Art in all of its contexts and forms.

You mean as an expression of free will?

not sure. computer art (visual, musical etc) and natural art (night sky, running water etc) can produce similar responses/emotions to human-generated art. they are not expressed by a free will (OK I know you will comment this theologically).

let me answer your question with yes and no.

I'd be interested in the Yes part of your answer

Makes sense to me. In my opinion, religion, in all its forms, like theatre, is an art form. Not all theatre is great theatre. Some theatre is dull, boring, useless and even dangerous.

Why is religion an art form?

Think about it, HH: IMO, any art, in my opinion, is the practical application of philosophy and science to everyday life.

How say you, HH? Do you agree? Or, do you disagree? What is your definition of art?

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
This inspires me to ask: Does my life, and that of others, have any kind of meaning and purpose, ultimately?

I believe that it does.

Therefore, my religion is to make my life, intentionally, philosophically, scientifically and artistically, meaningful.

Would you lead your life differently if you knew that your existence was meaningless?

From what you describe of your history Your religion is constantly changing, what gives you meaning has changed many times.

What you describe in your Opininon of Your religion is a search for meaning. What the search gives you is only temporary opinions.
It would seem your art is the expression of your belief and experience in the moment,... subject to change.

Define art? What is art?
Art would certainly pertain some evidence for 'free will'
Art is creativity, an expression?
Could life or existance itself in its multitude of forms and guises; flowers, insects, mammals, trees, sun, moon, water, fire be considered itself art?

Is art meaningless?

I believe that art, like life, is universaly meaningless. The meaning of art is within the individual, just as the meaning of life is.

But beauty [sic] is in the eye of the beholder?

But beauty [sic] is in the eye of the beholder?

I say no, we could not be human without art.

Why? because to create art is to communicate and we would not be who we are today if not for that communication. People think that creating art only requires the right side of the brain... lies! Leonardo Da Vinci extensivly studied mathematical forumulas for how to make his art perfectly acurate. He preformed disections and made some of the most accurate anatomical drawings in the world.

Art has been with us since the dawn of human existance, it is one of the unique identifiers of human beings. We would not be human without it.

Well not so much anymore Mass marketing has taken care of that one...

Beauty truely should be in the eye of the beholder, just as art is. What you know as great art is most likely what other have told you is great art, and by others, I mean "experts". Why should one listen to a connoiseur of fine wines to tell them what they like?

Well monkeys throw their crap to communiate--a beautiful art form.

Maybe meaninglessness and absolute meaning are one and the same thing.

what do you mean by absolute meaning? It's all relative

I get what you are saying I think--I believe it juxtaposes my own position.

Your life has meaning because you give it meaning. Art has meaning because you make it have meaning. A painting is just a canvas and paint untill creative energy is added from the individal giving life and meaning to the meaningless. The absolute meaning would be what the individual makes of the painting--something with no universal meaning.

Exactly. If human life has meaning, then every action, object and individuation MUST have meaning as well, from the smallest insect to the largest whale.
Meaninglessness = absolute meaning.
Maybe meaning and purpose are different? Or maybe im just going mad

I don't think that anyone has discovered some purpose to life yet--other than to reproduce and die for no apparent reason. I think thus far all we have is the artificial meaning we impose.

If we being the "earthling" we, that can't see or experience beyond being an earthling or birth and death then obviously subject is defined by the identity of we. But that would be a very small idea considering the immensity of the universe and how we co-exist with it.

Relevant background:

http://www.percepp.demon.co.uk/pythagor.htm

Wouldn't that entail the existence an original artist? And who/what created that artist?

Reproduce, for the purpose of survival. That's the purpose of life, the purpuse of existence: Survival. So we can make the world better than it was when we got it. Denying this just shows that you're not aware of it yet, as Hey Hey put it in some other thread.

The beauty of art is that an artistic rendition is a self-contained, unquestionable truth. An artist is master of his own domain. Within this reality of theirs, he/she is God. Where else within the human experience can we claim this?

One way to approach the question (could we be human without art) is to do a thought experiment about a society in which art did not exist. Try to imagine life without:

1. Literature. No journalistic art (no newspaper). No reply to this forum thread which no longer exists. No story-telling.

