter of religion in general and Christianity specifically. You also seem to feel a lack of respect for people who disagree with you in that regard. You cast doubt on their intelligence.

If it winning an art competition is a concern at all, it's because the notion of an art competition is absurd, not because of the image. — Banno

Good point.

Humans, like all living organisms, have to procure food, water, and other resources to live. That's what we mean when we say "work." Does that make us slaves or just living creatures living like all the rest?

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I just thought it was interesting.

Note - this is an add-on to a thread that is two months old.



This picture was generated by artificial intelligence and won a fine art competition. Here's a link to an article I thought was interesting.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-art-wins-competition-angering-artists-2022-9

So, by what definition is this art?

But both of those musings are nonsense as I hold that reality is only moderately indirect realist: there is a world and we live in it but we are separate from it and require advanced nervous system to comprehend it, but alas, it is not good enough so we exist in an absurd-ironic state in a sufficiently detached reality to claim, as I have, that we are immersed in an ironic subjective phenomenon. — introbert

It's possible you and I are not that far apart in our understanding.

I passionately disagree with the belief irony is a property of language. It certainly has been interpreted that way especially in 19th? century german philosophy, but I definitely think irony is a subjective phenomenon and not something symbolic. Literary irony is a simulacrum of irony and I believe Hegel and his ilk pushed a literary turn in irony because of his bias against it that "irony (socratic) is subjective that annihilates the objective". To use Hegel's terms, I stand my ground that irony is a phenomenon of indirect reality, subjective, that flies in the face of expectations that are established through objectivity. — introbert

It all comes back to this, from the OP:

I believe that reality is fundamentally ironic as consciousness and the world it perceives are united as one materially, — introbert

Are you saying there was no reality until there was consciousness? That's an argument I've made before in a somewhat different context.

I'm just saying "common mistake" doesn't necessarily lead to "should never be done.") — Art48

The phrase "mixing up" was a confusing choice of language on my part. What I meant was that it is a mistake to confuse scientific principles with metaphysical ones, which I think your post does.

Try this: — Joshs

Thanks.

It’s been observed that quantum mechanics tells us what will occur if we make a measurement. It doesn’t tell us how the world “is,” what the world is doing when we aren’t looking. — Art48

QM reminds me of Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena. QM tells us what we will experience (phenomena) but doesn’t tell us what reality is (noumena). — Art48

Quantum mechanics is science. It is a description of how the world is or appears to be, or at least how we think it is. Noumena and phenomena are metaphysical entities. They are not facts about the world, they're ways of looking at the world. Mixing up science and metaphysics is one of the most common mistakes in philosophical discussions.

Apparently this video is not available in the US.

Adept interpretation. When I say reality I take an indirect realist position. What I'm saying is irony is a proof of it, not making a circular. If direct realism was true our perceptions and thoughts (including expectations) should align perfectly with the world. However we fail to see every detail in any situation and the result are ironic surprises. I just make this point because irony is generally not connected to indirect realism but I strongly believe it is a phenomenon and proof of it. — introbert

Irony is a property of language. Reality is what comes before language. Reality can't be ironic.

I think you are responding to me, but I'm not sure. It would be helpful if you put in links to previous posts to make that clear.

Well that is my contention, even though I require charity, that the ideas of a shoe and foot are only a relationship to shoe and foot. They are not, in fact, the shoe and the foot in any way except that they are analogous. — introbert

As you noted, there is a lot of discussion claiming that much of human thought is based on analogy. That makes a lot of sense to me. It certainly is consistent with my own experience of my own inner life. That kind of analogy connects new experiences about the world with existing ones which allows new ideas to be incorporated in a consistent world view. Analogy is how ideas are connected with each other. It's how the world is classified and how distinctions are made.

Basically, I enjoy this method of reasoning. Using the analogical formula to make connections and associations between things, to reach interesting conclusions and make arguments has been a pastime of mine and has used up many notebook pages. I simply wanted to share the joy of using analogies as a method of reasoning with others who share a fondness for philosophy. — introbert

I feel the same way, although I like to call them metaphors rather than analogies. That sounds cooler and all intellectual and artistic and stuff.

I believe the world is not necessarily as we perceive it, but that the exact relational nature of the world has to be uncovered through thought and without using the analogical method, — introbert

Again, analogies are relationships between ideas, not relationships between ideas and reality.

an analogy defines relationships between things — introbert

An analogy defines a relationship between relationships. The relationship between my hand and my glove can be considered analogous to that between my foot and my shoe, but the idea of a shoe is not analogous to that unnamed thing in the world which covers my foot.

My standard for considering something ironic is pretty low. The standard dictionary definition of the opposite of what a certain set of circumstances would have you expect, especially if it is humorous or paradoxical. — introbert

As it relates to reality: I believe that reality is fundamentally ironic as consciousness and the world it perceives are united as one materially, but there is a deficit between the idea that consciousness produces and the world. — introbert

Given the definition you're using, your argument is circular. If reality is the measure of irony, how can it be ironic. It is meaninglessly self-referential like "This sentence is false."

