BrainMeta'                 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Art, Common Sense, and Objectivity
coberst
post Jan 26, 2009, 02:54 AM
Post #1


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



Art, Common Sense, and Objectivity

To study art is to study human nature.

The prevailing view throughout the world seems to have been, and still is, that light is an inherent quality of the sky, earth, and all objects; their brightness is occasionally hidden or extinguished by darkness.

One child said “Sometimes when the sun gets up in the morning, he sees that the weather is bad, so he goes where it’s good.”

We might think that modernity would have eradicated such a view except we seem to be unable to reject what our eyes tell us is true. “Our image of the world, however, is all but unchanged, because it is dictated by compelling perceptual conditions that prevail everywhere and always.” One might argue that ‘I know better, I know that objects are illuminated by some source’. This may be true but there are many other visual variables wherein our comprehension is not nearly so enlightened.

Brightness depends upon a complex interaction of the distribution of light, on optical and physiological processes of the observer’s eyes and nervous system, and upon the objects ability to absorb and reflect light.

Luminance depends upon the percentage of light an object “throws back”. The eye determines only the light thrown back, which is determined not only upon the luminance of the object but also upon the amount of illumination upon the scene. Brightness will appear to the eye as being the sole property of the object itself.

Three dimensionality is determined by the eye to be shades of brightness, i.e. contour shading, likewise with depth perception.

“Illumination” is not self explanatory. To the physicist illumination means one thing but to the psychologist and the artist it means something entirely different. They “can speak of illumination only if and when the word serves to name a phenomenon that is directly discerned by the eyes”.

From the darkened audience the evenly lighted stage appears as an object with an inherent luminosity; the same effect is obtained from a uniformly lighted room. In this instance both the stage and room appear to be large independent luminaries. Illumination is something else.

Should we examine a small wooden barrel setting on the shelf our vision would inform us that the cylinder changes color and brightness as we scan from one side to the other side. Such a perception would happen only if we scanned slowly and carefully, micrometer by micrometer, as if we scan it through a small hole made in a sheet of paper.

When I see the barrel more naturally the whole object appears uniformly brown. “Over most of its surface the barrel shows a double value of brightness and color, one belonging to the object itself and another, as it were, draped over it—a transparency effect. Perceptually, the unity is split up into layers. The bottom layer will be called the object brightness and the object color of the barrel. The top layer is the illumination.”

Are qualities in my apperception (the process of understanding something perceived in terms of previous experience) inherent (essential character) of an object?

We have all been raised within an objectivist philosophical view wherein the object is ‘out there’ and it possesses certain qualities such as color, roughness, and stands in certain relationship with other objects.


“Most people tend to adopt this objectivist metaphysics…They thus come to think that objects have their properties “in themselves”, independent of sentient organisms, since as infants they learn object permanence and eventually come to experience properties as adhering in objects.” We have through social osmosis mistakenly learned that objects are mind-independent.

The most egregious and the most difficult to clarify error that objectivist make is the common sense assumption that objects are mind-independent.

“The world does not come to us prepackaged with determinate objects with their determinate properties. Instead we have to learn the meaning of physical objects, which we do by watching , handling them, subjecting them to forces, and seeing how they can be used—in short, by forms of interactive inquiry that are at once bodily and reflective.” This process of handling them, subjecting them to forces, and seeing how they can be used—in short, by forms of interactive inquiry that are at once bodily and reflective is what cognitive scientist call the ‘embodied mind’ or ‘embodied realism’.

Objectivity, i.e. our comprehension of truth, is our shared subjectivity.


Our senses, which are common to all human creatures, help us to form what we call common sense. However this ‘common sense’ often leads us to a serious mistaken identity of the meaning of objectivity.

Quotations from “The Meaning of the Body” by Mark Johnson.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jan 26, 2009, 03:08 AM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5149
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



Objective light arrives to our subjective apperati via coloured wavelengths of one amplitude or another, whether it is an inherent quality of an object's natural character or whether it is a cosmetic humanly applied to change an object's surface appearance.

.... colours may appear to be the same physically but they are quite different psychologically.

They are simultaneously an entity and an energy!

So while vision is a collective subjective experience it is entirely an individual subjective psychological phenomenon at it's base level!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trojan_libido
post Jan 26, 2009, 04:23 AM
Post #3


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
From: UK
Member No.: 5681



Nicely put Trip. I think the psychology of colour is very important to understanding our relationship to the environment and therefore our path of evolution. Green and blue have always been given psychological meanings relating to: water, earth, safe, home. The other colours are no different.

