The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by reed9 So I disagree, artists do have to reason about their art and use logic in the creation thereof.

There is more to art, reed9, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

Originally Posted by reed9 So I disagree, artists do have to reason about their art and use logic in the creation thereof.

//based on personal experience
Have you ever written music? Although it is possible to "build" composition using rules of harmony (normally it will sound very dull, soulless and predictable), other composition method (the one that produces more interesting music) goes like this: a composition appears from nowhere, grabs you by the throat and forces you to write it down. If you're lucky you'll get the whole thing at once, if you're not it'll keep appearing in pieces and keep you chained to keyboard until you write down the whole thing. In other words, it starts with idea that appears from nowhere. In the end you'll get interesting musical piece, but will have no idea where did it come from. From the logical point of view the process is simply insane. It doesn't work as "I want this effect". Now, bad musician will concentrate on performing technique and rules of harmony. Those are important (somewhat), but they're secondary and do not help you to write music. You might become a good technical player, though. A good musician uses emotional component, and literally throws emotions(you could say "soul") at keyboard. You reason as a bad musician - concentrate on details, techniques which are secondary.

Originally Posted by reed9 All of which is an argument to teach people critical thinking skills, to teach them to question claims, to understand good reasoning, and recognize logical fallacies.

Not gonna happen.

Originally Posted by SigTerm //based on personal experience Have you ever written music? Although it is possible to "build" composition using rules of harmony (normally it will sound very dull, soulless and predictable)

And yet computers have generated music such that "classical music scholars failed to identify them as computer-created".

A good musician uses emotional component, and literally throws emotions(you could say "soul") at keyboard. You reason as a bad musician - concentrate on details, techniques which are secondary.

What could it possibly mean to "throw emotion" at the keyboard? We toss around phrases like "playing with emotion" without ever trying to understand what that really means. Scientists are beginning to understand "psychoacoustics", how we perceive sound, what makes us respond. There are clearly naturalistic explanations for how and why art engages us. Just as clearly, what constitutes "great art" is partially culturally defined and has to do with the psychology of status. As the psychologist Steven Pinker says

...the arts engage not only the psychology of aesthetics but the psychology of status. The very uselessness of art that makes it so incomprehensible to the evolutionary biologist makes it all too comprehensible to the economist and social psychologist. What better proof that you have money to spare than your being able to spend it on doodads and stunts that don't fill the belly or keep the rain out but that require precious materials, years of practice, a command of obscure texts, or intimacy with the elite?

Not gonna happen.

So let's not even bother to try. It certainly can't happen with that attitude. Just a few generations ago, explicit racism was absolutely tolerated and in a relatively short time that sort of bigotry has become totally unacceptable among the majority of people in many parts of the world. Change is possible.

Originally Posted by MrCode EDIT: If you really insist on arguing that art is completely logical, then you'd have to take the stance that the mind is completely mechanistic and that "desires" are nothing more than a specific collection of brain/behavioral states no less logical than states in the execution of a computer program. (i.e. you'd have to take the stance of behaviorism/determinism). That's hardly conducive to artistic inspiration, though; it kinda dehumanizes the process (at least IMO).

I do take the stance of materialism. However, I am not trying to argue that art is completely logical, in any sort of formal logic sense. I am trying to argue that there is no magical immaterial ingredient that imbues art with some quasi-life force and makes it great. That there are naturalistic mechanism which can be understood and that we can specifically design music or paintings or literature to appeal to the human brain, to engage those mechanisms. (Which I think artists already do, but that the process is in principle comprehensible.)

And I soundly reject the idea that understanding something dehumanizes it or in any way detracts from its wonder and beauty. Again, to refer to the Feynman quote I posted, "All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts."

I had a feeling something like this would happen…

And I soundly reject the idea that understanding something dehumanizes it or in any way detracts from its wonder and beauty.

Okay, you seem to keep throwing this statement out (or variations of it), so let me just make it clear why exactly I take exception to it (in other words: WARNING: SUBJECTIVE, LUDICROUS, AND PROBABLY ABSURD RANT AHEAD):

What happens is that when people reduce things to mere physics, or mere psychology, or mere this, or mere that, or what have you, it becomes only that thing, i.e. art becomes only a pattern of psychological stimuli that can be fully exploited (in both good and bad ways, mind you), nothing more. For me it's either meaningful or non-existent. Either art has a "magical" quality to it or it's meaningless. If people want to know why I become so ridiculous about free will/determinism, there's your answer. It's because "free will" used to have the same goddamn status.

