Philosophy Now Forum

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 7:50 am I like the way you turn human beings into machines. Andy Warhol said he wanted to be a machine. So do I. I think machines are so very erotic.

The machines are made in our own image. It is us, humans, who are trying to reduce reality to mechanics - logic/language.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 7:50 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:54 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:34 am

Are you a materialist because you think materialism is the most ethical of all philosophies? And that all other philosophies are too too too impersonal and uncaring?

I wonder how you ever arrive at the above conclusion?
Nope, I am not a materialist.
Philosophical Materialism had been debunked long ago.
I am an empirical realist.

You are ignorant of what is inherent in your brain and your own human nature.
The morally and ethics I proposed are directed towards ideal empathy, compassion, caring and the likes for all human beings & optimally for all living things.

It is hypothesized some aspects of the Mirror Neurons in the brain are responsible for empathy and compassion.

In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
-wiki
[15]

Therefore when humanity is able to identify and trace the algorithm of neural circuits of the mirror neurons and its related connections, there will be a basis to increase the average capacity & competency of each individual for empathy, compassion and caring to other human beings.
You dispute this?

If you have an alternative in contrast to my above proposals, it is likely to be a crude and inefficient method.
Show me what is your proposals for humans to be more caring, empathetic and compassionate to others in the future?

I like the way you turn human beings into machines. Andy Warhol said he wanted to be a machine. So do I. I think machines are so very erotic.

Nah, you are just ignorant of human nature and too hasty without any consideration for the Principle of Charity.
If you are not sure of my intentions, you should have asked.

Note the latest development as opposed to 50 or 100 years ago is;
The Neurological Basis of Learning
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 777050009X
where the emphasis is on the individual and related neurons relevant to improve learning any mentally-related skills.

It is dumb to associate and label the quest to expedite the process of learning to be more empathetic, compassionate, morally competent, increase in knowledge, wisdom & anything else that is net positive to the well being of the individual/group via the neural basis as turning humans into 'machines'.

It would be more appropriate to associate those who had been brainwashed by various ideologies such as theism and other evil laden ideologies as turning them into "machines" or "zombies."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:40 am
where the emphasis is on the individual and related neurons relevant to improve learning any mentally-related skills.

It is dumb to associate and label the quest to expedite the process of learning to be more empathetic, compassionate, morally competent, increase in knowledge, wisdom & anything else that is net positive to the well being of the individual/group via the neural basis as turning humans into 'machines'.

It would be more appropriate to associate those who had been brainwashed by various ideologies such as theism and other evil laden ideologies as turning them into "machines" or "zombies."

Nah, call it anything you want; it is still mechanics and you have turned humans into machines. Maybe that's good; maybe that's bad. I'm just saying. http://www.ubu.com/papers/object/03_bok.pdf

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:40 am
where the emphasis is on the individual and related neurons relevant to improve learning any mentally-related skills.

It is dumb to associate and label the quest to expedite the process of learning to be more empathetic, compassionate, morally competent, increase in knowledge, wisdom & anything else that is net positive to the well being of the individual/group via the neural basis as turning humans into 'machines'.

It would be more appropriate to associate those who had been brainwashed by various ideologies such as theism and other evil laden ideologies as turning them into "machines" or "zombies."

Nah, call it anything you want; it is still mechanics and you have turned humans into machines. Maybe that's good; maybe that's bad. I'm just saying. http://www.ubu.com/papers/object/03_bok.pdf

Your link is definitely off point, i.e.
"RACTER is a mindless identity ......" which is literally a machine or robot.
You are forcing square pegs into round holes.

Th metaphor 'machine' can be used in various appropriate contexts but definitely not for Philosophy.

In Philosophy, the direction for man is to be more-human and to strive towards optimality for the GOOD of humanity from its inherent potential.
Being more human cannot be the same as being a machine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:36 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:40 am
where the emphasis is on the individual and related neurons relevant to improve learning any mentally-related skills.

It is dumb to associate and label the quest to expedite the process of learning to be more empathetic, compassionate, morally competent, increase in knowledge, wisdom & anything else that is net positive to the well being of the individual/group via the neural basis as turning humans into 'machines'.

It would be more appropriate to associate those who had been brainwashed by various ideologies such as theism and other evil laden ideologies as turning them into "machines" or "zombies."