QUOTE
The most egregious and the most difficult to clarify error that objectivist make is the common sense assumption that objects are mind-independent.
I understand that the object we see is not the actual object, and that we only see the spectrum of light thats reflected. I don't see how this means the object is not actually out there? We could have a tug of war using a rope, and it must exist for both people to tug on it, and for the physics of weight, gravity, force to work on.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Jan 26, 2009, 09:46 AM
Post #4


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 26, 2009, 04:23 AM) *


I understand that the object we see is not the actual object, and that we only see the spectrum of light thats reflected. I don't see how this means the object is not actually out there? We could have a tug of war using a rope, and it must exist for both people to tug on it, and for the physics of weight, gravity, force to work on.


I think that you are ignoring my words and trying to build a strawman.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Jan 26, 2009, 10:55 AM
Post #5


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
Quotations from “The Meaning of the Body” by Mark Johnson.




I think that you are ignoring my words and trying to build a strawman.


Perhaps your words are the straw man built from the perception of another's ideas or words.

When you read the words of a philosopher do you automatically assume the identity of that philosopher or are you someone other than the philosopher?
Is common sense a democratic principle and do we in democratic principle, determine the nature of reality or do we awaken to it through the process of discovery? Will we in the study of Art continue to assess the nature of humanity throughout time or is there a point in which we come to fully grasp and understand the nature of being human?

If the observance of Art is the observance of Human nature, then the observance of death is also the observance of human nature, for death is much more prevalent in the expression of the human design, and can be creative or passive, conscious or unconscious.

If what we perceive in the study of the human nature is the nature of the human within nature, how far our observance is expanded might reveal how we might free the senses from the boundaries of human perception.
If animals of superior sense in sight and hearing have their own perceptions of human nature should we not also include those democratically in determination of what Art may reveal or does Art through the limited sense of human nature reveal our limitations?

If the human mechanism of perception is flawed as in the awareness of the limitation of human senses, the perception of human nature through the individual or personal study of Art would be subjective and any democratic association or accumulation formed as a democratic assessment is the median of many flawed assessments. Combining many flawed perceptions does not increase the chances of a flawed perception or perceptions to become free of their flaws and common sense is reduced to defective thinking...

IF the human sense is absolute, then democratic observations and assessments are not democratic but reflections of equal assessment and all perceptions not being flawed would be absolute, meaning there is no one absolute projection or assessment of human nature from the assessment of human sense orientation, but that human perception itself is absolute. The perception or detail of the perception itself is not the absolute but the observance of it is or the consciousness behind the observance is.

The diverse perceptions of every person seeing something different from/in another would be the reflection of consciousness as we see it from the one ideal we are holding onto within ourselves. When we then look at the diverse nature of 7 billion people on this planet, we begin to see the nature of ourselves as consciousness, and if the population continues to grow and expand with the mortality of death and birth as a constant, the nature of consciousness or human nature is revealed in the endless procession of human personalities that comes and goes through time and is the democratic analysis of human nature.

If there is no accountability or record keeping of the extended past, with the awareness of the endless future of personalities, there is no democratic reckoning of the nature of human personalities and their evolving nature.

Art or the study of Art, then will be reduced to a collection of thoughts, soon to be buried in the past along with the other observances and collections of past determinations of humanity or its nature, while a new set of eyes is being born to determine the nature of humanity.

Therefore human nature is either assessed democratically through the compromise of the personality flawed senses of belief, or absolute within the diverse nature of human personality and belief, not as personality or belief.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dianah
post Jan 26, 2009, 12:16 PM
Post #6


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 515
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Member No.: 584



I liked your post cobert,


QUOTE
Objectivity, i.e. our comprehension of truth, is our shared subjectivity.


what I understand this to be saying is that the subconscious archetypes are as our shared subjectivity…and is the basis of all objectivity.

All there is, is light in various degrees and it is through our sensing that we create perception. We are not perceiving an object per say…but the IDEA of one. This is through mind which functions as a mirror to light.

Common sense would then be a shared idea based on physical perception and experience of an object…which links ones thought processes to the universal mind, or mass mind, which stymies independent and critical thinking…hence; “However this ‘common sense’ often leads us to a serious mistaken identity of the meaning of objectivity.”

Am I close at all in understanding the underlying message to your post?