Historically, we simply don't value the lives of men as much as we do women. — 64bithuman

it's perfectly possible for men's issues to coexist with women's issues and have them both be recognized as problematic. Dismissing white blue collar issues has become something of a hallmark of popular liberal politics. — 64bithuman

Really good post, by which I mean I agree. I see no one has really responded to the substance of your comment.

Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics, Peter Lewis — 180 Proof

Let us know if this is worth reading once you've had a chance to read it.

Irony is one of those words that means different things to different people. It would help if you defined just what you mean by the word.

For what it's worth, I have successfully lobbied in the past to have a thread moved back into the front page. That's another reason I think it makes sense to talk things over with the OP before that type of action is taken.

Whatever the reasons are, it has always bothered me that the OP would not be notified of the change and an explanation provided. I have been told in the past that there is no forum policy and it is left to the moderator making the change to decide whether to notify.

Here is a link to an interesting article about population growth from "Quillette."

https://quillette.com/2022/08/20/the-unexpected-future/

The predictions it makes about future population growth are significantly different from ones I've read elsewhere. I'm not sure if that should make me suspicious. Numbers I've read elsewhere say that human population will reach a maximum level of about 11 billion people in 2100 and then drop off a bit until it reaches equilibrium. This article predicts a maximum population of about 9 billion people in 2050 dropping to equilibrium of about 8.5 billion by 2100. That population will have a significantly different age distribution than our current one - a much larger proportion of old people. This is predicted to lead to a drastic worker shortage, a much heavier burden on the young to support the elderly, and the end of economic progress, at least by the mechanisms which currently drive it.

I have a question that I have often thought about but have trouble finding answers to. In the last few hundred years mankind seems to be able to extend the average life that we are able to live, but there seems to be a problem with our technology to be able to do anything beyond that. — dclements

Most of the increase in life expectancy over centuries has to do with nutrition and sanitation. I'm sure immunization and anti-biotics have had a big role too. Insect and rodent control also. At the same time, I don't think the maximum age to which people live has changed much. The three score and 10 years specified in the Bible is still fairly accurate.

I think the technology associated with longer life is probably at a whole different level affecting different bodily systems than that required for disease control.

Indeed, first principles are the foundation for all our knowledge, including science; and by definition, they cannot be defended. However, by mere common sense, are they not obviously true? At the end of the day, planes fly. — A Christian Philosophy

Are you saying that metaphysical principles are "obviously true?" If so, I disagree. As I noted, for Collingwood and me, metaphysics is not true or false. Or are you saying that scientific results are obviously true? That gets us into the old "what is truth" discussion, at least one of which is already open on the front page of the forum.

I welcome all kinds of tangents on this theme, but I continue to be fascinated by the individual's grip or lack thereof on the concepts/hieroglyphs employs. Is knowing what one is talking about more than a practical mastery of token trading? In what sense, if any, is meaning present? — igjugarjuk

I've been reading several books that seem relevant to the issues you've raised." By "been reading" I mean that I've started them and they're sitting on my table gathering dust.

• "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes - This is an odd book presenting an odd idea that I don't really buy. Even so, Jaynes has a really interesting section upfront where he describes how consciousness is built on a foundation of metaphor.
  
  
• “Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking” by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanual Sander - As you can see from the title, this book has a similar view, although the book has a broader scope than just consciousness.
  
  
• "Metaphors We Live By" by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson - This book has a similar idea, but focuses on metaphors that are built into language rather than those which we create ourselves to connect ideas that might not seem connected, but which have personal meaning for each of us.

Looking at my own thought and memory processes introspectively, I have always noted a metaphorical component. I have noticed that my ideas, memories, feelings generally have imaginary tags attached. The tags might be feelings, moods, or images. An idea with a particular tag tends to bring to mind those with similar ones. Letters and numbers tend to have colors associated with them. I'm not proposing that is how it works for everyone. It is my idiosyncratic way of seeing things, but I think it's consistent with what the authors are talking about.

@Baden

Since you closed out "Why should life/existence by valued if i can choose to not want to value it?" and added it to this thread, it would make sense if you moved @obscurelaunting's OP over here.

By the way Obscurelaunting, welcome to the forum.

Philosophy (original meaning) is the search for truth; any type of truths that can be drawn from the natural world. And these truths can be split into many areas, called sciences. — A Christian Philosophy

Perhaps this isn't the correct original meaning of "philosophy," but I don't think that undermines the rest of your argument.

Is this your understanding of the terms philosophy and science? — A Christian Philosophy

You've laid your argument clearly and the way you look at things makes sense. I think, though, you make it seem easier than it is. I'm a big fan of RG Collingwood, especially his "Essay on Metaphysics." He says that metaphysical statements are not propositions but rather presuppositions. They are underlying assumptions which people are not generally aware of that underpin our understanding of reality and knowledge, including science. As such, they are neither true nor false. They have no truth value. Collingwood doesn't say so, but to me, epistemology is the same.

What it comes down to for me is that what you call rational sciences are founded on human value. Preferences. Usefulness. On the other hand, what you call empirical sciences can pretend they aren't permeated by human value because they have metaphysics and epistemology to take the rap for them. If we ignore or deny the fact that metaphysics and epistemology provide the foundation for science, the argument might convince scientists they can be truly objective.

