Although, to temper that, it does partly depend on whether or not the loan folks are going to stop being asses and answer my questions so I can defer my rapist $270/month loan payments for a bit...
EDIT: To be honest, I'd likely get it anyway...
crawdaddio on
0
Options
MetalbourneInside a cluster b personalityRegistered Userregular
That would be a surprise. I didn't really like the rest of it. Does that mean the last level was any better than the ones before? Or was I just unsatisfied in general.
srsizzy on
BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
0
Options
MetalbourneInside a cluster b personalityRegistered Userregular
You're basically wrong about everything in this post, so I'll go through and outline each particular part, but I feel like you don't have a very firm understanding about what Science accepts as fact regarding the brain and mental function. In addition, you make some pretty serious assumptions and fallacies.
I don't want to offend Bombs delicate thread-skimming sensitivities so I'll spoiler this so he doesn't have to go cry to mully.
I don't think subconscious is external to conscious, I think it defines consciousness and can't be understood by consciousness.
You start off by redefining a term central to the discussion. You can't have a rational debate about a topic if you change what things mean.
Sub-conscious. Below the conscious. It is, by definition, external to the conscious. We have a pretty clear way of defining it as things that occur in the brain that we aren't conscious of. I'm not sure what you mean by saying it defines consciousness and can't be understood by it. It has a definition and we understand basically what it encompasses, if not exactly how it functions. We know a lot more about subliminal effects, instinct and other "subconscious" effects than we used to and we are learning more.
Either way, I didn't mention the subsconscious for a reason. Creativity, as far as we understand it, doesn't come from there. There are studies linking the portions of the brain responsible for vision, memory, and decision making that are helping us understand the neurological side of creativity. But really the thing is, generally I think people are aware of their creativity and work at it, and that, by definition, would make it a conscious pursuit.
I think aesthetic expression is honestly beyond scientific explanation, because we understand basically everything about the structure of the human brain but have yet to put forth any feasible theories as to why consciousness is so complicated
We know a good deal about the brain, but nowhere near everything. We certanly do not understand the function of everything.
And there are millenia of research looking for the mathmatics of aesthetics. Symmetry is certainly the first thing that comes to mind, fractal math, the golden ratio, Greek proportional studies, Pythagoreas, etc.
There is a clear grounds for continuing to explore the Science behind aesthetics. Your mistake is in saying that because Science hasn't found an answer yet, then it won't ever. That's not logical at all.
, and why it requires aesthetic expression to maintain equilibrium. Aesthetic expression is far more complex and subtle than needing to say "Hey guys, I'm upset! I'm happy! I want food!" And science hasn't even begun to make steps to answer why art, literature, or philosophy have come about, and any reasons it DOES give are so shallow and arguable that it doesn't matter.
This is all just opinion.
Bloody hell, in my anthro class they're saying how all these dozens of people are like "Irrigation brought about society!" and "No! Warring tribes brought about society!" etc., when it's so stupid to think that one thing brought about society and advanced consciousness.
It's very possible that one thing killed the dinosaurs. It's very possible that one ice age drove the migration patterns of animals. It's not stupid to believe that one thing brought about the birth of society, we just don't have a lot of evidence to support any one particular claim. However, there is a point called when there was a major change in human behavior, and it was influenced by one event only: mankind's newfound ability to speak. It is unknown if this was from a change in the development of the vocal chords or a rearrangement in the brain to allow for spoken communication, and there is a lot of debate, but this one event was huge turning point in the development of early man.
The clovis people were the earliest settlers to North America, and it appears that they died out around the same time as most of the megafauna of the area, so it could have been one related event that caused that to happen.
Not a single scientist I've heard speak can explain why the human mind works the way that it does, and we've picked it apart, we've analyzed all the chemicals and structures, and we still know next to nothing as to what subjective experience really means -- IN A SCIENTIFIC VIEW.