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trojan_libido
post Jan 26, 2009, 02:19 PM
Post #7


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
From: UK
Member No.: 5681



Objectivity is a word based on the word object. I realise we don't experience an object directly, but how could we without using our limbs and primitive sensory organs. The mind cant just surround an object and sense it directly, so although probably don't understand as well as you, or put much effort into understanding exactly what coberst is saying, the object is still definately there.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dianah
post Jan 26, 2009, 03:26 PM
Post #8


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 515
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Member No.: 584



QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 26, 2009, 02:19 PM) *

Objectivity is a word based on the word object. I realise we don't experience an object directly, but how could we without using our limbs and primitive sensory organs. The mind cant just surround an object and sense it directly, so although probably don't understand as well as you, or put much effort into understanding exactly what coberst is saying, the object is still definately there.



I think what is being said here is that the object is created in the mind. An object is just light in various flux, thus vibration. Do our eyes see or do they sense vibration that is brought into image via the brain, thus creating an image of an object, sure we can touch it, look at it, manipulate it, but what are we really touching, sensing thus imagining? Is there really an ‘out there’ full of objects or our we just sensing our very being? I dunno, but I find it all very interesting, perhaps the true reality is within…
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jan 26, 2009, 04:08 PM
Post #9


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5149
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



.... objects are both physical objective entities separate from human subjectivity (the word) as well as being an objective physical energy visually/cognitively received by subjective human awareness.... simultaneously!

in the primordial human brain millions of percepts accumulated and finally became a cognitively received recept where in turn they were given a human subjective name and thus became a subjective concept.... upon which we now have today's conceptual human brain.... baby stepping towards multi-dimensionality wink.gif huh.gif

if we follow Darwin's evolution.... the eye organ must have developed from a primordial organ at one point in time, where it was only capable of deciphering two colours black and red, eventually over time and evolving as it did, developing and splitting into all the currently known colours within the spectrum of wavelengths!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Jan 26, 2009, 09:34 PM
Post #10


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 26, 2009, 02:19 PM) *

Objectivity is a word based on the word object. I realise we don't experience an object directly, but how could we without using our limbs and primitive sensory organs. The mind cant just surround an object and sense it directly, so although probably don't understand as well as you, or put much effort into understanding exactly what coberst is saying, the object is still definately there.

So, I take it you believe the tree will make noise even when there's no one to hear it fall? Quantum theory seems to contradict you here, TL, as it dictates that for matter (or frozen energy) to take form before our perception, it requires sentient observation. Which would go along the lines of what Coberst is saying. Which would also mean that percepcion is a subjective language. As in the case of the American Indians who didn't see Christopher Columbus' ships for days, even though they were anchored in front of their faces. Why? Because the ships had shapes completely unfamiliar to their visual perception, maybe?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Jan 26, 2009, 10:25 PM
Post #11


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



I think the problem with quantum physics is its trying to merge philosophy and science.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trojan_libido
post Jan 27, 2009, 12:24 AM
Post #12


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
From: UK
Member No.: 5681



QUOTE(code buttons @ Jan 27, 2009, 05:34 AM) *

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 26, 2009, 02:19 PM) *

Objectivity is a word based on the word object. I realise we don't experience an object directly, but how could we without using our limbs and primitive sensory organs. The mind cant just surround an object and sense it directly, so although probably don't understand as well as you, or put much effort into understanding exactly what coberst is saying, the object is still definately there.

So, I take it you believe the tree will make noise even when there's no one to hear it fall? Quantum theory seems to contradict you here, TL, as it dictates that for matter (or frozen energy) to take form before our perception, it requires sentient observation. Which would go along the lines of what Coberst is saying. Which would also mean that percepcion is a subjective language. As in the case of the American Indians who didn't see Christopher Columbus' ships for days, even though they were anchored in front of their faces. Why? Because the ships had shapes completely unfamiliar to their visual perception, maybe?
I'm confident in calling bullshit on that story being fact, it was shown to be 'lies to children', which means an oversimplification often used to highlight a piece of information. The 'evidence' will have come directly from a sailor who saw all the natives standing on the shore gawping or going about their business and unaware of the danger. How could it come from the native american mouths? However, the perceptual effect the story highlights is a real phenomenon.

We are always looking out from our bodies with our primitive sensing organs. We've already discussed at length that we're not observing reality directly. But when you can pickup an object, it confirms its there. Throw it off your friends head, he'll confirm it again. I suppose with or without confirmation, you could always say its a dream or holographic representation or delusion.

