The men suffered severe dehydration, starvation, and exposure on the open ocean, and the survivors eventually resorted to eating the bodies of the crewmen who had died. When that proved insufficient, members of the crew drew lots to determine whom they would sacrifice so that the others could live. — Wikipedia

Yikes, those dudes were hardcore. Thank you full refrigerator and dry land.

They do work that way, when it comes to things like art, culture, society, religion. These terms don't work the way a term like "table" or "astronaut" do. — baker

I could have sworn that I said something like “Suggesting that the definition of art can be so readily shifted only underscores its nature of being a social construct and subject to the whims of culture and speculative value.” Oh yeah, I did write that.

Australian politicians are never in the news. Do they even have politicians?

How is claiming that consciousness is a constant feature of art scientific?
— praxis

I give up — Pop

Of course you do, “science” is too hard to explain. :razz:

It's strength is, I believe, that it identifies in scientific terms something that is a constant feature of art. — Pop

How is claiming that consciousness is a constant feature of art scientific?

I think you misconstrue me entirely. Panpsychism is not religious, and neither is Yogic logic. I used Buddhism as it is generally more recognizable. I only had a superficial understanding of consciousness at the time of writing the definition. I have since spent almost two years gaining a better, more scientific, insight. It turns out information has a lot to do with consciousness - consciousness is a state of integrated information in IIT, and a reinterpretation of information as something fundamental is a current concern in all the disciplines. In respect to art, the only question that remains is - information about what? And what else can it be other then consciousness? Simply put consciousness is a state of mind about how we understand ourselves in the world that we live in. But it is a concept that spans everything, so way outside the scope of this post. — Pop

Well now, you spent two years gaining insight so you must be something of an authority. What did I just say??? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Consciousness woo woo!

It is a challenge to the status quo, of art for art's sake, so anybody wishing to challenge the status quo can use it if they wish. — Pop

Your goofy plan isn't a challenge to anything. You can't even convince some randos on an internet philosophy forum, some of whom might be quite gullible.

... if we had a definition of art, then our understanding of art would self-organize around the definition. — Pop

That's not how labels or signs and meaning work, is it? If I define myself as an astronaut it will be meaningless because I've never trained to be an astronaut and have never been to space. If we change the definition of an astronaut to 'a person who is trained to travel underwater' we'll still need a word for people who are trained to travel in space. Suggesting that the definition of art can be so readily shifted only underscores its nature of being a social construct and subject to the whims of culture and speculative value.

A definition of art, and I’m not saying my definition is necessarily it, has the potential to shift the power balance in the art world, back into the hands of the intellectuals and the artists. This is my primary goal.

What is the basis of the power of those who control the art world today? Wealth and influence basically, right? If I intuit (you don't lay it out explicitly) your plan, you want to somehow imbue art with a kind of pseudo-religious meaning and in that way empower it. Near the OP, which I finally just read, you write:

Panpsychism and Buddhism are the only complete theories of consciousness we have. They both suggest consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. From this perspective, consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning.

This also explains your curious issue with 'art for art's sake' or art for aesthetic experience. You find aesthetics trivial or mere decoration, apparently. Anyone concerned with power and influence naturally would.

Your definition of art is necessarily ambiguous because the basis of power in a pseudo-religious fantasy art world would be the same as that of religion, faith in the authority, and the authority dictates meaning that they have special access to and which others do not.

When someone asks if you’re awake (conscious) do you tell them your state of mind?
— praxis

What else can you possibly do other then express your state of mind. An answer of affirmative = your state of mind! — Pop

Yay! :party:

Which is either conscious or unconscious when referring specifically to consciousness.
— praxis

:roll: You are trolling - surely? — Pop

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.”?

I fail to see how this is relevant, since you are not going to be making art in your sleep? — Pop

It's a mental state where consciousness is absent. Also, many artists are inspired by dreams and intuition so you can't say that creative or artistic work is entirely conscious.

The subconscious likewise is always an aspect of consciousness, so is not something separate. — Pop

A dream state is subconscious or a state of mind where consciousness is absent.

