Is this undemocratic? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Democracy is government by the governed. There are lots of different ways this can be configured and still fall within the meaning of the word.

There is no correct definition of art — RussellA

Perhaps, but there are incorrect definitions of "art." There are also definitions that are of very little use. Several of those have been expounded in this thread. Art is not magical. It's a means of human expression and communication. We don't need no highfalutin definitions.

I would define the aesthetic as unity in variety, along the lines of Hucheson. Hucheson is giving an objective definition of the aesthetic, not attempting to describe the subjective experience. — RussellA

Keeping in mind that "aesthetic" actually has an accepted meaning - Concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty.

But I can never describe the subjective experience of the colour red or the aesthetic to someone who can never experience the colour red or aesthetic. — RussellA

I've always hated this idea - that we can't explain sight to a blind person, color to someone color blind. Of course we can. And by explain, I mean to give an intuitive understanding of what the experience is like. I'm sure it won't be as good as a sighted person's grasp would be.

Value as the regard that something is held to deserve, the judgement of good or bad, in that the aesthetic of a Rembrandt is better than the aesthetic of a child's crayon sketch. — RussellA

Ok, as long as you aren't selling that more sophisticated means better. I have a drawing my younger son (five when he painted it, 31 now) that I love as much as anything I've seen. Not just because it's from him. It's a night time view of a simple dark blue sky over a black ground surface with a bright yellow flash of lightening cracking across the sky. It was shockingly beautiful when I first saw it 26 years ago and it still makes me smile. It was up on his door until he left home a few years ago. There's a saying in country music - three chords and the truth. There is a connection between technique and beauty, but it is not a simple one.

Evolution does not explain what the aesthetic is, but evolution does explain why the aesthetic originated in sentient life. — RussellA

Well, maybe. Sure our brain evolved to establish patterns, but it also evolved to assign value. As far as beauty is concerned, value may be as much or more important than pattern.

Human a priori knowledge is that knowledge necessary to survive in the particular world we find ourselves in. It would follow that a sentient life evolving in a different world, whether hotter, silicon based or higher gravity, would have different a priori knowledge suitable for that different world. — RussellA

It is my understanding that humans are not born with much a priori knowledge of the world. We are born with inborn instincts for certain ways of processing the world, learning about it, e.g. language.

Sentient life, including humans, are born with certain innate knowledge - such as the colour red, bitter tastes, acrid smells, what is hot to the touch, the pain of a headache, as well as the aesthetic. — RussellA

I don't think we are born with a priori knowledge or color, acidity, bitterness, pain, or heat. We are born with the equipment to collect sensory input and the processing ability to interpret and use it. We have sensors in our mouths that are sensitive to acid, bitterness, saltiness, and sweet. We have sensors in our eyes that are sensitive to light and three colors (if my memory is correct).

But this is particular knowledge, in that I am not able to imagine an bitter taste independent of experiencing through my senses an object in the world that gives me the subjective experience of a bitter taste. — RussellA

I'm sure someone could induce a bitter taste in your mouth with direct stimulation of specific taste buds with no contact with a substance we would call "bitter."

The aesthetic is important because it is an innate foundational ability of sentient life to discover patterns in a seemingly chaotic world. — RussellA

I don't know if this is true or not.

I was going to say that I think you are over-simplifying things, but I think what you are really doing is over -complicating them.

It sounds like you're discussing the intersubjective aspects of object permanence -- on-topic -- but in code, or using the forum as a metaphor. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. That's exactly right.

Note - this is a four year old thread. It would be helpful if you would point that out when you post. That being said, here is my response:

Lamest paradox ever.

Elephant art really stands apart. — praxis

I'd rather have the elephant art on my wall than the Mona Lisa. It matches the rug in the living room.

Many economic theories are based on the assumption that businesses exist to maximize profits. Neoclassical economists (mainstream) use the profit motive as an axiom to build economic models. Making money is seen as the single purpose for all business. — Wheatley

Free market capitalism works. Other systems, e.g. government controls, don't seem to. What do I mean when I say "capitalism works?" It creates a market that gets resources to the places they're needed in a more or less efficient manner. When I fly over New York City and northern New Jersey, I get a visceral feel for the vastly complicated network of pushes and pulls that create the civilization I'm flying over, for better or worse. Problem - often, usually? capitalism does what it does with no regard to it's employees, the surrounding communities, or the world at large. The involvement of large corporations can make things much worse. Solution - 1) govern regulation 2) labor unions and 3)...? I don't think the revolution of the proletariat, if it were possible, would be a very good candidate.

Both these paintings are done by elephants:

I see many art works as actually dealing with philosophical problems, but the artists themselves and their audience often don't see it that way. — baker

If the artists and audience don't see it, maybe it comes from you. That's not a criticism. The experience of art includes how it fits in with the rest of our experience.

Now, don't make me cart my copy of "Best Loved Poems of the American People" out of mothballs... — Michael Zwingli

Please do.

Modern life in a nutshell. — Outlander

Hi.
I
try
my
wry
reply
hereby.
sigh,
goodbye.

Myself as well. Owen, through his poetry, was one of the major writers chronicling the horrors of the First World War. This is my favorite of his poems, of which I especially admire the rhyme scheme. The fact of an odd number, seven, of lines per stanza, I find interesting. Note how lines 1-3 and 2-4 of both stanzas uses alliterative rhyme, and lines 5-7 uses true, direct rhyme. It's just really good in it's effect. — Michael Zwingli

You read poetry more closely than I do. When I first read it, I did note the meter as being very satisfying. Serious, but not too somber. Matter of fact. Even after your explication, the rhyme scheme doesn't jump out at me.

What gets to me is the imagery, especially the lines I quoted, but the rest as well. I really like "wake" and "woke." The first line is great. "Move him into the sun—." Completely concrete before it moves on to the imagery.

When someone asks if you’re awake (conscious) do you tell them your state of mind? No, you answer affirmatively. If someone asks how you’re feeling do you say, “I feel conscious.”? — praxis

Whenever you talk about consciousness, the fact that different people mean different things by the word always gets in the way.

Not particularly philosophical, — Michael Zwingli

Great poem. Plenty philosophical. Even if it weren't, there's always leeway for a good poem.

Think how it wakes the seeds—
Woke, once, the clays of a cold star. — Michael Zwingli

Love it. Love it. Love it.

I've known enough painters, sculptors and writers to understand that often they are producing works without having the slightest idea why choices are made - it may well be all about their own suppressed childhood or traumas but this may not be known to them or readily obvious in the work. — Tom Storm

I don't think it reflects anything pathological. I'm a really verbal person, not particularly visual. I'm pretty good at explaining my decisions, feelings, imaginings, etc... There are a lot of people who are just not that way. I would imagine that many visual artists and musicians are not very self-aware in a verbal way. Many of them are probably also not good with words. On the other hand, they see and hear things I never do.

Not sure how that works exactly. — Antony Nickles

In my experience, if you come across it on the page, you get the most recent version. If you follow a link to your name, you get the version that was current when it was first saved. If you add a mention to a post later, the person mentioned doesn't get a notice.

As you probably know, Paul Tillich, one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the 20th century, used this term 'ground of being' to describe god. — Tom Storm

I've come across the phrase in a few different contexts. I probably heard it first from Alan Watts. As I said, I'm not sure it is any better a definition than any of the others, I just find it satisfying. It gets at what I mean when I say "reality."

This is an interesting and well-written discussion.

Is it possible to give a rigorous definition of 'reality'? — Cidat

I don't know if I'd call this rigorous, but I find it very satisfying - the ground of being. It's what's all the way at the bottom when you've swept everything else away. It's a term sometimes used to describe the indescribable Tao.

It brings to mind an Emerson quote, emphasis added: — James Riley

Is that from one of his essays? Which?

I definitely recommend the second one, Gormenghast, but the third is non-essential and really not of a piece with the first two. — jamalrob

I loved "Titus Groan," but I'm surprised I finished it. Luckily, about a quarter of the way in, something grabbed me by the collar and dragged me the rest of the way through. Really odd, but wonderful. I've been trying to get up the nerve to read "Gormenghast."

Just so you know, there is a rule for books identified as "classics" - you get just as much credit for reading short easy-to-read ones as for the difficult ones. I recommend "Heart of Darkness." Mr. Pynchon, he dead.

I guess we're back to that familiar aphorism - "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." I personally am comfortable with this even though I recognize there is a universe of contested critical assessment and theory (much of it tedious and doctrinaire) available to us to ponder over. The shorthand 'I know what I like' doesn't mean you need to limit yourself to decorative works that you find pretty. It means that you know when you are having an aesthetic experience that you appreciate - it might be confronting, exciting, shocking, captivating. — Tom Storm

There are things I like and things I know are high quality. Some of the things I like I like because they are high quality. Some of the things I like I like in spite of the fact that I know they are not high quality, e.g. Velveeta, Twizzlers, "I'm Henery the 8th I am" by Herman's Hermits. Some of the things I don't like I don't like in spite of the fact I know they are high quality, e.g. most jazz, most rap.

None of this is an argument against anything you've written. I think I'm trying to fit my own experience into your framework.

I edited the OP to correct the confusion. — TheMadFool

When I was a psych major long, long ago, I remember reading about computer generated therapy. Here is a link to a program created back in the 1960s. Pretty limited, but apparently some people couldn't tell that it was computer generated.

http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/eliza.htm

Turing principle — TheMadFool

When I look up "Turing principle" it discusses the computability of functions. I don't think that's what you're talking about. What do you mean specifically?

So, what's your take? Do you think the Turing principle (identity of indiscernibles) is justified/unjustified? — TheMadFool

As I noted, the so-called "identity of indiscernibles" is central to my beliefs. So, yes, the Turing test is a reasonable way to see consciousness. And there's an even broader principle. As William James wrote:

Pragmatism asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?

Not only are two things the same if you can't tell them apart, they're the same if there is no practical, meaningful, concrete difference between them or their consequences.

I avoided including p-zombies in the OP because I wanted to focus on the Turing principle. — TheMadFool

I'm mostly interested in the broad principle you described, what you call the "identity of indescernibles," rather than the specific examples, i.e. P-zombies and the Turing test. It pops up all the time, e.g. different interpretations of quantum mechanics or the existence of universes outside our own.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's the principle of the identity of indiscernibles which, unlike its converse, the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals, is, last I checked, controversial. — TheMadFool

What you call "the identity of indiscernables," a phrase I hadn't heard before, is a central one to how I see the world. If you can't tell the difference, there is no difference. Both the Turing test and the P-zombie apocalypse are good tests of the principle.

He's got a point though (just kidding). — frank

I'll have you know that my dim witted consciousness is very large minded.

resort to name calling and an attack on character. — Pop

I did not call any names or comment on your character. I wrote about 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."

You, on the other hand, have talked about my "small minded dim witted consciousness."

which is troubling; it makes consciousness seem less meaningful. — AJJ

I think making consciousness seem less meaningful is probably a good thing. Right now it's hard to talk about it reasonably because people approach the subject with the sense that it is somehow weird or magical. That consciousness doesn't fit in with the rest of our understanding of the world. That we need special explanations.

observation holds no bearing over the fact that P-zombies are not truly intelligent therefore lack consciousness. — AlienFromEarth

I disagree. The only way for us to determine whether an organism other than ourselves is self-conscious or not is through watching their behavior, including language. There is no difference between an organism which is self-conscious and one that appears self-conscious but is not unless we can observe a difference, either physical or behavioral.

Only conscious organisms possess true intelligence. — AlienFromEarth

From Wikipedia:

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie argument is a thought experiment in philosophy of mind that imagines a hypothetical being that is physically identical to and indistinguishable from a normal person but does not have conscious experience, qualia, or sentience. For example, if a philosophical zombie were poked with a sharp object it would not inwardly feel any pain, yet it would outwardly behave exactly as if it did feel pain, including verbally expressing pain.

An unself-conscious and unaware organism that acts as if it's self-conscious and aware in a way that cannot be detected either physically or by observing its behavior is conscious and aware.

46 billion ly is the radius(of the observable universe) — Vince

Fixed. Thanks.

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.

To actually reveal his consciousness we would somehow have to be able to be in Clarks mind and experience his consciousness. — praxis

Wait, that can't be right. If it were, that would mean my opinions are art, wouldn't it?

Still no argument. Still no substance. — Pop

I explained my ideas about art back in the beginning of the thread. I read your ideas but disagreed with them. I didn't respond because I thought others addressed your arguments effectively. When they did, all you did was repeat and repeat your litany - "a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art."

My problem isn't with your ideas, although I disagree with them. It is 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.

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. — Pop

Neither do you represent the opinion of the forum, nor have you provided an argument — Pop

You gloat that people don't understand or agree with your ideas, then crow that the forum supports you.

I can see that your poetry is heart-felt and sincere. It's romantic, which is fine. It is also philosophical, as the OP specifies. But it is not good poetry.

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: — Pop

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.

What information where you referring to? I didn't see a link. — schopenhauer1

I was referring to Pentagruel's post up above. Here's the link again.

@schopenhauer1 @Antinatalist

I don't know if you saw this, but I thought you might be interested. It is not the same argument you guys use, but it's similar. I found it more convincing.