The brain fills in the gaps all the time, we're always fantasising about reality. This doesn't mean i'm against whats being said, I just find it hard to draw the same conclusions about the term 'objectivity'.
I believe there is a Divinity in the idea behind the waveform. Energy travels in waveforms.
What if sound and light are an almost identical process except at very different speeds?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Jan 27, 2009, 12:51 AM
Post #13


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



QUOTE(Dianah @ Jan 26, 2009, 12:16 PM) *

I liked your post cobert,


QUOTE
Objectivity, i.e. our comprehension of truth, is our shared subjectivity.


what I understand this to be saying is that the subconscious archetypes are as our shared subjectivity…and is the basis of all objectivity.

All there is, is light in various degrees and it is through our sensing that we create perception. We are not perceiving an object per say…but the IDEA of one. This is through mind which functions as a mirror to light.

Common sense would then be a shared idea based on physical perception and experience of an object…which links ones thought processes to the universal mind, or mass mind, which stymies independent and critical thinking…hence; “However this ‘common sense’ often leads us to a serious mistaken identity of the meaning of objectivity.”

Am I close at all in understanding the underlying message to your post?



Not exactly.

What I mean is that all humans have the same kind of thinking processes and the same kind of biological characteristics when thinking. Because of this common brain and body structure we process our sense data in the same manner, at least in a fundamental sense.

We also add components that are unique to each of us, such as memory of the past plus different past experiences. All of these factors go into our thinking thus our thoughts have much that is similar plus lots that is unique.

That which is similar will make our conclusions, as to what is real, the same in many ways. It is this sameness that allows us all to come up with some "truth" that we share in common, i.e. that which we call objective.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Jan 27, 2009, 01:01 AM
Post #14


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



Joesus

I claim that to study art is to study human nature because in studying the theory of art we begin to comprehend how our body and our mind functio together as a single integrated unit in regards to how we perceive the world through our senses, vision being the primary sense data.

Understanding how our body and mind function as an integrated unit is not to suggest that by knowing this we can change this process. But by knowing how this process operates we can begin to determine why we perceive the world as we do so that we can then better recognize why we do the things we do and thus we can adjust our actions in light of our ability to reason.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Jan 27, 2009, 01:10 AM
Post #15


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 26, 2009, 02:19 PM) *

Objectivity is a word based on the word object. I realise we don't experience an object directly, but how could we without using our limbs and primitive sensory organs. The mind cant just surround an object and sense it directly, so although probably don't understand as well as you, or put much effort into understanding exactly what coberst is saying, the object is still definately there.



Objectivism holds that we can know the object as it out there without changing it.

Objectivism suggests that what we know as a result of our senses is as the object is in the world. The error here is that we cannot perceive the world with our senses but that we do get data from our senses and that this data is processed by our biology. Thus what we know is the processed data, which may or may not have a great similarity to the object in the world. The object that we know has been created for us in our mind. The object we know is not independent of our humanness.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Jan 27, 2009, 01:16 AM
Post #16


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



QUOTE(Dianah @ Jan 26, 2009, 03:26 PM) *

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 26, 2009, 02:19 PM) *

Objectivity is a word based on the word object. I realise we don't experience an object directly, but how could we without using our limbs and primitive sensory organs. The mind cant just surround an object and sense it directly, so although probably don't understand as well as you, or put much effort into understanding exactly what coberst is saying, the object is still definately there.



I think what is being said here is that the object is created in the mind. An object is just light in various flux, thus vibration. Do our eyes see or do they sense vibration that is brought into image via the brain, thus creating an image of an object, sure we can touch it, look at it, manipulate it, but what are we really touching, sensing thus imagining? Is there really an ‘out there’ full of objects or our we just sensing our very being? I dunno, but I find it all very interesting, perhaps the true reality is within…


I agree with your thoughts. This is a very important matter because if we fail to comprehend the error of objectivism we make many errors in our actions that are taken as a result of such ideas.

The book "Philosophy in the Flesh" that I often quote is a tuff study but is a very important study. This theory challenges the objectivist theories but this challenge will be worked out in the universities and will filter down to the people only after generations. Therein lay the rub.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jan 27, 2009, 02:30 AM
Post #17


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5149
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



All human experiential perceptions can be boiled down to one form of wavelength or another, be it visual, auditory, touch, taste, emotion, etc etc
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trojan_libido
post Jan 27, 2009, 02:32 AM
Post #18


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
From: UK
Member No.: 5681



QUOTE
Objectivism holds that we can know the object as it out there without changing it.
Can you give me an example of a physical object wherein following the objective assumption leads to an incorrect view of reality?