Yes you have feelings, opinions, etc, and what you express is your current state of mind about these - which is your consciousness. — Pop

It's not as straightforward as you seem to think it is. To a large extent, the human mind can be seen as little more than a prediction machine, and the conscious mind is a kind of guide or rationalizer for that conditioned machine. We react to things according to our conditioning and the conscious mind rationalizes and develops its narrative after the fact.

Consciousness is not merely whether you are conscious or unconscious - it is the current state of one's mind. — Pop

Which is either conscious or unconscious when referring specifically to consciousness. When a surgeon enters an operating theatre and checks on the status of the patient, does he ask the aesthetician "What's the patient's current state of mind?" or does he ask "Is the patient unconscious?" He asks something like the latter because that's specifically his concern.

Note: you're going to continue endlessly repeating yourself until you sort out, or acquire, ideas (metaphysical?) about consciousness.

The state of one’s mind at any particular time is one’s consciousness. — Pop

A meaningless statement since it’s only accounting for consciousness or whether a mind is conscious or unconscious. A mind can be in a dream state, for example, in which case the state of one’s mind is unconscious or lacks consciousness. It doesn’t account for motivation, feelings, mental representations, or anything that a mind is comprised of, merely whether or not its conscious.

the aesthetic - the decorative aspect — Pop

:roll:

Consciousness is a little more accurate, imo. As it relates to a state of mind. — Pop

Right, the state of merely being conscious. In fact, it is less accurate because we know that much of mental activity, and perhaps especially creative work, is subconscious.

It is a state of mind that is expressed in art, or anywhere. — Pop

You mean like this?



The state of being awake depicted in art by Leah Saulnier.

Not sure how this can be expressed anywhere. I guess Saulnier could go on tour.

I’m conscious of some of my mental activity but not all, and I’m generally aware of how conscious I am, though I could suddenly become unconscious before having a chance to realize it.

How is mind different to consciousness? — Pop

Being conscious is being awake and aware. A mind is more than simply being conscious. A mind requires an internal model of its environment and a model of itself itself to navigate its environment. It needs to have motivations or drives, such as the drives to feed and reproduce, or to make art.

Supposedly your "long story" can bridge this gap. Just as I predicted this epic tale has not materialized.
— praxis

I gave you a link to panpsychism. — Pop

You must have your own version because some of your claims don't seem to agree with it. Panpsychism seems to center on 'mind' and you focus on consciousness. There's obviously a difference between being conscious and not being conscious, and you seem to accept this difference. A mind doesn't need to be conscious, does it? Naturally, art is an expression of minds.

There's the notion of pearls before swine. Do you distinguish yourself from swine? — tim wood

It's from the New Testament. Religious authority distinguishing the in-group from the out-group, essentially, to promote group solidarity and control. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Freethinkers don't usually let themselves be lead like children.

At your level - as I understand you - you like it, it's art; it's good. At mine, there's a Wow! involved. That art, as I understand it, has the power to summon in me that which is other to and better than me, to me. — tim wood

Wow! is not good? The power to summon in you that which is other to and better than you is not good?

I feel the gulf in our understanding is too wide to bridge. — Pop

Supposedly your "long story" can bridge this gap. Just as I predicted this epic tale has not materialized.

:up:

Either you already know what I mean or you do not. — tim wood

Hmm, starting with the obvious. So far so good!

Assuming you're being candid and honest, you do not know what I mean. — tim wood

I do tell the truth at times, when the mood strikes me.

Which is to say that for you, art is what you like and not what you do not like, thus the two identical. — tim wood

Let me see if I've got this straight so far. I don't follow your meaning well enough to draw meaning from it, therefore, for me, liking and aesthetic experience are identical? Actually, I've read this several times and it's not clear if you mean that liking for me is identical to aesthetic experience or identical to art. Art and aesthetic experience are not synonymous, clearly, because we can have aesthetic experience in the absence of art.

And that's as far as we can go. — tim wood

Stay here if you must but I'll push on.