2. Music. TV advertisments will just be talk talk talk. No dancing either.

3. Fashion. Clothes will be purely functional (to hide embarassing body forms and to keep warm or protect from sunburn).

4. Painting and decoration. No brick-a-brack in houses, no conversation pieces, no makeup or cosmetics, no pleasing photographs on the walls. Houses will be painted only in the cheapest paint, whatever color that turns out to be.

5. No flower arranging, no gardens, no surfing. No model railroads, no hobbies, no bonsai, no suiseki. Only functional cars, no styling.

I can imagine such a society in which "people" communicate only their needs or commands, eat only for nourishment, fight only to defeat enemies, and procreate only because of unconsciou drives and sexual pleasure impulses.

Sounds like a world without free will, doesn't it? And beings without free will might not be human.

Sounds like it.

Would you say that other animals have no free will? It seems that other animals live in the world you have discribed to me, but they should still in theory at least posess the same will as you or I. What will do they have if not free (reguardless of art)?

Wouldn't you say that the social influences on your life do not grant you "free" will? I am assuming you pay taxes, and your refusal to do so would result in punishment, possibly imprisonment--to me it doesn't seem like you truely have "free" will. I will bet that you have always paid your taxes and obeyed laws that you do not necessarily agree with.

The deaf, dumb and the blind are at a bit of a disadvantage then, aren't they? Poor non-humans!

The deaf have sight, they are still capable of visual art. The blind have their hearing, they are capable of auditory art. The dumb well, they are just a hopeless case

It is a good point though. If one has no perception of sight, so much of the world around the individual is inconcieveable, but that does not make them any less human, rather it makes them an individual.

Hear me out now~ As humans we all really have more similarities than differences. I have found that we are not defined by what we share with others, but rather what we do not. Likewise I find that we are shaped less by the experiences we have had, and more so by those we have not.

Oh and about my comment earlier dealing with animals, I would like to share a quick anecdote. Recently a kitten has adopted my family. This cat is one of the most free thinkers I have ever seen. It took a keen liking to my laptop, and I have been trying for about a week to teach it to function on the internet. The cat is capable of opening applications, but it does not yet know what to do once they are open (I guess I have to start teaching it to read now...) I have downloaded a few videos of cats onto my desktop, and the cat frequently opens the videos.

I was amazed with how much this cat was capable of learning. So far it knows how to use the toilet (but doesn't know how to flush--I'm working on that one). The cat can use the sink, and turn on and off the lights. The point of this anecdote is that I believe animals are capable of art as much as humans they simply lack the means of expressing their creativity. I have a hunch that if I could somehow talk to one of my dogs (the eldest male pug) I would have alot to learn. You can see it in his eyes that he is a philisophical genius~

Certainly we are not the only intelligent sentient beings on this planet Maybe all beings share something commonly creative?

You need to let me borrow that cat for awhile, so maybe the pussy I got at home can learn something from it. She's getting dumber by the day. Or maybe the blonde thing is not a myth after all!

A beaver dam or bird's nest might be considered architecture, but I don't think we call animals artists, even if some chimpanzees make paintings. Animals are free, just not as artistically developed. Animals know love, you know. Did you ever pet a cat or dog?

(That brings up another philosophical issue: can one freely love another by choice? If not, Jesus' command to love one another can't be obeyed.)

I don't think it's the social influences on us that make us free, but our freedom that makes us interesting. A slave-will world might be less fun.

Regarding the law, it is my policy never to confirm nor to deny any conjectured instance of self in wrong-doing. However, if I decided to break a law, I might do it. Naturally, it would be for a good reason. That's not automatic however, I just choose to have good reasons, where someone else might not.

Ever heard of the culinary arts?

I was responding to your statements in

quote name='Rick' post='73425' date='Dec 11, 2006, 07:27 PM'.

You'll be saying that science is an art next ( . Mind you, if you suggest that cooking is an art, then synthetic organic chemistry must be!

This is an interesting point though Rick. I deliberately stated "Art in all of its contexts and forms" to qualify my original question. Where does art end, if at all?

Art is actually a subset of technology. Isn't the musician using his skill at music to manipulate our perception of sound? That's really a technical accomplishment. Same for painting, etc.

Science is a subset of technology too. The scientist is using his tools (brain, books, research data, apparatus) to advance knowledge. He is applying technique to a task.

So the real question is not where art ends, but where does technology end?

Prehaps, art is limited only to the limits we give it. If art approaches nothing, it has no limit. So in order to find a limit, there must first be a cause - in order to have effect.

I suppose it could be limited to ones imagination. But then that brings the question, what is imagination limited to, which is difficult to answer.

We have to have some border/restriction to the definition of terms, otherwise they will all merge and all words will mean all definitions. Technology is a good word to define 'the use and knowledge of humanity's tools and crafts' (Wiki). Tools is a good word to define .........................

Like art, technology ends, otherwise our language is too confusing and we have debased our humanity that is defined greatly by language. Wait for it ......... the definition of language is ...........

You are sort of answering your own question that you posed on the other thread. This sort of thinking is 'sort-of' what I mean by "what is this 'creative-essence'?". From where does imagination come from? What platform does it operate on?

But its very vague and I find it quite difficult to put into words.

It seems like imagination is limited to the senses we posess. I believe it was Descarte who presented this idea. A blind man has no perception of sight, and thus can not imagine sight. Once we develop new senses I suppose art will evolve as well~

Lies, studies have shown blind men are able to see basic geometric patterns. Its a matter of neurology not senses. Experiencing sight is technically possible without eyes, dont question me on this one, the answer is way to long.

Imagination, is the altering of experiences to create new ones, imagination is based off of previous experiences... Now I know your going to ask, what created the previous experiences?

Ah, you are a sharp one, okay heres the theorum. Every human inheriently has 4 basic shapes which are hard coded into their brains, every dream features at least one of these shapes. Its very possible that all reality may be comprised of variations of those four shapes.

Alright if your really on the ball, then you must be thinking, but what created those four shapes? Hell you want a lot of answers dont you? Well.. Okay I guess I will try to answer that one for you too. The basic idea is that such shapes may be a result of network patterns and the way they formed. Im not entirely sure, there are several theories to consider on that one, but we do know that these four shapes have been around for a very long time and date back at least to primitive man.. if not further.

This may also be occuring in other animals brains as well, more research is needed, well... theres your basic definition of imagination.

The limit to imagination is the one we impose on it by choosing to restrict the number of variations we have of previous experiences.

Damn, sometimes I forget I know these things until someone asks a question. Much of my information gets buried deep in my sub-conscious until I have a use for it again.

4 shapes? I can think of only two that I would need to create well... anything basically. Triangle--circle. Unless these were not the kind of shapes you were speaking of? I understand that sight is just how our brain processes light, and I understand that a blind man would have some visual idea of shapes, I mean they can feel objects. But if I were to tell a blind man to describe the color red, I believe he would have a rather difficult time~

Indeed, it also depends on what type of blindness. Quite honestly, a good neuroscientist can restore pretty much anyones sight, so many diffrent ways of approaching it too.

I remember helping my father (a plumber) on a job working for a brain surgeon who I believe practice at Stanford Hospital. I am assuming he must be pretty talented at what he does, judging by where he lived, Woodside California. I do not believe he has ever restored a blind mans sight. How would one go about such a procedure? It seems like such a feat would be similar to reversing nerve damage and enabling a paralyzed man to return to full function. If these things are already possible, why then the need for stem cell research?

A side note, I find it funny that a brain surgeon is incapable of instaling a water heater, or even a sink for that matter.

Most of what I know about it is in the research stages, stem cell research will have a big impact on all of this.

There are alot of ways of approaching such a thing, depending on the way the person is blinded. Most legally blind people have some eyesight, so its dependant on the person.

Everything from exterior cameras linked to the optic nerve to genetically engineering eyes and then linking them to the optic nerve. So far its possible to restore neurologically deaf people using sound to skull technology. The same concept may be applicable to eyesight.

Restoring eyesight is more a matter of money than anything else.

Implants and chips have been used for a long time, one that is correctly placed on the optic portion of the brain may be able to send images to the brain from a camera. They have already succeeded in doing something similar with Sharks.

Eyesight is a tricky matter, a individual approach for each person is best.

All very well and good, but it doesnt explain how formlessness becomes form >:P
Which is what i'm trying to get at.

All no good for those with deficient visual cortex.

So what exactly is a human then?