Besides the fact that you are limiting your scope here to just the scientists you've personally heard speak, the logical flaw here is once again assuming that since we haven't figured it all out, we should either stop looking and assume that it CAN'T explain it.
Now, metaphysics CAN at least DISCUSS subjectivity, human consciousness, aesthetics, etc, because there is no NEED for some material data to prove a point. "People need to express themselves in complex manners," that's the furthest the metaphyscicist can go with objective information.
But all you ever get is the discussion. What is the point? Why not search for the answer with Science, where there is at least a chance of actually getting an answer eventually, or at least making progress?
Yeah, so, WHY, Mr. Scientist? Why is my brain filled with dialog between make-believe characters who I've never met, who don't exist, in worlds that don't exist, and I am compelled to get them out of my damned head because I'll lose it if I don't. Can you explain that, please, with science? No!
Science has NO answer. NO real answer that I can do something with, that can change how I think, that can help me deal with all the shit that wants to come out of my head all the time. I don't do it for attention, I don't do it to eat, I don't do it to survive, yet I do it because I need to, because I feel as if I must.
I would suggest talking to a psychologist or psychiatrist about that. It's not my field, to say the least and I wouldn't want to get into what your particular nuture/nature situation might be.
Did you know that there were multiple studies that showed that children who were told about the traits they were "supposed" to have were much more likely to exhibit those traits when grown up than kids who weren't told?
I don't think everything about our personalities and brains is as mystical as you assume it is.
I LOVE science! I'm largely a materialistic thinker, but this isn't like the question "What created the universe if not God?"
You really don't love Science. I don't know what it has to do with materialism, but to love science you must love the scientific method and you obviously don't because you subscribe to unfalsifiable concepts.
This is a very tangible question about something I and many other people experience, and science fails us. All forms of academia fail to fully answer the question individually, and metaphysics MUST come into play.
This is that false dichotomy again. If not A, then B. That's not the case. Your assumption is that Science CAN'T explain this. Someone who understand what the scientific method and discovery is actually about just realizes that science just HASN'T explained it yet.
Metaphysics isn't SUPERNATURAL.
Yes it is. That's exactly what it is. How could it possibly not be? It's "above" the natural, outside the realm of physics, transcended of science or whatever else. That is what supernatural means.
I'm not remotely suggesting there's some "spiritual realm."
Neither am I. I never said anything about spiritual anything.
I'm suggesting there's a plane of existence in which ideas function, which is fully affected by physics, by science, by chemistry, but it is not physical, it is not material. How can you say that an idea is a physical thing? That's like saying all the code on this page means nothing more than what it's made up of. Colors, dots, equations, etc.
Well, that sounds like an interesting theory. It is completely affected by science but also completely outside of it.
Someday maybe you'll come up with some math or an experiment to test your theory and then I will certainly be happy to consider it more.
It is the arrogant failure of the scientist to believe that science is everything. It's immature. It's like the university professor argument: "Which one of us can teach the truth?"
Yes, but instead of that, the exact opposite of what you said.
The Universe is so immense, so complex that it has dimensions we can't even comprehend with our simple 3D minds. Science IS all of that. It is the explanation. That is your problem. I just realized it. You don't know what Science is. Science IS fact. It is the knowledge we have and the process we used to get it. If we discover proof of another realm or dimension of spacetime where only ideas and dreams live on, THEN THAT BECOMES SCIENCE. Do you understand that? Science is what we know and how we know it. It is not everything, no, it is the pursuit of knowing everything.
Science is not the end-all be-all. You don't even honestly believe it is. That's impossible. When we try to reduce human behavior to causes and effects, it ceases to have meaning, and obviously if it had meaning before we tried to do that, then it HAS meaning, and we're just destroying that meaning by searching for it in the parts instead of understanding that the parts come together to make meaning that is greater than the whole.
In regards to the bolded part, I most certainly do. How audacious to tell me what I believe.
You keep skipping out of rational conversation to talk about whether ideas have meaning or not or whatever. I'm trying to have a logical discussion with you, not a philosophical one.
