Years ago bought Damasio’s first book. What is memorable is: it was one of two books out of hundreds I tossed in the garbage. I considered it kindergarten level and a waste of my time and money. — ArielAssante

Ok.

Do you realize the model you have apparently accepted is only theory? — ArielAssante

Agreed. I tried to be clear in the OP. The authors seem credible, their ideas seem plausible and supported, but I'm not committed to any of the positions I described. Everything I wrote about is "only theory."

It is a very substantive and drafted OP. — javi2541997

Thanks, Javi. I appreciate that.

Probably you already know it but there is a book called How to do Things with Words by John Langshaw Austin. Well, he also wrote a philosophical paper called Sense and Sensibilia. — javi2541997

I had never heard of Austin or his book. I looked him up on the web and looked at the book on Amazon. Sounds like it has been very influential. I have very little experience with the philosophy of language. I read a little Wittgenstein 50 years ago. That's about it. That's part of the reason I wanted to put this thread together. I wanted to have a foundation of knowledge about how the mind works so I could have something useful to say about language and the mind.

He [Austin] claims, is that if I say that I know X and later find out that X is false, I did not know it. Austin believes that this is not consistent with the way we actually use language. He claims that if I was in a position where I would normally say that I know X, if X should turn out to be false, I would be speechless rather than self-corrective. He gives an argument that this is so by suggesting that believing is to knowing as intending is to promising— knowing and promising are the speech-act versions of believing and intending respectively. — javi2541997

I'm not sure how to use this in the context of Pinker's work and that of other scientists who study language, how it fits in to what they have learned. That's often an issue with science and philosophy in general. Certainly the philosophy has to be consistent with the science. Maybe it's that what Austin says has to do with meaning rather than structure, function, and performance, which is mostly what Pinker is talking about.

The mind may impact 'bodily processes' but, it does not maintain them. A number of the other items you list are also not of the mind. Of being the key word. — ArielAssante

Seems to me that would only be true if the term "mental processes" only applies to conscious phenomena and intentional acts and decisions. That's a pretty circular argument. It's not as if Damasio's proto-self is sitting off by itself doing it's thing. It is fully integrated into our nervous system and, as I noted, it acts as the substrate for other mental phenomena, some of which are conscious.

This proto-mind acts. It makes our bodies do things using our brain, nerves, and muscles. How is that different from me flexing my arm, except in that it is non-conscious.

A number of the other items you list are also not of the mind. Of being the key word. — ArielAssante

I don't know what you mean by this.

I put a lot of effort into these posts. If you don't have anything substantive to add, please go to a different thread.

I’m going to run through my sources in no particular order. I don’t intend to show a comprehensive view of human cognition, or even necessarily a consistent one. As I noted, I just want to get a feel for how mental processes in general might look and work and good ways to talk about them.

“The Language Instinct” by Stephen Pinker.

Stephen Pinker is a professor of cognitive science and psycholinguistics at MIT. This book provides a very detailed presentation of his understanding of how human language works and how it develops in children, making specific reference to scientific evidence including studies of the effects of brain damage caused by trauma, disease, or birth defects; the results of PET, MRI, and other imaging on living brains; language learning in healthy children starting at infancy; language performance by adults and children; genetic studies of families with a history of language disorders; studies of twins separated at birth; comparative studies of world languages; and others. According to Pinker, the findings presented in the book apply to all human languages studied.

Pinker’s conclusions I think are relevant to this discussion include the following:

Language is instinctive. He quotes Darwin as saying that language is “an instinctive tendency to acquire an art.”

Language does not control thought, it’s the other way around. The book includes a section debunking the Whorf hypothesis, which claims that different languages promote and restrict the kinds of ideas that people can develop and understand.

Human grammar is an example of a “discrete combinatorial system.” A finite number of discrete elements (in this case, words) are sampled, combined, and permuted to create larger structures (in this case, sentences) with properties that are quite distinct from those of their elements. He quotes William Von Humboldt saying language “makes infinite use of finite media.” By this he means that words, phrases, and sentences are made up of elements that can be combined and recombined in an infinite number of ways, always constrained from above by the innate structure of human grammar. Words are built up of elements called “morphemes.” Although the morphemes themselves are memorized and vary depending on language, they are combined following rigid rules which are not. The same type of unlearned rules apply to how phrases are constructed from words and sentences from phrases.