But your view makes art completely subjective, which leads to someone else calling art what you don't, yet that on the basis of your own criterium you cannot call not-art (after all, they like it). Which in turn leads to absurdities such as art-for-me and art-for-you, but no art. — tim wood

Art is a social construct and has no objective reality. Like money, without people, the finest ink drawings in the world would just be paper and ink with no value beyond paper and ink. It would have value for bugs, I guess, who could nibble on it. But getting back to sapiens, I don't understand your problem with the absurd. If someone were to offer me a million dollars in fake money for my car I would probably laugh, thinking something like, "Oh, how absurd! this fool offering something with no value for my car." But then if she were to asks me to look more closely at the money and it turned out that it was exquisitely hand-drawn unique bills with beautiful designs. I might recognize the art and realize that it may have more value than my beat-up old car.

Nor is there any accounting for your changing your mind. It was art yesterday, but not today. — tim wood

If someone calls something art I will automatically evaluate it as art, if it's not readily apparent. If it showed no sign of skill or design it could still be seen aesthetically. If the artist decides the next day that what they said was art the day before isn't art today that's fine with me, though I may disagree. If a knowledgeable art critic disagrees with me that's fine too.

Further, the experience in question is either an experience of liking or an aesthetic experience. For you these must be the same thing. — tim wood

You asked, "do you buy the better tool for the job or the one you like?." I like to think that I would buy the best tool for the job, and I usually do, for the most part, but I am influenced by aesthetics. In any case, I think you need to define what the job of art is for this to mean anything. For many art is merely an investment opportunity and its job is to appreciate in value, to make money. It can also be a status symbol and its job is to show higher status. More abstractly, art can promote shared beliefs and values, or demote others. Finally, there can be art for art's sake, and its job is merely to experience the aesthetic.

Perhaps this, the difference between food that's good for you and food that is not. — tim wood

Oh, I see now, the knowledgeable art authority will save us from getting a tummy ache. :lol:

It's true that many want to be treated like children.

Sweet Jesus, no! If you think "liking" is the sine qua non of aesthetic experience, then you're living one (or two)-dimensionally in a multi-dimensional world. — tim wood

Apparently, you live in whatever world the art authorities tell you to live in.

You're not being clear about liking and aesthetic experience. Can you elaborate to an extent that what you're trying to say becomes meaningful?

But as with tools, do you buy the better tool for the job or the one you like? — tim wood

This is a poor analogy because, in art, liking (aesthetic experience) is the job.

And does not education and knowledge inform that decision? — tim wood

I don't think that aesthetic experience is something that you consciously decide to have or not have. Education and knowledge contribute to shaping our own experiences, of course.

And don't confuse the offer of an experience with the experiencing of it. — tim wood

I don't know what you mean.

I couldn't care less about what... the knowledgeable consider... because I can think for myself and I'm not a mindless herd animal.
— praxis
:vomit:

Yessir! That knowledge sir! Tried it once; didn't like it! — tim wood

You're forced to alter what I say to make a point. :roll: I value knowledgeable people in general but when it comes to art I can tell if I like something, and no authority on earth can know what may offer an aesthetic experience, though they may know general principles. I'm the best authority on my own sensibilities. Any of us can recognize that we may lack sufficient knowledge of an art form to more fully appreciate it. Does an authority telling you that something has greater value than you think it does make you value it more? I imagine that it does.

I couldn't care less about what the powerful or the knowledgeable consider good art because I can think for myself and I'm not a mindless herd animal.

To paraphrase the immutable words of Sigmund Freud, sometimes a letterbox is just a letterbox.

And holding the note…

The TPF education-in-a-paragraph. — tim wood

We can’t think for ourselves?

Interesting, perhaps your mentioning sex is your subconsciousness trying to express the meaning of the symbolism. You did say that the earth is “hardening” and your erect mailbox is ready to destroy somebody else’s “car” in the neighborhood. It sounds an awful lot like you’re the one in desperate need of a leg over, or at least that’s what your subconsciousness is expressing.

The heroic images of you struggling to push up your rundown letterbox in the mud and rain is mildly amusing, so thanks for that. It is also strangely symbolic, but symbolic of what I cannot say. :chin:

… you appear to place a great deal of confidence in your communication with the world through sense and reason. So for all practical purposes you're a realist. — frank

In case you haven’t noticed, mailboxes don’t usually stand in the middle of lakes, and yet you attempt to categorize me as a realist. :brow:

Even if you were an Ai, you would still be expressing a consciousness, but this time the consciousness of your programmer — Pop

Perhaps the programmer also lacks consciousness.

In panpsychism, consciousness is fundamental, and is the only thing anything ever expresses through it's form. Long story. So I know that if anything should ever be expressed, that it will be consciousness. — Pop

This is entirely meaningless as it stands. If you have to tell a long tale for it to convey anything meaningful then tell your long tale.

:snicker: But we both know that you have no story to offer.

There is a theoretical basis for my assertions — Pop

We’re on page 14, if there were a theoretical basis for you assertions I suspect that we would have heard a peep of it by now.

I can only express my consciousness - there is nothing I can do other than express my own consciousness. — Pop

Nonsense, although you are definitely having trouble expressing this alleged theory you mention.

It is not necessary for me to know your consciousness in it's entirety, since through expression you provide me with glimpses of it. — Pop

You said yourself that “I can not know your consciousness.”

If it turned out that I am an AI without consciousness, which is certainly a possibility, according to your beliefs it wouldn’t matter because ‘anything expressed is consciousness’. A plant bending towards the sun is expressing its consciousness, right? But no, you agree that an AI can lack consciousness.

I don’t provide you with glimpses of consciousness. I show signs of consciousness and if you want to call that expressing consciousness it is only expressing indications that I may be conscious. I express thoughts, beliefs, feelings, opinions, etc.

I would rephrase that to say that Pop can know my opinions and such, but Pop can never know my consciousness because to know it Pop would have to experience it somehow. Pop would have to know what it feels like for me to be conscious. Maybe it's not so different than Pop consciousness, or Frank consciousness. Maybe it's very different. Does anyone really know?

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: — Pop

No argument is required. I'm merely pointing out that you can only assume that I'm conscious, you can't know that I'm conscious, so I could not be expressing something that you cannot know even exists. The words and ideas that I express, on the other hand, are evident.

:lol: You got pro art-speak.

We can not express anything other than our consciousness. — Pop

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.

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. — Pop

Clark's artistic opinions are not his consciousness and it's a big stretch to say that they reflect his consciousness. He may, for some reason, express opinions that are not his own. He can communicate his own opinions with words. 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.

I can see your artwork Mailbox in Lake taking pride of place at the 2022 Venice Biennale. (y) — RussellA

I doubt it would do well at even the neighborhood swap meet. More evidence that bad art can still be defined as art though. :razz:

But I would have no trouble with my subjective experience of the colour red (or aesthetic form) regardless of the object's context - whether at the end of a street or the middle of a lake. — RussellA

Agree, and personally I find the idea of a mailbox standing in the middle of a lake rather aesthetically appealing.

Again you reveal your consciousness. — Pop

You have to admit that this is an odd thing to say. Especially odd because in your very next post you say:

Your opinions are just noise without substance…

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.

I'll bet Marj is moving the clock a few milliseconds.

The aesthetic form of the object can be removed from its external context
My subjective experience of the colour red is independent of any function the letter box may have. Similarly, my subjective experience of the aesthetic form of the letter box is independent of any function that the letter box has. — RussellA

If you know what a letterbox is, and you know the color red, you'll experience a red letterbox. If you don't know what a letterbox is, you'll experience an unidentifiable red object. If you know what a letterbox is then you know what its function is. Do you know what the function is of something that you can't identify? No. Further, if you noticed a red letterbox out of context, that is, in a place where you don't normally see them, and a place where they can't function properly, such as standing in the middle of a lake, it would surprise you. Unless that was commonplace for some reason it would surprise you because according to your internal model of the world red letterboxes don't stand in the middle of lakes and your mind could not have predicted one being there. You could not help noticing and being surprised, whereas you may pass red letterboxes on the street all the time without noticing them.