Nah, call it anything you want; it is still mechanics and you have turned humans into machines. Maybe that's good; maybe that's bad. I'm just saying. http://www.ubu.com/papers/object/03_bok.pdf

Your link is definitely off point, i.e.
"RACTER is a mindless identity ......" which is literally a machine or robot.
You are forcing square pegs into round holes.

Th metaphor 'machine' can be used in various appropriate contexts but definitely not for Philosophy.

In Philosophy, the direction for man is to be more-human and to strive towards optimality for the GOOD of humanity from its inherent potential.
Being more human cannot be the same as being a machine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine

That link I sent you, Racter, is poetry. It is conceptual poetry. In today's world, after the Tractatus of Wittgenstein, all philosophy now must be poetry, it must be art. It must be religion. Once when Wittgenstein was asked to address the Vienna Circle in Vienna, he turned his back to the audience and recited poetry. That's what we must do now. It's either that or science, which is what you are giving us. You are not doing philosophy. You are giving us a rational method of making life better. There's nothing wrong with that, but it ain't philosophy. http://www.ubu.com/papers/kosuth_philosophy.html and also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D667k70AHoM&t=393s

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:36 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:37 am

Nah, call it anything you want; it is still mechanics and you have turned humans into machines. Maybe that's good; maybe that's bad. I'm just saying. http://www.ubu.com/papers/object/03_bok.pdf

Your link is definitely off point, i.e.
"RACTER is a mindless identity ......" which is literally a machine or robot.
You are forcing square pegs into round holes.

Th metaphor 'machine' can be used in various appropriate contexts but definitely not for Philosophy.

In Philosophy, the direction for man is to be more-human and to strive towards optimality for the GOOD of humanity from its inherent potential.
Being more human cannot be the same as being a machine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine

That link I sent you, Racter, is poetry. It is conceptual poetry. In today's world, after the Tractatus of Wittgenstein, all philosophy now must be poetry, it must be art. It must be religion. Once when Wittgenstein was asked to address the Vienna Circle in Vienna, he turned his back to the audience and recited poetry. That's what we must do now. It's either that or science, which is what you are giving us. You are not doing philosophy. You are giving us a rational method of making life better. There's nothing wrong with that, but it ain't philosophy. http://www.ubu.com/papers/kosuth_philosophy.html and also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D667k70AHoM&t=393s

I am not sure of your point?
From the concluding para of your article:

In this period of man, after philosophy and religion, art may possibly be one endeavor that fulfills what another age might have called “man’s spiritual needs.” Or, another way of putting it might be that art deals analogously with the state of things “beyond physics” where philosophy had to make assertions. And art’s strength is that even the preceding sentence is an assertion, and cannot be verified by art. Art’s only claim is for art. Art is the definition of art.

The above refer to the bastardized version of Philosophy but,

note my definition of 'what is philosophy' in the OP;

• Philosophy-proper is the "programmed" [via evolution] overriding mental drive of a neural algorithm to ensure the optimal well-being of the individuals and that of humanity via the meta-development and adoption of whatever mental tools* that is necessary.
  *Mental tools encompass logic, rationality, knowledge, wisdom, whatever that is necessary and is net-positive.

"Whatever mental tools" and "whatever that is necessary" would also include the 'arts' and 'creativity' [missed out in the above * details] and whatever the brain/mind is capable of.

You had missed my point where I had everything covered.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:12 am

• Philosophy-proper is the "programmed" [via evolution] overriding mental drive of a neural algorithm to ensure the optimal well-being of the individuals and that of humanity via the meta-development and adoption of whatever mental tools* that is necessary.
  *Mental tools encompass logic, rationality, knowledge, wisdom, whatever that is necessary and is net-positive.

"Whatever mental tools" and "whatever that is necessary" would also include the 'arts' and 'creativity' [missed out in the above * details] and whatever the brain/mind is capable of.

You had missed my point where I had everything covered.

You continue to say that art should be of service “to the well-being of the individual and that of humanity”. You make art a tool. But the second to the last paragraph says, “ But whereas the other endeavors are useful, art is not. Art indeed exists for its own sake.”

Your concern is with the well-being of humanity. Science is the tool you should be using for that. Not art. And not philosophy.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:53 am That link I sent you, Racter, is poetry. It is conceptual poetry. In today's world, after the Tractatus of Wittgenstein, all philosophy now must be poetry, it must be art. It must be religion.