Approximating an object from partial sensory data doesn't seem like a problem to me, especially given that our biological senses have evolved into reality for helping us get around in the real world.

If you're talking about the quantum nature of reality you might as well be saying that we're unable to see the true reality because dark matter should get in the way.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trojan_libido
post Jan 27, 2009, 02:34 AM
Post #19


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
From: UK
Member No.: 5681



QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Jan 27, 2009, 10:30 AM) *

All human experiential perceptions can be boiled down to one form of wavelength or another, be it visual, auditory, touch, taste, emotion, etc etc
Given this thought, don't you find it compelling that all life (so far) has evolved and oganised itself from DNA which also has a wavelike appearance?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jan 27, 2009, 02:44 AM
Post #20


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5149
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



oooo good 1.... my mind has not ridden that wavelength before wink.gif

.... yes, spiraling wavelengths indeed!

really though.... think about it! Does not all human experience boil down to a wavelength of one form or another right on down to its, as of yet, most fundamental level in the sub-atomic quantum world?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jan 27, 2009, 03:11 AM
Post #21


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5149
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



excerpt from my 2007 MFA thesis 'Re: wiring the machine"

The Science of Colour

The human eye, over time, has evolved to perceive over a million colours. Most of which are a simple mixture of a few basic primary colours. The solar and other light rays that excite vision are red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. Light rays differ in the length and amplitude of the waves that compose them, with red being the longest and violet being the lowest. It is the energy of light waves that has the power of exciting vision with red having several thousand times the ability for exciting vision than that of violet, the weakest and darkest of the colours and the one most easily diverted by refracting surfaces. In physics, red is the colour of aperture, dilation, and distance, and blue is the colour of attraction, collision, and contraction. The red shift of galaxies in the spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum is the crucial fact that informs us that the universe is expanding. When viewing objects of the cosmos through the colour spectrum, red denotes objects moving away from observers at the speed of light while blue denotes objects coming towards observers at the speed of light.

Expanding Sensorial Awareness

According to psychiatrist Dr. Richard Maurice Bucke, the colour sense (the eye organ) is a much more recent evolutionary mental acquisition than the birth of the intellect, and is the result of an ever expanding human sensorial awareness. He believed that humans at first distinguished only two colours, red and black. Under the name red was included the colour white, yellow and all intermediate tints, while under the name black was included all shades of blue and green. As the sensations of red and black came into existence by the division of an original unital colour sensation, so in the process of time and with the evolution of the eye organ, these also divided, and so on, until at present three primary colours, red, yellow, and blue have split up into the enormous number of shades of colour which are now recognized and named. As humans grow and evolve, they tend to develop relational likings for certain colour combinations and rejections of others. They become attuned to pleasing rhythms and harmonies of colour that somehow subjectively satisfies relative aesthetic desires. Colours function to appease these human aesthetic desires by invoking systems of well-ordered and resonating colour relationships. The key to the successful use of colour depends upon understanding the multifarious nature of colour relationships. There are potential temporally triggering frequencies found within the contrastive and complimentary use of individual colours and colour combinations. Colours also function to structure space and give a spatial quality to the visual field. They also function as a vehicle for the personal expression of emotions and feelings. In physics, colours are a function of an objects atomic and molecular structure. Objects have certain physical properties called pigmentation that enables them to absorb some coloured waves of light and reflect others. A green leaf will appear green to the eye because it reflects green waves found in the ray of light while absorbing all the others.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trojan_libido
post Jan 27, 2009, 06:15 AM
Post #22


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
From: UK
Member No.: 5681



QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Jan 27, 2009, 10:44 AM) *
really though.... think about it! Does not all human experience boil down to a wavelength of one form or another right on down to its, as of yet, most fundamental level in the sub-atomic quantum world?
Apparently so, but when I point to this as evidence of a Fractal transformative process unfolding I tend to get the cold shoulder. I guess its because the concept seems to be on the side of determinism, and yet has the ability to evolve entities with conciousness and an idea of 'Self'.

In terms of the OP though, a simpler example is one where I see fire as shades of green, and you see grass as shades of red. Your parents pointed to the grass and said it was 'Green' so you learned that word. How would anyone know that you saw the world differently? For all we know there could be a huge spectrum of variation in how we perceive colours, and we'd never know, because culturally the colour of grass is 'Green' regardless of how you actually perceive it.