Although brain functions, including language, are distributed throughout the brain, there are areas in the brain, Pinker calls them “organs,” which clearly have grammatical functions. Damage to those brain areas can lead to very specific types of grammatical problems. Also, although he recognizes that specific traits are not generally controlled by single genes, studies show that changes in specific genes or lack of those genes can result in language dysfunction that can be passed down from parent to child.

Perhaps most interesting and important, from my point of view, is that people do not think in English, Mandarin, or Swahili. They think in what he calls “mentalese.” Babies and people who have grown up with no language clearly think. He hypothesizes that mentalese is universal and innate in humans.

“The Descent of Man” by Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin was a naturalist, biologist, and geologist, born in 1809 and died in 1882. In his discussion of language as instinct, Pinker quotes Darwin as writing:

Human language is an instinctive tendency to acquire an art. It certainly is not a true instinct, for every language has to be learned. It differs, however, widely from all ordinary arts, for man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children; while no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake, or write.

“What is an Instinct” by William James

William James was a psychologist and pragmatist philosopher, born in 1842 and died in 1910. James writes “Instinct is usually defined as the faculty of acting in such a way as to produce certain ends, without foresight of the ends, and without previous education in the performance.”

In “The Language Instinct”, Pinker discusses James’ position:

A language instinct may seem jarring to those who think of language as the zenith of the human intellect and who think of instincts as brute impulses that compel furry or feathered zombies to build a dam or up and fly south. But one of Darwin’s followers, William James, noted that an instinct possessor need not act as a “fatal automaton.” He argued that we have all the instincts that animals do, and many more besides; our flexible intelligence comes from the interplay of many instincts competing. Indeed, the instinctive nature of human thought is just what makes it so hard for us to see that it is an instinct.

He then quotes James as writing:

It takes…a mind debauched by learning to carry the process of taking the natural seem strange, so far as to ask for the why of any instinctive human act. To the metaphysician alone can such questions occur as: Why do we smile, when pleased, and not scowl? Why are we unable to talk to a crowd as we talk to a single friend? Why does a particular maiden turn our wits so upside-down? The common man can only say, “Of course we smile, of course our heart palpitates at the sight of the crowd, of course we love the maiden, that beautiful soul clad in that perfect form, so palpably and flagrantly made from all eternity to be loved!” And so probably does each animal feel about the particular things it tends to do in presence of particular objects. They, too, are a priori syntheses…

James also writes:

Nothing is commoner than the remark that Man differs from lower creatures by the almost total absence of instincts, and the assumption of their work in him by “reason.”...[But] the facts of the case are really tolerably plain! Man has a far greater variety of impulses than any lower animal; and any one of these impulses, taken in itself, is as “blind” as the lowest instinct can be; but, owing to man’s memory, power of reflection, and power of inference, they come each one to be felt by him, after he has once yielded to them and experienced their results, in connection with a foresight of those results…

…It is plain then that, no matter how well endowed an animal may originally be in the way of instincts, his resultant actions will be much modified if the instincts combine with experience, if in addition to impulses he have memories, associations, inferences, and expectations, on any considerable scale…

…there is no material antagonism between instinct and reason…

“The Feeling of What Happens” by Antonio Damasio.

Antonio Damasio is a neuroscientist as USC best known for his books on the neural basis of consciousness. This book in particular is mostly about consciousness, but in the early part he talks about non-conscious precursors to self-awareness that are appropriate for this discussion. Damasio identifies what he calls a “proto-self” made up of non-conscious neurological and endocrine bodily functions that connect the brain and peripheral body and which allow maintenance of equilibrium in mechanical, biological, and chemical bodily systems, called “homeostasis.” As Damasio writes:

I have come to conclude that the organism, as represented inside its own brain, is a likely biological forerunner for what eventually becomes the elusive sense of self. The deep roots for the self, including the elaborate self which encompasses identity and personhood, are to be found in the ensemble of brain devices which continuously and nonconsciously maintain the body state within the narrow range and relative stability required for survival. These devices continually represent, nonconsciously, the state of the living body, along its many dimensions. I call the state of activity within the ensemble of such devices the proto-self, the nonconscious forerunner for the levels of self which appear in our minds as the conscious protagonists of consciousness: core self and autobiographical self…

…[The proto-self is] a collection of brain devices whose main job is the automated management of the organism's life. As we shall discuss, the management of life is achieved by a variety of innately set regulatory actions—secretion of chemical substances such as hormones as well as actual movements in viscera and in limbs. The deployment of these actions depends on the information provided by nearby neural maps which signal, moment by moment, the state of the entire organism. Most importantly, neither the life-regulating devices nor their body maps are the generators of consciousness.

Damasio’s description of the proto-self brings to mind the design of mechanical and chemical process engineering systems, which I have some familiarity with, although I am not a chemical, process, or mechanical engineer. The drawing below is a piping and instrumentation diagram from a groundwater treatment system which includes removal of floating petroleum.



This is not a system that I worked on myself and I recognize it is hard to read. On the drawing, pipes are shown as solid lines with arrows; pumps, heaters, compressors, and other devices are shown as icons; vessels and tanks are shown as rectangles, and valves are shown as bowtie shapes. Instruments including heat, pressure, fluid level, pH, flow rate, and other sensors are shown as circles connected to the system by signal lines shown a dashed lines with arrows. Not shown on the drawing is a programmable control box, a computer, which takes input from the instruments and, based on that input turns pumps and other equipment on or off; opens and closes valves, records operating data, and sets off alarms with the purpose maintaining system status within established operating parameters. I think this is a good analogy for the proto-self system Damasio describes.

Boy, this has gotten a lot longer than I intended. I’ve tried to cut back, but there are important things I didn’t want to leave out. I had intended to include a discussion of the following books:

• “How Emotions are Made” by Lisa Feldman Barrett
• “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes
• “Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking” by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanual Sander.

But I decided not to. Maybe I’ll bring them up later in the discussion.

So, down to work. I have presented some ideas about how the mind works from scientists I consider credible whose ideas make sense to me. I’d like to discuss what the proper approach to thinking about the mind is. I consider these good examples. My conclusion - the mind is not magical or even especially mysterious, although there is a lot we don’t know. Mostly it’s just a foundation of business-as-usual biology resulting in the very powerful and complex thinking, feeling, seeing, remembering, speaking faculties of the human beings we all are.

And please - no discussion of consciousness experience or awareness.

I thought people might be interested in this. It's a great resource. It lists the scientific and philosophical primary sources it considers central to intellectual understanding and provides links to the documents themselves, including papers and full books. The list is enlightening all by itself.

https://antilogicalism.com/primary-sources/

Don't let the website's name, Antilogicalism, throw you.

A neuroscientist - so long as they stick to doing neuroscience and do not start doing metaphysics - is investigating a small part of the sensible world. They're not committed to any view about what the sensible world is made of. So it strikes me as obvious that idealism is consistent with neuroscience - how could it not be? Those who think otherwise must mistakenly be thinking that neuroscience carries with it some commitment to materialism about what it is investigating - which is just false. — Bartricks

I think your conclusions are right, with a quibble. Although neuroscientists don't generally do metaphysics, they swim in a metaphysical sea. I'd guess for most that sea is physicalism, at least during work hours. I agree that idealism is consistent with neuroscience. As you note - how could it not be. I also agree that neuroscience carries no metaphysical commitment to materialism.

the basis upon which one infers the existence of other minds is going to be the same whether one is an idealist or a materialist about them — Bartricks

I agree with this.

with one exception - the idealist will typically posit one extra mind as the mind who is bearing the mental states constitutive of the sensible world we're all inhabiting — Bartricks

But disagree with this. I don't see any reason to think that our mind is any different from all the others or that saying it is is useful, much less true.

No, for science investigates the behaviour of the sensible world and does not take a stand on its composition. That is, whether the sensible world is made of mental states or mind-external extended substances is a question in metaphysics that science has no bearing on. — Bartricks

Well, it is consistent with idealism that we have not been created for any purpose (for idealism is not a view about how minds come to be, but a view about what reality is made of). And it is consistent with idealism that we do have a role. (And it is consistent with materialism about you that you have a role - if your parents created you in order to stop up a hole in the wall, then that's your role). — Bartricks

I agree.

There's a tension between materialism and normativity. That is, it is hard to make sense of how there could be 'shoulds' in a wholly material universe. Such shoulds - the shoulds of reason - seem to require there to be a master mind whose edicts they are. And idealism arrives at the conclusion that there is such a mind by an independent route. — Bartricks

I don't agree with this. We have evolved as, not moral, but rule making organisms. I don't see why evolution and the evolution of mind are in any way inconsistent with materialism.

First off, this is a really interesting thread.

..as I’ve elaborated upon more extensively in a Scientific American essay, our sensory apparatus has evolved to present our environment to us not as it is in itself, but instead in a coded and truncated form as a ‘dashboard of dials.’ The physical world is the dials.

I think this is true but wrong. Oh, wait, I forgot the Law of the Excluded Middle. It's true sometimes. That's not right. It's true if it makes sense in a particular situation. Ok, that will do for a working answer. I've tried to avoid this recently, since I've overused it, but it's relevant here. The isms you're talking about here are metaphysical entities. As such, they are not true or untrue, only useful or not useful in a particular situation. That's gets back to the Kastrup quote. Sometimes his way of seeing things is a good one, but sometimes it makes sense to see the world as objective reality seen imperfectly.

Once this is clarified, analytic idealism is entirely consistent with the observations of neuroscience

Usually, reality is consistent with whatever sound metaphysical position one takes.

...brain function is part of what our conscious inner life looks like when observed from across a dissociative boundary. Therefore, there must be tight correlations between patterns of brain activity and conscious inner life, for the former is simply the extrinsic appearance of the latter; a pixelated appearance

I think I'm ok with this.

For Kastrup a belief in physicalism is confusing the map for the territory. — Tom Storm

Again, right but wrong.

2. How reality (such as it is) appears to be consistent and regular. — Tom Storm

Because it sort of is and because we overlay consistent and regular on a swirling flow.

3. How evolution tracks to idealism. — Tom Storm

I don't see why it doesn't track physicalism just as well.

4. Whether we require a universal mind for idealism to be coherent. Other models? — Tom Storm

Actually, in order for most, perhaps all, metaphysical positions to be true, I've always thought that God or god surrogate is needed.

6. What might be the role of human beings in an idealist model? — Tom Storm

I don't see how there is any inconsistency.

I've written this before. I read someone, can't remember who, who wrote that mathematicians tend idealists and physicists tend to be physicalists. That makes sense to me. I don't know whether they enter their professions because of their metaphysical predilections or their professions mold their metaphysics.

A good OP. Well-written, clear, and interesting.

If nearly all the words found in the dictionary stand for abstract objects, then it follows that our experience consists almost exclusively of abstract objects, as I’ll show. — Art48

I think you've put the cart before the horse. Not nearly all, but all words in the dictionary stand for abstract objects because naming things is what makes them abstract objects. We overlay an abstract coating on the world as it is. We create the abstract world. "Tree" is no less abstract than "2," even though it refers to that tall thing out in my yard. Actually, "that tall thing out in my yard" is abstract too.

So how can I experience a tree? The answer is I do not directly experience the tree. — Art48

I go back and forth on this, but I think maybe we can directly experience a tree. You don't need to say "tree," even in your mind, when you see one. I don't think you can see one completely unmediated. I'm not sure how close we can come to that.

We can directly see on only one thing: light. The mind does the rest. — Art48

It's my understanding that aspects of perception sometimes come before the mind, e.g. I read that the eye is constructed in such a way that it processes the sight before it gets to our minds.

A “brain in a vat” experiences rough brown patches and smooth green patches. Of that experience the brain can be absolutely certain. The brain naturally supposes something in the physical universe called a “tree” is the cause of what we experience. It is wrong. — Art48

I'm not sure we know what a hypothetical brain in a vat experiences. Saying that something in the physical world called a tree is the cause of my experience is not wrong, it is part of the definition of the word "cause," which I'm sure we'll agree is an abstract entity.

My mind directly experiences the number two because the number two is a thought and my mind experiences thoughts directly. Similarly, my mind can directly experience the abstract object named “tree” because that, too, is a thought. As to what is causing my experiences, I suppose there’s a material object, a material tree, existing in a physical universe outside myself. If I’m not dreaming, hallucinating, or a brain in a vat, then my supposition may be correct. There may actually be a material tree, existing in a physical universe outside myself. But, then again, there might not. — Art48

This is all very philosophical and presumptuous, which, like "abstract" and "universal," often mean just about the same thing.

Instead of questioning the existence of abstract object, perhaps we should apply our skepticism the existence of an exterior physical universe. — Art48

There's a thread out there doing that right now. I've avoided it. Seems like a pointless exercise.

As I said, good OP.

That is not what he said.
— Jackson

Thank you
:pray: — Merkwurdichliebe

Except that it is what you said.

Have you ever watched a realtime artist demo on youtube, or taken a figure drawing or design class to get a direct window into the training of an artist? — Merkwurdichliebe

I'll just repeat myself:

Example of a specious argument:

1) You need to be an artist to understand art.
2) I disagree.
3) Well, but you're not an artist so you wouldn't understand. — T Clark

That is not what he said. — Jackson

It's exactly what he said.

The problem is that nonartists are ignorant of what artistic skills actually are, and think anything can be art. I might concede...maybe it can be art, but definitely not good or skilled art. — Merkwurdichliebe

Example of a specious argument:

1) You need to be an artist to understand art.
2) I disagree.
3) Well, but you're not an artist so you wouldn't understand.

Are you an artist? — Merkwurdichliebe

I'm a writer.

when it comes to judging an artist's skill, the opinion of nonartist matters little to none. — Merkwurdichliebe

You do not need a special education to appreciate art, but you do need one to truly appreciate the skill it takes to produce a high quality artwork. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't think either of these is true.

I agree with what you've written.

What is "'Artsy Fartsy?" — Jackson

I already edited that. I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler philosopher.

No, happens all the time. Like dumb people who looked at Picasso and thought a child could do it. — Jackson

I know non-artists, non-art aficionados, just regular old people who, the first time they saw a cubist painting were completely blown away. That says more for an artist than if another artist or an art critic likes it.

Regarding varying genres and styles, there are universal design principles that can be found as a common thread in all great works of art (regardless of genre or style), so we do indeed have a criterion upon which we can judge genres against each other. — Merkwurdichliebe

It would be helpful if you can give some examples of the universal design principles.

Edit - I see you provided some examples previously. Thanks.

For artists, one of the primary goals is to be recognized for their skill by their artistic peers. I would venture to say that art is something quite different for the artist than it is for nonartists. — Merkwurdichliebe

Unless something is screwy, an artist's primary audience is not other artists. I would say the significance of an artist is not his impact on them. Perhaps what's different about how artists see other artists work and how a regular person does is like wine tasting. When you taste the wine do you tell people about the traces of plum and rosemary with an aftertaste of licorice and pomegranate or do you say "That's a really nice wine?" If you need some sort of special education to appreciate a work of art, it's useless.

Sorry, @Noble Dust, I don't mean this as a swipe at your second profession.

Dude, he had some good information sometimes.. and when focused on a source text, could lead some constructive debates... but that guy pissed on everyone when he was here. And I have been here longer than him.. I will give him a positive though.. he seemed to be a fair moderator. He didn't seem to abuse his power.. At least as far as I know from my limited view. — schopenhauer1

Several years overdue. He needs therapy more than any other person I have seen on this or any other forum.

Hope he works through whatever his issues are.

I am just surprised he wasn’t done away with years ago tbh. Being knowledgeable is no excuse for open and untamed bigotry and bullying directed towards anyone who happens to share a different opinion. — I like sushi

Popular in hippy culture in my youth. — Banno

And in mine. I really hated that book. Actually, I hated almost all of Heinlein that I read. I did really like Starship Troopers. It was one book where his fascistic fantasies worked.

I say this to let everyone know this was a difficult decision, made over a long period of time, with plenty of prior warning. — Hanover

I have no problem with the decision the moderators made. I know it was hard. You've all known him longer than I have. I'm just furious with people who have contributed much, much less to the forum than he did pissing on him now that he's gone.

No.

If you want to vent, don’t make things up about me in the process. — Xtrix

I didn't make them up. I mean what I say and I think your words justify my characterization. I understand you disagree.

Pointing out a truism isn’t being dogmatic, nor pompous.

The reality is that you’re upset he was banned, and you’re looking for a fight. — Xtrix

You're trying to sound all reasonable instead of smug and self-righteous, but if you were really wise, you'd just shut up and let me vent. But I guess it's important for you to get in the last word.

So for all the talk about how intelligent he was, he was far from wise. — Xtrix

“Pontificated” is an odd way to interpret me there. — Xtrix

Pontificate - "To speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way."

I stand by my characterization.

Except for very recently, Street was always a very worthy opponent and an inspiration to read (especially his reading lists). For better or worse, banning him is definitely a loss to this community. — 180 Proof

That’s probably the vast majority of anything ever created. But the point is that the creator likely focused most on one or the other. For example, would the architect that created the bridge have sacrificed the bridge’s functionality for the sake of its beauty? — Pinprick

We've probably taken this as far as we're going to.

I’m not sure where irony fits in here. Sarcasm, perhaps? — Xtrix

Irony - "The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning."

In which case all I can say is: I never said *I* was wise. — Xtrix

You never said you were wise, but you pontificated on another's lack of wisdom.

So for all the talk about how intelligent he was, he was far from wise.

Makes you ask: What good does all this reading and studying do when you’re constantly angry, hostile, demeaning, and vulgar? — Xtrix

[irony]Thank you for your insightful comments on wisdom.[/irony]

The quality of posts on the forum has gone way down over the past year or longer. I could put up with a lot of vituperation if it meant there was some meat to chew instead of the pap we have been getting recently. There are a lot of useless, lame, insipid posts made and threads started these days. Multiple threads started one after another by people with nothing to say. One sentence OPs. People dropping into ongoing threads just to make pointless, irrelevant comments so they can hear themselves talk. The usual suspects making insubstantial snarky comments.

So, I will continue to miss @Streetlight

Streetlight has a keener philosophical intellect and both a broader and deeper knowledge of philosophy than almost anyone I've met. His contributions in that respect speak for themselves, — Baden

I agree. In addition, he was one of the top two or three forum members in his understanding of and interest in science. I always felt like I could count on him to set things straight when most everyone else was talking through their pseudo-scientific hats. I still go back and reread some of his old posts from time to time when I have a question.

Oooo. That hurts. As much as anyone streelight represented what is best in the forum. — T Clark

Oooo. That hurts. As much as anyone Streelight represented what is best in the forum to me.

Banned Streetlight — Baden

Oooo. That hurts. As much as anyone @streelight represented what is best in the forum.

But isn't Collingwood saying that we admire a work product as art precisely because we are so far removed from the practical use of the object? — Jamal

I don't think that's what he's saying. To be clear, Collingwood isn't denying that there is a difference between art and craft. He's just saying that it isn't a distinction that was made before the 1600s. He says that Da Vinci and Michelangelo considered themselves craftsmen. They did not consider what they did art in the sense we do today. We've just sprayed on an aesthetic coating to bring what they did in line with how we see things now.

it's often precisely the perfect functionality of an object that makes it aesthetically pleasing. — Jamal

Agreed.

I think maybe you sort of can, when the originality or beauty of a work outweighs the techincal flaws. I'd put this into two categories, (a) works by great artists who were nevertheless technically bad in some ways, and (b) accidentally good or interesting art made by people who are entirely unskilled and talentless. — Jamal

I don't think this covers Hampton's "The Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations’ Millennium General Assembly."

maybe the proper answer is no, you can't have good art without some kind of technique, craft, or skill. — Jamal

I'm still not sure where I come down on this.