We have had poetry, art and religion for thousands of years. Having only come to the party in the last century, what could philosophy/philosophers possibly contribute to those fields?

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:12 am

• Philosophy-proper is the "programmed" [via evolution] overriding mental drive of a neural algorithm to ensure the optimal well-being of the individuals and that of humanity via the meta-development and adoption of whatever mental tools* that is necessary.
  *Mental tools encompass logic, rationality, knowledge, wisdom, whatever that is necessary and is net-positive.

"Whatever mental tools" and "whatever that is necessary" would also include the 'arts' and 'creativity' [missed out in the above * details] and whatever the brain/mind is capable of.

You had missed my point where I had everything covered.

You continue to say that art should be of service “to the well-being of the individual and that of humanity”. You make art a tool. But the second to the last paragraph says, “ But whereas the other endeavors are useful, art is not. Art indeed exists for its own sake.”

Your concern is with the well-being of humanity. Science is the tool you should be using for that. Not art. And not philosophy.

How can art exists without any relation to humans and the human mind?
Are you arguing for the ontological existence of arts?
If you can argue for such, then you would be able to argue for the existence of an ontological God.

Science is merely one of the tools for the well-being of humanity and Science could be relied upon to exterminate [its WMDs] the human species.
Note Science also rely on the arts, at least minimally.

What about logic, morality, ethics, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.
Ask yourself; is there a neural faculty that acts like a conductor of a symphony to co-ordinate all these different functions of the brain/mind into a laser-like function to optimize the well being of humanity.
I answer, yes, there is!

The activity [CEO] that collate and co-ordinate all of the above functions into an efficient system directed at the well-being of humanity is a sort of strategic management function.
It is effectively the ultimate strategic management function [represented by a neural algorithm of the individual's life and that of humanity driven primarily by the prefrontal cortex [within the neocortex].
We can labelled such a set of overriding activity by any name, I prefer to modify the existing and label it Philosophy-proper as qualified and defined above.

Btw, you have not justified your alternative but merely associating 'philosophy' [anything goes] with 'arts' which explain nothing effectively.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:12 am

• Philosophy-proper is the "programmed" [via evolution] overriding mental drive of a neural algorithm to ensure the optimal well-being of the individuals

Look how desperate you are to hijack the effort of Darwinians (evolution), cognitive and computer scientists (neural algorithm), and appropriate it under the banner of Philosophy.

Why can't you create your own knowledge? Why do you constantly have to claim other people's hard work as your own? Dumb philosopher!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:12 am You had missed my point where I had everything covered.

Humans had it covered long before philosophers came to "help".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:21 am
How can art exists without any relation to humans and the human mind?
Are you arguing for the ontological existence of arts?
If you can argue for such, then you would be able to argue for the existence of an ontological God.

Btw, you have not justified your alternative but merely associating 'philosophy' [anything goes] with 'arts' which explain nothing effectively.

Yes, I am arguing for the "ontological existence" of conceptual art. And, Yes, I am able to argue for the existence of the ontological God. I am a theist. And I love philosophical/ontological argument. You must remember that when I speak of Art, I always say that I am speaking of what today is called Conceptual Art. There really is no object to look at or listen to in conceptual art. Only the idea is important. I don't know if you have studied conceptual art or not. It, for the most part, follows on the ready-mades of Marcel Duchamp, which you can easily find on Youtube. Obviously conceptual art is not decorative. Only the idea, usually expressed in words, is important. Do ideas depend on the human mind for their existence? Idealists will say they do. I say they don't.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:24 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:12 am

• Philosophy-proper is the "programmed" [via evolution] overriding mental drive of a neural algorithm to ensure the optimal well-being of the individuals

Look how desperate you are to hijack the effort of Darwinians (evolution), cognitive and computer scientists (neural algorithm), and appropriate it under the banner of Philosophy.

Why can't you create your own knowledge? Why do you constantly have to claim other people's hard work as your own? Dumb philosopher!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:12 am You had missed my point where I had everything covered.

Humans had it covered long before philosophers came to "help".

I will come to the defense of A E. By copying other people's ideas he is acting as a conceptual artist. That is called Uncreative Writing. The ready-made. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ve+writing

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:00 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:21 am
How can art exists without any relation to humans and the human mind?
Are you arguing for the ontological existence of arts?
If you can argue for such, then you would be able to argue for the existence of an ontological God.

Btw, you have not justified your alternative but merely associating 'philosophy' [anything goes] with 'arts' which explain nothing effectively.

Yes, I am arguing for the "ontological existence" of conceptual art. And, Yes, I am able to argue for the existence of the ontological God. I am a theist. And I love philosophical/ontological argument.

You must remember that when I speak of Art, I always say that I am speaking of what today is called Conceptual Art. There really is no object to look at or listen to in conceptual art. Only the idea is important. I don't know if you have studied conceptual art or not. It, for the most part, follows on the ready-mades of Marcel Duchamp, which you can easily find on Youtube. Obviously conceptual art is not decorative. Only the idea, usually expressed in words, is important. Do ideas depend on the human mind for their existence? Idealists will say they do. I say they don't.

Your 'conceptual Art' grounded on 'concept' is self-refuting.

One need differentiate between 'concept' and 'idea' [philosophical].

Concepts are defined as abstract ideas or general notions that occur in the mind, in speech, or in thought.
They are understood to be the fundamental building blocks of thoughts and beliefs. They play an important role in all aspects of cognition.[1][2] As such, concepts are studied by several disciplines, such as linguistics, psychology, and philosophy, and these disciplines are interested in the logical and psychological structure of concepts, and how they are put together to form thoughts and sentences. The study of concepts has served as an important flagship of an emerging interdisciplinary approach called cognitive science.[3]
wiki - Concepts

• When the mind makes a generalization such as the concept of tree, it extracts similarities from numerous examples; the simplification enables higher-level thinking.

These similarities for the concept 'tree' are all empirical evident, thus related to the mind. Wherever the concept of tree is directed at, there should be a justifiable real empirical evident tree in existence.

As such you 'conceptual art' by definition has to be mind-interactive cannot be a basis for 'ontological existence'.

Note idea as in Philosophical Ideas are merely reified things out of crude desperate reason that is not grounded on reality - i.e. empirically and philosophically justifiable reality.
A philosophical idea is a thought in mind that do not have any linkage to anything realistic that can be proven empirically and philosophically.

• For example round and circular shaped things are observed in reality but the mind [crude reason] and inherent psychology extrapolated these actual round and circular shapes to an 'idea' of a perfect circle which is supported by objective measurements.
  But such a reasoned 'perfect circle' cannot exists in reality as a real thing. The perfect circle is an illusion as a useful standard.

It is the same idea with the concept of created things which can be justified as real empirically and philosophically and created by a creator, e.g. a created table, an apple planted by a farmer, and the likes, but desperate souls extrapolated such created_thing by creators to the Ultimate creator, i.e. God or the ontological God which is a reification out of an illusory idea [not concepts].

Note the idea of an ontological God is a reification by the desperate mind [psychological] out of desperation to deal with an inherent existential crisis.
Note my argument;

God is an Impossibility

If you are into ontological things [ideas, God, soul] as really real, prove Philosophical Realism is tenable as real.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.
In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:33 am I will come to the defense of A E. By copying other people's ideas he is acting as a conceptual artist. That is called Uncreative Writing. The ready-made. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ve+writing

You have called it "conceptual artistry" or "Uncreative Writing", but Luciano Floridi has labelled it The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design

And so, in as far we are machines, and in as far as our minds can be thought of as software, even the idea of "copying the idea of conceptual artistry" and "conceptual design" are copied from design patterns and even design paradigms

There are many ways to conceptualise things. Even philosophy itself. Even conception itself, but if you tilt your head a little bit you could almost see that when it comes to artistry "design" and "creation" (with or without the "ism") go hand-in-hand.

Whether you are creating knowledge or solution to problems, the activity of creating is still an art not a science

When you don't create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. your tastes only narrow & exclude people. so create. ― Why The Lucky Stiff

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:11 am

I agree that ideas and concepts or universals and concepts are different. Nonetheless, I have to adopt the terminology that is used in the art world. I, and others, don't like the name "conceptual art", but we are all forced to use it because that is the name that has caught on. It's been around for quite a while now and it is still changing. I have spent the last couple of years trying to acquaint myself with art theory and I'm doing the best I can. Actually, there is no settled definition of conceptual art. It is a whole family of styles. I rather like it and I do use it. Do you have any ideas about contemporary abstract art?