Given your art and also the above, I guess perception and art are something you've studied from all angles then Trip?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jan 27, 2009, 07:36 AM
Post #23


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5149
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 27, 2009, 09:15 AM) *


Given your art and also the above, I guess perception and art are something you've studied from all angles then Trip?


.... well, I wouldn't say "all angles", but quite a few of them I did/do! My book is not 'closed' yet on those two subjects and I am always 'open' to new and enlightening information, come from where it may!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jan 27, 2009, 07:41 AM
Post #24


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5149
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 27, 2009, 09:15 AM) *



In terms of the OP though, a simpler example is one where I see fire as shades of green, and you see grass as shades of red. Your parents pointed to the grass and said it was 'Green' so you learned that word. How would anyone know that you saw the world differently? For all we know there could be a huge spectrum of variation in how we perceive colours, and we'd never know, because culturally the colour of grass is 'Green' regardless of how you actually perceive it.


.... regardless of subjective observation physical objects project off specific wavelengths and amplitudes.... terminology i.e. 'green' provides a conceptual framework for the human species as a way to comprehend and navigate the physical objective world that does surround us all!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trojan_libido
post Jan 27, 2009, 09:20 AM
Post #25


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
From: UK
Member No.: 5681



Well yes, the objects are said to be green when we only have the reflected light to go off. But the same could be said of the texture. Its possible to fake a texture through colouring. In fact its the basis of Art, as I'm sure you're aware. But since we never truly know if we're dreaming or not, I guess I'll just take the partial information for what it is!

Oh, heres some perceptual art you may like!
http://www.impactlab.com/2006/03/09/amazin...alk-art-photos/
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Jan 27, 2009, 10:03 AM
Post #26


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE(coberst @ Jan 27, 2009, 09:01 AM) *

Joesus

I claim that to study art is to study human nature because in studying the theory of art we begin to comprehend how our body and our mind functio together as a single integrated unit in regards to how we perceive the world through our senses, vision being the primary sense data.

Understanding how our body and mind function as an integrated unit is not to suggest that by knowing this we can change this process. But by knowing how this process operates we can begin to determine why we perceive the world as we do so that we can then better recognize why we do the things we do and thus we can adjust our actions in light of our ability to reason.

If reason is by a recognition that is flawed, all adjustments will in succession and accumulation not create an improvement or an alteration of recognition. As I said if we possess senses that are less capable than that of animals our reason based on external senses will only function to the limit of their capacity leaving much to the unknown and reason without all the necessary knowledge is flawed.
What is Art, or better yet, what is not Art or an art form?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Jan 27, 2009, 10:53 AM
Post #27


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 27, 2009, 02:32 AM) *

QUOTE
Objectivism holds that we can know the object as it out there without changing it.
Can you give me an example of a physical object wherein following the objective assumption leads to an incorrect view of reality?

Approximating an object from partial sensory data doesn't seem like a problem to me, especially given that our biological senses have evolved into reality for helping us get around in the real world.

If you're talking about the quantum nature of reality you might as well be saying that we're unable to see the true reality because dark matter should get in the way.


No I cannot give you an example as you request. Objectivism has been our basic philosophy because it is backed by our common sense perception of our world.

I would say that the greatest error that results from objectivist philosophy is the conclusion that absolute truth exists and that we can know it. I would also say that in that same level that the mind/body dichotomy can more easily conceal it self with that metaphysical view.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Jan 27, 2009, 11:03 AM
Post #28


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



QUOTE(Joesus @ Jan 27, 2009, 10:03 AM) *


What is Art, or better yet, what is not Art or an art form?


I have begun to study several books on the matter of Art as a theory. The book "Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye" best says it in the title. Plastic art, i.e. painting as one example has about a half dozen different factors that go into a painting that provides to the viewer a setting of balance of shape, form, growth, space, light, and color that can communicate meaning to the viewer.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jan 27, 2009, 11:25 AM
Post #29


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5149
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



QUOTE(coberst @ Jan 27, 2009, 01:53 PM) *


I would say that the greatest error that results from objectivist philosophy is the conclusion that absolute truth exists and that we can know it.

.... yes, this is a completely outdated modernist ideology in today's post-modern navigational landscape of potentialities and possibilities as witnessed across most , if not all, planes of signification.... with art, myself included, being at the forefront of that charge/drive forward into mysterious new realms of unknowns!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jan 27, 2009, 02:07 PM
Post #30


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5149
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202





julio le parc
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st September 2014 - 03:23 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog