(March 3, 2022 at 5:29 am)Belacqua Wrote: [...]
None of the Christians I know worry about theology at all. It's about behavior and group identity, being moral, etc. So I feel a little rude trying to pin them down on a definition of the soul. I suspect your dad is in the majority here, and I can respect that. 

He's correct, I think, to distinguish spirit, soul, consciousness, and other things, as different. We fuzzy up our thinking if we start to say they're just all the same thing. Why use two different words if soul and consciousness are the same thing?
[...]

Just to say, when I was a Christian, I equated the soul with consciousness I think, just because I didn't have any clear conception of it. So I always kind of assumed my dad thought similar, but he repeatedly corrects me that he doesn't see it as consciousness per se.

Quote:[...]
(I joke that the form/matter distinction is most useful these days as a formula for making modern art. Choose the least appropriate material for a certain form -- say, a hacksaw made of glass or a bed made of ground beef -- and you'll be guaranteed a spot in your local art exhibition.)

Anyway, just out of curiosity, what do you think of modern art? I realised when I was talking about it before... about agreeing with you guys in principle... I realised that to the extent that I like it or try to create it, it's kind of reductionistic and symbolic... ie I like the concept of it as a useful way of representing information/ideas by visual analogy as it were. But that's very different from what I think of as modern art. So this is me being a Philistine again I guess, unless that is doing that but at a much more subtle level. I guess to me there's skillful art and there's symbolic/meaningful art, but I'm not really sure where a lot of modern art fits into that, but granted I haven't shown much interest in it.

(March 3, 2022 at 2:01 am)Belacqua Wrote: Traditionally, however, consciousness is one of the activities of the body made possible by the fact that the body is put together in a certain way -- the form, the soul. Soul is responsible for more than consciousness, however. It's also responsible for all the unconscious processes, and everything that makes a person a person.

No evidence exists that consciousness survives the death of the brain. As Dr. Michael Shermer said, "Talking to the dead is easy; getting them to talk back, that's the hard part." As for immaterial substances causing unconscious processes, one must wonder how such gets measured on an EEG? For instance, Broca's aphasia is very well understood, and the consequences to the victims of it are absolutely devastating; where is the immaterial soul in all of that?

(March 3, 2022 at 6:55 am)Jehanne Wrote: No evidence exists that consciousness survives the death of the brain.  As Dr. Michael Shermer said, "Talking to the dead is easy; getting them to talk back, that's the hard part."  As for immaterial substances causing unconscious processes, one must wonder how such gets measured on an EEG?  For instance, Broca's aphasia is very well understood, and the consequences to the victims of it are absolutely devastating; where is the immaterial soul in all of that?

Right. We don't believe in life after death.

---

(March 3, 2022 at 5:56 am)emjay Wrote: Anyway, just out of curiosity, what do you think of modern art? I realised when I was talking about it before... about agreeing with you guys in principle... I realised that to the extent that I like it or try to create it, it's kind of reductionistic and symbolic... ie I like the concept of it as a useful way of representing information/ideas by visual analogy as it were. But that's very different from what I think of as modern art. So this is me being a Philistine again I guess, unless that is doing that but at a much more subtle level. I guess to me there's skillful art and there's symbolic/meaningful art, but I'm not really sure where a lot of modern art fits into that, but granted I haven't shown much interest in it.

Interesting and difficult questions. 

As with Christianity, anything I say in general won't be true of every artist. They're a varied and ornery bunch.

I'd like to think that art isn't simply "representing information/ideas by visual analogy." This would make a painting the same sort of thing as the graph in an economics paper. With a work of art there is always a fundamental integration of form and content -- they're not separate things. So a painting's content may just be the way it looks, the way it's painted. 

There is a potential richness in each painting. It can have story-telling or message-type content, as in a narrative Rembrandt. It can be about looking carefully at everyday items, as with a Chardin. There can be a kind of wit or playfulness in how the thing is presented, as with Picasso. 