Thank you very much for ruining my day. Have you seen my profile image? I chose it because I have an aesthetic affinity for that character (and animation/anthropomorphized animals in general, actually). Thanks for giving me the reminder that it's all nothing more than the result of a particular pattern of stimuli with no real meaning whatsoever. It's just a bunch of neurons firing off in my gray matter, it's all the result of ridiculous subjective bias (something we should be apparently avoiding at all costs), it's nonsense, it's absurd, and it's pointless

I would go into more detail about all this, but that's getting into things that I'd rather not disclose here on a public forum.

I won't be the least bit surprised if I get an infraction from the mods about this post, but I don't really give a fsck anymore. I've had it with "being polite"…

Originally Posted by reed9 And yet computers have generated music such that "classical music scholars failed to identify them as computer-created".

I've listened to it, and it sounds dead. It doesn't matter whether it can't be identified as computer-generated or not. Although it is better than algorithmic bullshit I heard few years ago, It is not good music.
Compare with this or this for example.
--EDIT--
A decent musical piece have a story behind it, which is sometimes highlighted by composition's title. Story can be simple, it can be complex or it can be an emotion. When you listen to good composition, you can imagine ... well some kind of story or "movie" in your head with will move along with music. Two tracks within article you linked do not have that story, and do not cause pictures to appear in your mind. There's no central theme/idea that covers entire composition. They're an illusion of music - computer tries to mimic proper composition but can't maintain it for longer than one or two bars. As a result composition falls apart quickly. Although computer may be able to write music, IMO, that would require human-like artificial intelligence. As far as I know the industry aren't there yet.

Originally Posted by reed9 What could it possibly mean to "throw emotion" at the keyboard?

It means that musician can alter performance in such way that would make audience feel certain emotion. In case of "throw emotion at keyboard" it means that audience can feel same thing as performer.

Originally Posted by reed9 Just as clearly, what constitutes "great art"

Your statement is unrelated to music composing example I mentioned before. I have impression that you're hiding behind big words without real argument (rethorical questions + using "We" at every occasion), and trying to avoid specific example I provided before.

Originally Posted by reed9 Change is possible.

If you want it - make it happen. Unless you can offer immortality pill, I have better things to do.

Originally Posted by reed9 I am trying to argue that there is no magical immaterial ingredient that imbues art with some quasi-life force and makes it great.

Unfortunately, there is "immaterial ingredient". *MAYBE* there's a mechanism that can be understood. However at the current moment it hasn't been discovered, and right now rational people make bad musicians.

In my opinion, logic is merely a tool. Secondary tool, by the way. You insist on putting it onto pedestal and worshipping it, which looks like a bad idea to me. Would you worship a hammer?

Originally Posted by MrCode Thanks for giving me the reminder that it's all nothing more than the result of a particular pattern of stimuli with no real meaning whatsoever. It's just a bunch of neurons firing off in my gray matter, it's all the result of ridiculous subjective bias (something we should be apparently avoiding at all costs), it's nonsense, it's absurd, and it's pointless

As I see it you're confusing ultimate causes with proximate causes. The ultimate causes of love has to do with evolution, but that doesn't lessen the proximate cause of my relationship with my family and friends. And while there may be no external meaning "out there" somewhere in the universe, what is wrong with creating our own meaning?

I won't be the least bit surprised if I get an infraction from the mods about this post, but I don't really give a fsck anymore. I've had it with "being polite"…

I don't consider your post rude or impolite.

Originally Posted by SigTerm I've listened to it, and it sounds dead. It doesn't matter whether it can't be identified as computer-generated or not. Although it is better than algorithmic bullshit I heard few years ago, It is not good music.

Were you aware that is was computer generated before you listened? There is evidence that our expectations color our experiences. There's a famous wine tasting example. Perhaps not knowing wouldn't change your opinion, but the fact still remains that some music experts were unable to distinguish the difference.

Your statement is unrelated to music composing example I mentioned before. I have impression that you're hiding behind big words without real argument (rethorical questions + using "We" at every occasion), and trying to avoid specific example I provided before.

I think it is related, but regardless. If the example you're referring to is that artists are frequently not conscious of their choices, let me try to address it. First, I'm happy to grant that artists may not be making a specific conscious decision to do this or that in every instance, that they get a feeling and run with it. However, you don't get to the point of having relevant feelings without a great deal of practice and knowledge about your craft. There is growing evidence that mastery takes about 10,000 hours of practice. Much of what we consider talent and inspiration stems in fact from a deep knowledge of your subject or craft developed over many years, whether or not you are consciously thinking about it in the language of logic or science is not the point, you still have developed true knowledge which is utilized in the pursuit of a goal.

I get the feeling SigTerm/MrCode are tag-teaming the slaughter of a red herring-shaped straw man here. I don't think anyone would propose that a Vulcan lifestyle of cold logic and zero emotion is the end goal, so, straw man. What we're talking about here is the scientific process of acquiring information about the world versus the "revelation" process of making stuff up about the world. The process of creating art or music have nothing to do with the process of acquiring information, so, red herring.

Humans are hard-wired to be emotional, so it takes some rigorous discipline to overcome that wiring in order to obtain useful, objective information about the world around you. This is the end goal of science. Once you've acquired that information, you're free to react just as emotionally as you like to it, because that has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Originally Posted by SL00b "revelation"

Does discovery of penicillin qualify as "revelation"?

Originally Posted by SigTerm Does discovery of penicillin qualify as "revelation"?

In the religious sense of the term, no.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Does discovery of penicillin qualify as "revelation"?

Fleming didn't have a eureka moment where he though, aha, this mold will surely kill bacteria! He made an observation based on a accidental stacking of culture samples, and then investigated it. Even if he did have a eureka moment, that is not what proves the discovery. It is the hard scientific work following the insight that determines its validity.

Originally Posted by SL00b Humans are hard-wired to be emotional, so it takes some rigorous discipline to overcome that wiring in order to obtain useful, objective information about the world around you. This is the end goal of science. Once you've acquired that information, you're free to react just as emotionally as you like to it, because that has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

I'm reminded of something I read in a small paper on free will/determinism that went something like, "[Libet/Wegner(?)] realize the nihilistic implications of [proving free will to be illusory], but have resigned to a position of 'it must be so'.".

This may be skewed, and unfortunately I don't have the original paper to cite (I got rid of it out of angst, and I don't remember the download URL; it was a PDF), but that's the general gist of it. :-\

Anyways, I agree that the topic has drifted significantly, and we should try to get it back on track. Most of the reason I've ignored the majority of posts here (even though I do take a look at it when there are new posts) is because nobody had touched on the whole art/"logic vs. emotion" topic. Otherwise, I'm kinda indifferent to the argument, as I'm not really vehemently biased either way (though I used to have these crazy spiritual beliefs… ).

Originally Posted by SigTerm Does discovery of penicillin qualify as "revelation"?

Penicillin growing (by chance) in a petri dish observed to have no bacterial contamination == discovery.
Invisible supernatural being whispering things in your ear == revelation.

Originally Posted by MrCode Anyways, I agree that the topic has drifted significantly, and we should try to get it back on track. Most of the reason I've ignored the majority of posts here (even though I do take a look at it when there are new posts) is because nobody had touched on the whole art/"logic vs. emotion" topic. Otherwise, I'm kinda indifferent to the argument, as I'm not really vehemently biased either way (though I used to have these crazy spiritual beliefs… ).

That can be another thread, then, if you're interested. Personally, I see logic vs. emotion as a false bifurcation. Logic laced with appropriate emotion is the best formula for success... as is recognizing when logic is completely inappropriate.

Neuroscience is revealing that the process of learning itself activates the reward centers of the brain, as does the anticipation of overcoming significant challenges. So the successful use of "cold logic" induces positive emotions. Fancy that.

That can be another thread, then, if you're interested.

Please, no! That'd be the last thing I'd want to start a thread (or have a thread started) on. I mentioned that I "used to have […] crazy spiritual beliefs"…I should have added that I'm still kind of in the process of "converting" myself from them, and art/creativity (or at least conceptualizing it; I haven't been brave enough to actually make anything without being self-critical ) is like my escape, in a way. Debating about whether it's useful/beneficial in any kind of objective way is the last thing I want to do.

Neuroscience is revealing that the process of learning itself activates the reward centers of the brain, as does the anticipation of overcoming significant challenges. So the successful use of "cold logic" induces positive emotions. Fancy that.

I would tend to imagine that depends on whether you wanted to learn something, though.

Originally Posted by MrCode Please, no! That'd be the last thing I'd want to start a thread (or have a thread started) on. I mentioned that I "used to have […] crazy spiritual beliefs"…I should have added that I'm still kind of in the process of "converting" myself from them, and art/creativity (or at least conceptualizing it; I haven't been brave enough to actually make anything without being self-critical ) is like my escape, in a way. Debating about whether it's useful/beneficial in any kind of objective way is the last thing I want to do.

I take a broad view of usefulness. Something's value should not necessarily be tied to some measure of productivity or monetary value. Art contributes to human flourishing, which is more than enough reason to support it and create it.