The universe is “set up” in a rather specific way. Do laws and constants dictate the means by which the universe can operate or are the laws and constants emergent properties of a loose soup of possibility that progresses from an “anything goes” scenario towards a “stringency” model. — Benj96

Many of us believe the universe just rolls along doing it's universe thing as it has for billions of years or maybe forever. Then here we come to try to figure out what we should do next so as not to be crushed under its wheels. Scientific laws and models are the tools we invent to help us keep one step ahead, or at least no more than a few steps behind.

"grok" is a philosophical term I haven't come across before... — alan1000

@180 Proof is a science fiction nerd.

Are "reductionism vs holism" really that helpful? — musicpianoaccordion

I was a civil engineer, often a very reductionist discipline. Example - storm sewer design. When you design a sewer system to handle stormwater, i.e. water resulting from rain or snow, on a property, regulations and standards of practice say you only have to take into account the maximum flow leaving the site. That doesn't take into account the time and sequence of flow on your property and in the system as a whole. Result - inadequate capacity and flooding. A holistic approach would take into account the effects of changes in flow from your property on the system as a whole. Problem - it's very hard, and expensive, to do that.

On the other hand, if you are a particle physicist, focusing in on a very limited piece of the puzzle can be very effective and necessary. It's when principles learned from reductionist study in the laboratory or at CERN are taken out into the complex world at human scale that things can fall apart.

Here's a link to an influential article I like a lot that lays out the holistic/reductionist ways of seeing things with a focus on emergence - "More is Different." Emergence can put the kibosh on the idea of the whole being the sum of it's parts.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.177.4047.393

Here's another link to a discussion here on the forum - "Reductionism and the Hierarchy of Scale." Focus on @apokrisis's posts. He has a unique perspective, at least here on the forum. It's one I've had to work to grasp. I'm still working.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12626/reductionism-and-the-hierarchy-of-scale

I’m not sure what these images are supposed to demonstrate. I can see how beauty can be found in them, but that alone doesn’t make it art. — Pinprick

You wrote:

There isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to be, much personal meaning in craft items like chairs or pencils, whereas artworks typically are designed with personal touches. — Pinprick

To say the examples I showed, which you call craft, don't have much personal meaning seems clearly wrong to me.

Well, what is skill? Has anyone defined that term yet? It could be that skill is the ability for the artist/craftsman to match their ideal concept of what the items purpose is. If the item is intended to be functional, then the final product should be functional and can be judged on qualities like durability or comfort or whatever. If the item is intended to be aesthetically pleasing, then it should be judged on qualities like creativity, emotional impact, etc. — Pinprick

Clearly the examples I showed are intended to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing.

So, a skilled craftsman is someone who makes very functional items, and a skilled artist is someone who makes very meaningful items. — Pinprick

Again, I think that's an oversimplification.

Ok. Now what? Why is it significant?

I think at the heart of the craft/skill/art discussion is meaning. There isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to be, much personal meaning in craft items like chairs or pencils, whereas artworks typically are designed with personal touches. Artists intentionally choose certain colors, sounds, shapes, etc. beyond strictly what is needed for the item to be functional/useful. These choices metaphorically instill a part of the person into the item. They create meaning beyond the item’s functionality. — Pinprick

Which brings us back to the original question - how much does skill matter in art? If personal meaning is the standard by which art should be judged, then it doesn't seem like skill would matter much.

So, if you just make a wooden chair because wood is all you have available and size it so that it seats comfortably, and don’t add any decorative details, then it is a craft work. Now, that isn’t to say that others won’t find your chair aesthetically pleasing, but that isn’t what makes something an artwork. — Pinprick

There’s also the possibility to have a mixture of both; a functional chair that also contains embellishments meant to please the eye. This is more of a gray area, and is probably determined by how it is marketed or used/displayed. — Pinprick

This is a picture of furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright for one of his houses.



For me, this furniture is not "embellished."

I'll come back to this - I don't really disagree with what you're getting at, but I think you're oversimplifying.