Except for the obvious story-subject these things reveal themselves over time to people who have spent a lot of time looking. Everybody's a philistine about some things, just because we haven't taken the time with them yet. One of the great pleasures in life is when some work or genre which didn't speak to you before starts to make sense to you, and its value becomes apparent at last. Fortunately there is so much in the world that no lifetime is long enough to exhaust all the potential pleasures. 

That said, much of the art of our own time has little or nothing to enjoy. Up through Picasso, Balthus, or Lucian Freud, painting was still about looking at what's on the canvas and benefiting from that. With the latest crop, however, that's all over. Banksy, or Jeff Koons, or Damian Hirst, have nothing in their work that repays actually looking at it. Their medium isn't in fact paint but exchange value. Their talent lies in taking worthless things and making them extremely expensive. They don't manipulate visual materials but resale value, and they're really good at it. The work is about as interesting to look at as a stock certificate, and serves the same function. It is the perfect art for the age we live in, where capitalism supersedes all other values. So if you wonder why those works don't move you, it's not your fault. There is nothing in the work to see.

(March 3, 2022 at 8:18 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 3, 2022 at 6:55 am)Jehanne Wrote: No evidence exists that consciousness survives the death of the brain.  As Dr. Michael Shermer said, "Talking to the dead is easy; getting them to talk back, that's the hard part."  As for immaterial substances causing unconscious processes, one must wonder how such gets measured on an EEG?  For instance, Broca's aphasia is very well understood, and the consequences to the victims of it are absolutely devastating; where is the immaterial soul in all of that?

Right. We don't believe in life after death.

The impression that I got from your posts is that you are a theistic believer.

(March 3, 2022 at 8:51 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 3, 2022 at 8:18 am)Belacqua Wrote: Right. We don't believe in life after death.

The impression that I got from your posts is that you are a theistic believer.

I am able to explain theistic believers' beliefs because I studied what they believe.

(March 3, 2022 at 8:57 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 3, 2022 at 8:51 am)Jehanne Wrote: The impression that I got from your posts is that you are a theistic believer.

I am able to explain theistic believers' beliefs because I studied what they believe.

And, you do a very good job! You might want to be more explicit in your profile declaration so as to minimize confusion going forward.

(March 3, 2022 at 9:08 am)Jehanne Wrote: And, you do a very good job!  

Thank you! I very much appreciate a kind word.

Quote:You might want to be more explicit in your profile declaration so as to minimize confusion going forward.

I probably should...

But I dislike the idea that we are playing team sports, where we put on the colors, root for our own side and hate on the others. 

But you're right, "Um..." as a descriptor may be a bit too obscure.

(March 3, 2022 at 8:18 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 3, 2022 at 5:56 am)emjay Wrote: Anyway, just out of curiosity, what do you think of modern art? I realised when I was talking about it before... about agreeing with you guys in principle... I realised that to the extent that I like it or try to create it, it's kind of reductionistic and symbolic... ie I like the concept of it as a useful way of representing information/ideas by visual analogy as it were. But that's very different from what I think of as modern art. So this is me being a Philistine again I guess, unless that is doing that but at a much more subtle level. I guess to me there's skillful art and there's symbolic/meaningful art, but I'm not really sure where a lot of modern art fits into that, but granted I haven't shown much interest in it.

Interesting and difficult questions. 

As with Christianity, anything I say in general won't be true of every artist. They're a varied and ornery bunch.

I'd like to think that art isn't simply "representing information/ideas by visual analogy." This would make a painting the same sort of thing as the graph in an economics paper. With a work of art there is always a fundamental integration of form and content -- they're not separate things. So a painting's content may just be the way it looks, the way it's painted.

I don't mean it quite as blandly as it might sound there... ie I don't mean as akin to a graph... indeed graphs are usually about the least evocative thing I can think of

I can only give an example of what I mean. Say I want to represent my idea of a stream of consciousness, as a piece of symbolic 'art', I'd look at that idea and look at the constraints... such as it flows through time, seems to exist parallel to other minds, exists independently of other minds in a non-sequential manner (unless you believe in reincarnation, which I don't)... and then try and figure out how to represent those aspects visually in a way that meets all those constraints. So what I came up with for that idea was something like a cylinder to represent time, and lines of various lengths, representing different streams of consciousness/lifespans, extending along its length at different starting points, and at different points on the circumference... all lines regardless of length and starting points parallel to each other, and enough space for all due to the theoretical notion that that circumference of the cylinder would be infinitely divisible, as any length is, in theory, allowing any number of consciousnesses to exist in parallel at any given time.

Basically, first and foremost this is an abstract idea in my head... ie it including notions such as infinitely divisible, means it could never be faithfully represented if trying to put it into any external form, but at least simplified versions of the idea could in theory be made into 'art'... either as a picture or some sort of sculpture. I've never done that, but it's always been a possibility in the back of my mind. Would you, as an expert in art, consider such a thing art? I don't know... maybe/probably not... but I know I would. It would be something I would look at, just as I can 'look at' the symbolic/abstract version in my head, and see the meaning and be moved by it.

So when you describe art as a 'fundamental integration of form and content', that's probably not anything like what I've described? So what I've described is probably not art in any standard definition, but it's still nonetheless evocative and meaningful to me as a concept, whatever it is. I would want to do the same sort of thing with poetry or any other artful medium... try and capture the essence and constraints of some idea.

Quote:There is a potential richness in each painting. It can have story-telling or message-type content, as in a narrative Rembrandt. It can be about looking carefully at everyday items, as with a Chardin. There can be a kind of wit or playfulness in how the thing is presented, as with Picasso. 

Except for the obvious story-subject these things reveal themselves over time to people who have spent a lot of time looking. Everybody's a philistine about some things, just because we haven't taken the time with them yet. One of the great pleasures in life is when some work or genre which didn't speak to you before starts to make sense to you, and its value becomes apparent at last. Fortunately there is so much in the world that no lifetime is long enough to exhaust all the potential pleasures. 

That said, much of the art of our own time has little or nothing to enjoy. Up through Picasso, Balthus, or Lucian Freud, painting was still about looking at what's on the canvas and benefiting from that. With the latest crop, however, that's all over. Banksy, or Jeff Koons, or Damian Hirst, have nothing in their work that repays actually looking at it. Their medium isn't in fact paint but exchange value. Their talent lies in taking worthless things and making them extremely expensive. They don't manipulate visual materials but resale value, and they're really good at it. The work is about as interesting to look at as a stock certificate, and serves the same function. It is the perfect art for the age we live in, where capitalism supersedes all other values. So if you wonder why those works don't move you, it's not your fault. There is nothing in the work to see.

To the extent that modern art tries to do something like I described above, that's how much I'd be interested in it, but to the extent that it's just being weird or contrary for the sake of it, or just trading off a name, then that's something that wouldn't interest me. As for other types of art... ie skillful/classical art, then that's something I can appreciate the beauty and meaning of, but obviously not with such a keen eye as you, an expert in art. It would be nice to see/discern some of that richness though, so maybe I should get into it a bit more.

Ferrocyanide Wrote:

GrandizerII Wrote:Per your materialist worldview which is not shared by theists. If you want to make some argument against theism or whatever position you disagree with, you can't just keep begging the question. Explain why it is the case that non-material => non-existent, don't just state it as if it's very evident it is so.

I already gave the arguments.
I’ll simplify it for you:
We live in this reality. This reality has some stuff called space and has various other stuff called subatomic particles, you also have photons.
The way these things interact together is via 4 fundamental forces.
I consider all these things as material things and they exist.

This doesn't refute the opposition to materialism. These are statements regarding what has been observed through science, but none of this negates the existence of non-material things, such as (say) angels.

It negates them as an explanation for anything - which is the entire reason they exist as stories to begin with. So many times we have these discussions as though angels, for example, were anything other than material whatsits themselves. Imagine bickering over whether or not the existence of cujo, as an immaterial being, can be rationally discounted.