Through a consequentialist lense, is it moral to make a decision without the ability to prove whether or not it had a net benefit — CallMeDirac

Look at the examples of real life situations I listed. Were they "moral" from a consequentialist point of view? They said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortened the war and saved thousands, tens of thousands, of allied lives. I don't know the answer to that. There was certainly more to it than that - revenge, retribution, were also involved. Still, I don't feel the need to second-guess Truman and his crew.

Accompanied by its handmaiden mathematics. — jgill

I'm curious how another consequentialist would personally resolve this issue, and whatever similar points have been handled by more competent philosophers. — CallMeDirac

As I said, this is one of those absurd and therefore pointless scenarios, and some philosophers, like Peter Singer, would on this basis say that the question is not realistic and can be ignored. — Tom Storm

I agree with Tom. For me, simplistic and unrealistic scenarios like the trolley problem and this one undermine the credibility of moral philosophy. When would a situation like the one you describe ever happen in real life. There are much more realistic events that really happened - the firestorming of Tokyo and Dresden; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Churchill once decided not to warn people about the planned bombing of a British city because he didn't want the Germans to know they had broken the enigma code.

Dark energy is a negative pressure (meaning it is repulsive): it has a negative equation of state (probably exactly -1, if it is a cosmological constant -- but we have only constrained it to <-0.6). If the universe is imagined to be like a fluid (an assumption that is apt), then there has to exist some kind of negative pressure in order to get a universe that looks like the one that we see. We just call that negative pressure "dark energy." — Astro Cat

Welcome to the Philosophy Forum, where science goes to die. Or, alternatively, where bad science goes after it gets kicked off actual science forums. It's nice to read a clear, knowledgeable explanation of a genuine scientific topic.

Xtrix posts a poor response to his critics and then the bannings thread gets closed to any responses! — universeness

I was angered by Xtrix response on the bannings thread too, but I think Baden or whomever was right to shut that discussion down. I think the thread should be shut down sooner rather than later. It often turns into a ping-pong game of escalating vituperation.

A successful day - I got to use "vituperation" in a response. Say it loud it's like music playing, say it soft and it's almost like praying. Well, I guess not praying.

Here is a link to a site called Libretexts. That's what it is - free text books for a range of disciplines. Mostly science. Neat site.

https://libretexts.org/

At the top of the page, click on "Explore the libraries."

I wanted to prevent the Salman Rushdie discussion from degenerating into insults like the Ukraine thread did, so when Adamski started getting aggressive towards Hanover, without cause as far as I could tell, I sent him a PM asking him politely not to. — Jamal

I'll make this one comment, then I promise to shut up. Don't get all excited, I only mean for this thread and this instance.

Adamski was much, much less "aggressive" toward Hanover in the Rushdie thread than I was.

I definitely recall your thread on mysticism and how you have more of a 'meat and potatoes' approach and question tbe idea of the 'hidden'. I am not sure that there is a literal hidden reality of the mystics but feel that perception varies, with some people being more attuned to the mundane and others to more alternative ways of seeing. However, I would not elevate the mystical ones, because that would be putting the mystics as having superior insight, which may be an extreme generalisation and a far too black and white value judgement. — Jack Cummins

I won't clutter up this thread with more of my personal view on this. I don't think my way of seeing things is very helpful in this particular context. I would like to say that I think this kind of thinking, whatever you want to call it, is the primary way that all of us "know" things. People just tend to focus on more self-aware kinds of knowing. You can take credit for that I guess, but less so for intuition. It's as if the parts of us that we are not as aware of are not really "us."

I just read an article in "Nautilus" - "How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything." A bit popular sciencey for my taste, but it does highlight the perennial problem with the whole "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question - What does "nothing" mean? Here's a link:

https://nautil.us/how-the-physics-of-nothing-underlies-everything-22894/

I remember we both participated in the "What is mysticism" thread where we discussed some of these issues. As we discussed then, "mysticism" means different things to different people. Ditto with "intuition." For me, intuition has nothing to do with any mystery. For me, it means knowledge I have that I can't connect with a specific rational or perceptual source. That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, just that I wasn't aware of it when it happened, it isn't associated with a single event, or it is lost to memory. And then, some knowledge may be innate, unlearned at least in part, example - language.

me the first one seems like barely suppressed or symbolic violence and is striking but not beautiful, especially linked with Rossini's music, so well associated for some of us with the urban violence in A Clockwork Orange. And clowns are creepy. — Tom Storm

It surprised me that you said violence, that never crossed my mind. Now that you say it, it makes sense. For me it was just joyful. I find myself moved by big public works of art. Things that get in the way and change the way people think about their everyday world and lives. I've always loved Christo's stuff. For me, that's art that doesn't need an expert to explain it. I can feel it in my bones. Apparently people in the locations where the commercials were filmed really enjoyed the process.

A couple of wonderful, beutiful adds. I think they're from the early 2000s. Neither is made with computer generated images.