Again, we can easily imagine a red letterbox out of context. In experience we cannot separate one from its context, though we can modify our model of the world to accommodate a new context.

Remarkably, in that long post you didn't use the word 'context' even once.
— praxis

In a previous post I wrote "The aesthetic form of an object is independent of the object's context, as an object's aesthetic is the formal arrangement of the parts within the object, not any external context. The violence of a war can have an aesthetic and be ugly. The serenity of a garden can have an aesthetic and be beautiful".

In this particular post I summarised with the phrase "aesthetic as a formal arrangement of the parts within an object". Although not specifically referring to the context of the object, the phrase infers that the object's context is not part of the object's aesthetic. — RussellA

As I repeatedly pointed out with Constance, we can easily dismiss context with our imagination, but in real life it may not be so easy. What does it even mean to say that an object can be removed from its external context? And are you saying that’s a requirement for aesthetic experience? If so, why would it be a requirement?

Suppose that no human ever bothered to distinguish the color of red from other colors.
— praxis

When looking at the world, humans don't decide to distinguish between colours, but instinctively distinguish between colours, without thought or conscious effort. — RussellA

Unless you have perfect pitch you couldn’t hear a musical note and identify it. You could learn how to do this with practice however. Just because sense data is available doesn’t mean that we can naturally distinguish parts of it. We may be better at visual distinctions but we still need to learn how to make ever finer distinctions. A ‘colorist’ will be far better at distinguishing colors than the average.

In a study of ancient writing, it was discovered that black and white were the first colors mentioned, followed by red. Blue was the last, as I recall. Apparently some colors are more important than others, to humans, and the least important are distinguished last.

Again (technical issue screwed with the first) — Constance

Don’t ya hate that?! When all else fails click the edit button, which sits at the bottom of posts to the immediate right of the time stamp. You may need to tap on that spot in order to see the icon with three dots, and if you tap on that you’ll see the pencil icon. Tap on the pencil icon to edit posts.

Don't know why you want to talk about hot coals or billowy clouds. It isn't to the point. — Constance

How astute of you, indeed hot coals or billowy clouds are not the point, the point utilizing those examples was that what we can imagine doesn't always correspond to reality.

moves away from explanatory accounts that are merely factual — Constance

I’m not sure if it’s possible for you to move any further away from such a lowly place.

facts are, as such, ethically arbitrary — Constance

I suppose you’re right about that, the capricious little bastards.

you owning the gun I borrowed and wanting it back under, say, dangerous and suspicious circumstances. — Constance

Are you threatening me?

The gun ownership, the circumstances and so on, these are facts that have no ethical dimension to them as facts. — Constance

In my country there are laws about gun ownership which strongly suggests that there is in fact an ethical dimension to gun ownership.

As Wittgenstein put it in his Lecture on Ethics: in all facts of the world, were they laid out in a great book, there would not be a mention of value at all. — Constance

Not even the value of pie?!

Then what is it that makes the case ethical (or here, aesthetic; same applies here) at all? it is the value: the injury and pain that is at stake, also my breaking the implicit promise to return the gun that could undermine confidence that thereby undermines friendship and comfort, and so on. — Constance

No worries, keep the damn thing.

So. you see the point being made here is to try to analyze an ethical case, any one at all, to find how its parts work, and what they are. This should be clear. — Constance

Clear as mud at this point. :up:

Not clear why you talk about panic. — Constance

Because it’s the most unaesthetic kind of experience that readily came to mind. I explained that. Are you only skimming my posts? How dare you. :rage:

I don't want to muddle things with what is not at issue. — Constance

Good call.

If all things are in space, then nothing is in space? Are you kidding? — Constance

You said it, not me. If all things are in space, then all things are in space (as a matter of fact all things do appear to be in space). If all things are space, then all things are space, right? If all things are space then there’s nothing to compare space with, right? There is only space, so space has no meaning.

What's the problem with it?
— praxis

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

Most people think aesthetic experience is trivial, I believe, so you’re in good company the majority.