Now I need to go watch Lost, and honestly, probably no one will convince me that metaphysics is pointless, and I'd have to abandon my entire life if I actually believed that. In fact, I'd kill myself if I didn't think there was meaning beyond causes and effects. I see no reason to be alive if that's the case, and given that I can convince myself that it's not, then...well, what reason is there to even do that? Humans beings might have evolved from animals, we might have physical bodies, but we aren't animals. To suggest we're just like animals is just one of those stupid "I'm so smart, I know so much, human's suck and nothing they think matters actually matters, I'm a snarky mcsnarkerson" things to say.
Well, there we go.
You have just admitted that you have no criteria for falsification. You are such a true believer that no evidence or reasoning will convince you otherwise.
And you call Science arrogant. The key tenet of modern science is making theories falsifiable. Making it so that they can be proven wrong if they are not correct.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that what you say is true if evidence is presented to prove it, but you are unwilling to accept that what you say might not be true regardless of anything presented, and you dare call me immature?
I'm sorry you feel so worthless and are so narrowminded that you can't see purpose and beauty in the world beyond deeper, insubstantial, intangible concept of metaphysical value. I'm going to educate people. I'm going to do something worthwhile with knowledge because I can. How about that for meaning?
Fuck you and go back to the fucking dark ages where you belong.
I have to write 4 pages comparing and contrasting god-human relationahips in Gilgamesh to those in the Old Testament. Then I have to throw in something about the Song of Songs.
She said you'd get mad. She said to ignore you, that that's what she did.
come on, metal, you set it up yourself
that was the worst insult you could have chosen after a your mom joke
you couldn't expect me not to do it.
Give a guy a freebie once in a while and he gets a big head...
Metalbourne on
0
Options
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
NotACrook, I enjoyed reading your post, even if I had some minor nits to pick.
Six on
can you feel the struggle within?
0
Options
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I played all the halo 1, 2 & 3 over 3 consecutive weekends. I felt compelled to get around to playing them all considering the level of wankitude they are afforded on the interwebs, it was okay, though I am uncomfortable with them making Cortana sexy. Wanting to bone an imaginary AI construct left me somewhat confused about where that places my sexuality.
Well, first, you're being a dick, so that's great. I have to say, fuck you. Don't treat me like an idiot. You preface your remarks with a bunch of bullshit about how wrong and stupid I am, and I'm like "Oh boy, I might be proven wrong here," but you have said nothing I didn't already know, and merely failed to understand what I meant.
You start off by redefining a term central to the discussion. You can't have a rational debate about a topic if you change what things mean.
Sub-conscious. Below the conscious. It is, by definition, external to the conscious. We have a pretty clear way of defining it as things that occur in the brain that we aren't conscious of. I'm not sure what you mean by saying it defines consciousness and can't be understood by it. It has a definition and we understand basically what it encompasses, if not exactly how it functions. We know a lot more about subliminal effects, instinct and other "subconscious" effects than we used to and we are learning more.
Either way, I didn't mention the subsconscious for a reason. Creativity, as far as we understand it, doesn't come from there. There are studies linking the portions of the brain responsible for vision, memory, and decision making that are helping us understand the neurological side of creativity. But really the thing is, generally I think people are aware of their creativity and work at it, and that, by definition, would make it a conscious pursuit.
No, I didn't change anything. Subconscious and conscious; they're both in our brains. What we actively think (train of thought, words and concepts we develop and are aware of), and how we think, which we cannot control, which is defined by our environments interacting on us and our inherent behavior.
It's lovely that you think you can say that "Creativity doesn't come from the subconscious, but from portions of the brain responsible for blah blah blah," and that means there's no subconscious. What? Do you think people are saying subconsciousness isn't IN the brain? Since when are memory and vision active conscious thought-processes? Memory is recalled without any active effort, spurred by outside sources, and made by association. That is in itself subconscious.
I think you might be mistaking what I mean by subconscious. Conscious thought is what we actively "decide" to think, "decide" to focus on, "decide" to manipulate, etc. If I WANT to remember the taste of ice cream, I can choose to. If something I smell suddenly reminds me of some event in my childhood, that is not CONSCIOUS. I did not make a conscious decision to remember that event, but something outside of me triggered a subconscious process inside of me.
Memory is, by definition, subconscious. It is all the associations and information contained in our minds from history that is not being actively accessed by our current conscious thought. I can recall all of my childhood, teen years, thousands of disparate events unrelated to the current moment, and I can do it on command or by being prompted to by an outside source. Fact: Listening to old music puts me in the "head space" of when I used to listen to it (reminds me of smells, feelings, situations, etc), and I do not CHOOSE to remember this. The music causes my brain to make associations beyond my ability to control. I can STOP it, but STARTING it isn't my choice, FEELING it isn't my choice, etc.
We know a good deal about the brain, but nowhere near everything. We certanly do not understand the function of everything.
And there are millenia of research looking for the mathmatics of aesthetics. Symmetry is certainly the first thing that comes to mind, fractal math, the golden ratio, Greek proportional studies, Pythagoreas, etc.
There is a clear grounds for continuing to explore the Science behind aesthetics. Your mistake is in saying that because Science hasn't found an answer yet, then it won't ever. That's not logical at all.
That is hilarious. I'm not talking only about visual aesthetics, bud, so your "golden rule, symmetry, etc." isn't as genius as you think. Poetry, for instance, is based entirely off of semantic ideas (words, concepts, emotions) in either a technical or purposefully non-technical presentation, and their effectiveness in affecting change in the mood or thought of the audience depends ON the format of this presentation of ideas (which are metaphysical by definition). This isn't mathematical, ideas are NOT mathematical, the current disposition, emotional state, thought process, personality, none of that is all so much "conscious" and "rational." And yeah, I KNOW, all of that is defined by science, but at the same time, you cannot EVER predict how one human being will respond to ANYTHING exactly, perfectly, without flaw. Just as stars are not evenly distributed, just as not all galaxies are expanding at an exact rate, just as nothing gives a total linear graph that is PERFECT and only happens ONE WAY within the functional parameters.
Man, art, writing, music -- aesthetics are MOSTLY based off of what they incur in the subconscious of both the creator and the audience. Have you read about the psychology of aesthetics outside of a mathematical context? Do you know what "subjectivity" is, and the significance that word has to human existence? Emotion? Expression?
Art is mostly dependent on what it calls forth from the historical memory of the observer. How you interpret a work is dependent on who you've become over time, what you've seen and heard before, the ideas developing in your head at the time, and what you're disposed to believe, feel, and think. None of these things are CONSCIOUS decisions. All are subconscious attributes of a human being brought about by how they've taken in the world around them and applied it (also subconsciously and consciously) to their internal self.
This is all just opinion.
No, it wasn't, snark snark. If you're going to say that Hamlet is the equivalent of me saying "Life sucks," then you're a dunce, and talking to you is useless.
It's very possible that one thing killed the dinosaurs. It's very possible that one ice age drove the migration patterns of animals. It's not stupid to believe that one thing brought about the birth of society, we just don't have a lot of evidence to support any one particular claim. However, there is a point called when there was a major change in human behavior, and it was influenced by one event only: mankind's newfound ability to speak. It is unknown if this was from a change in the development of the vocal chords or a rearrangement in the brain to allow for spoken communication, and there is a lot of debate, but this one event was huge turning point in the development of early man.
The clovis people were the earliest settlers to North America, and it appears that they died out around the same time as most of the megafauna of the area, so it could have been one related event that caused that to happen.
Nyark, facts, nyark, I'm so smart.
Oh, speech is "responsible" for society. You think so?
[edit] Wait, this next thought is unrelated to society, and dumb. Whatever. -- Well, actually, kind of a "chicken or the egg" idea. Was speech a thing that just HAPPENED to people? Suddenly our vocal chords evolved through magic to be capable of SO many new things they couln't. Dude, speech evolved from thought, not the other way around.
That's not even what I was talking about anyways. I'm just going to let this one drop, as it doesn't matter.
Besides the fact that you are limiting your scope here to just the scientists you've personally heard speak, the logical flaw here is once again assuming that since we haven't figured it all out, we should either stop looking and assume that it CAN'T explain it.
No, that's not what I believe, but I guess that's what it sounds like. It's obviously pointless to debate with you that metaphysical, personal, emotional conversations are worth anything. You're obviously a robot, feelings aren't real, and discussing metaphysical concepts is totally pointless. You win Mr. Scientist. All the metaphysicists of our race are misguided fools! Kant, Plato, Socrates, Nietzsche, etc, etc, etc. It was all useless! So unfortunate that they didn't have you to guide them with your superior knowledge of the meaning of life.
But all you ever get is the discussion. What is the point? Why not search for the answer with Science, where there is at least a chance of actually getting an answer eventually, or at least making progress?
Ok, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you don't understand what discussion is. You don't know what ideas are, perspectives are, different ways of approaching situations, subjectivity. You honestly think that all there is is an objective reality, and nothing beyond that matters. Well, how I wish I could be you. Oh wait. I was! And then I grew up and realized objectivity will never be attained! Ever! It's impossible! Human's are subjective by nature!!
Too bad you never think metaphysically, or you might know what I mean by that. So how do we deal with society, our own family, our own life?! With science?!?! Yes! All of it! All of it can be dealt with experiments and raw empircal data! Every bit of it!
I would suggest talking to a psychologist or psychiatrist about that. It's not my field, to say the least and I wouldn't want to get into what your particular nuture/nature situation might be.
Did you know that there were multiple studies that showed that children who were told about the traits they were "supposed" to have were much more likely to exhibit those traits when grown up than kids who weren't told?
I don't think everything about our personalities and brains is as mystical as you assume it is.
Ahaha. Ahahahahaha. Oh. My. God. You're hilarious!
Yeah, I'm crazy. People who write fiction, they're fucking nutso. Man, you're such a hack. You've really brought me down to earth, dude. I was in lala-land for a second.
You don't know much about creativity or self-expression, that's for sure. Fucking sucks to be you.
You really don't love Science. I don't know what it has to do with materialism, but to love science you must love the scientific method and you obviously don't because you subscribe to unfalsifiable concepts.
Wait, so it's YOU below who tells me I can't tell you what you think, right?
I fuckin' love science dude, as I hope you might be able to perceive by now.
This is a very tangible question about something I and many other people experience, and science fails us. All forms of academia fail to fully answer the question individually, and metaphysics MUST come into play.
This is that false dichotomy again. If not A, then B. That's not the case. Your assumption is that Science CAN'T explain this. Someone who understand what the scientific method and discovery is actually about just realizes that science just HASN'T explained it yet.
You're right, it hasn't yet. So I'm proposing a segment of science that is related to ideas, which is called metaphysics. Rather than suggesting that ideas are actually contained in atoms and sound waves, how about we get it through our heads that ideas are trascendent of physical particles and their interactions? It is THROUGH them that they come into being, but their meaning goes beyond what makes them up. Kind of like all the letters on this page! P. A. G. E. It MEANS something, an IDEA, that's JUST IN YOUR HEAD, right now! Blip! Blip! Electrical currents, making up words, making up concepts, concepts related to life, concepts not always dependent on what is material.
Yes it is. That's exactly what it is. How could it possibly not be? It's "above" the natural, outside the realm of physics, transcended of science or whatever else. That is what supernatural means.
No, it's not. Man, go read Kant or something. You don't even have the ideological basis to understand what the word "metaphysics" means. It's not transcended of science just because it's transcended of physical reality. I know, it's hard to understand what that means, most people don't get it. Sorry, I'm not going to rewrite the handful of books that explain it far better than I can right now.
Yes, but instead of that, the exact opposite of what you said.
The Universe is so immense, so complex that it has dimensions we can't even comprehend with our simple 3D minds. Science IS all of that. It is the explanation. That is your problem. I just realized it. You don't know what Science is. Science IS fact. It is the knowledge we have and the process we used to get it. If we discover proof of another realm or dimension of spacetime where only ideas and dreams live on, THEN THAT BECOMES SCIENCE. Do you understand that? Science is what we know and how we know it. It is not everything, no, it is the pursuit of knowing everything.
Do you GET that we can't DISCOVER this "realm" if it is MADE OF IDEAS! HOW CAN YOU PHYSICALLY FIND SOMETHING THAT HAS NO PHYSICAL NATURE! THAT'S PARADOXICAL, NO?
In regards to the bolded part, I most certainly do. How audacious to tell me what I believe.
You keep skipping out of rational conversation to talk about whether ideas have meaning or not or whatever. I'm trying to have a logical discussion with you, not a philosophical one.
But life is philosophical, my dear mate.
And you don't. Either you don't, or you aren't a person. One or the other. Either there is a "self" or there is not, and if there is, then metaphysics are valid.
Well, there we go.
You have just admitted that you have no criteria for falsification. You are such a true believer that no evidence or reasoning will convince you otherwise.
And you call Science arrogant. The key tenet of modern science is making theories falsifiable. Making it so that they can be proven wrong if they are not correct.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that what you say is true if evidence is presented to prove it, but you are unwilling to accept that what you say might not be true regardless of anything presented, and you dare call me immature?
Don't be a hypocrite. Just as you're so arrogant as to not allow yourself to be convinced that anything YOU don't think is right and doesn't fall into the rules you PERCEIVE (subjectively) to be true...What a saint you are, dude. Incapable of failing in the eyes of objective truth, you know the true path to live by.
The human race will cease to exist before their "science" accounts for all that is contained within the universe. And what's it matter? We don't need to PROVE it for it to be anyways, it exists regardless of our knowledge of it. "Science" is just as subjective and narcissistic as religion.
I'm sorry you feel so worthless and are so narrowminded that you can't see purpose and beauty in the world beyond deeper, insubstantial, intangible concept of metaphysical value. I'm going to educate people. I'm going to do something worthwhile with knowledge because I can. How about that for meaning?
Fuck you and go back to the fucking dark ages where you belong.
A dumbass, he is.
srsizzy on
BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
Today I got owned by a asian girl in painting class, I felt so proud with my first ever oil painting then I look to the right of me and she's finished branding the mona lisa.
So, I realized that free rice has a 'countries of the world' game now too, and I remembered that a bit back people were talking about learning geography in the chat thread.
So I came to the chat thread to post the link, I see that a ridiculous amount of pages have gone by, and oh-my-gosh I can't believe that I missed this because I have input that MUST BE GIVEN!!
today i had my second figure drawing class
they got us to take charcoal, get it on our fingers and draw with our fingers
it was very neat!
i liked it
and then it inspired me to do some speed paints, so i did that too
all in all, productive day
YES LET'S TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE THIS INSTEAD YES
That sounds like fun!
I spent most of my day playing around with Flash actionscript to see if I could do a cheesy thing for Valentine's Day, but I decided even if I figured out it wouldn't be worth the effort. So, meh.
Now I'm doing some sketches for the PA fanart thing.
today i had my second figure drawing class
they got us to take charcoal, get it on our fingers and draw with our fingers
it was very neat!
i liked it
and then it inspired me to do some speed paints, so i did that too
all in all, productive day
YES LET'S TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE THIS INSTEAD YES
That sounds like fun!
I spent most of my day playing around with Flash actionscript to see if I could do a cheesy thing for Valentine's Day, but I decided even if I figured out it wouldn't be worth the effort. So, meh.
Now I'm doing some sketches for the PA fanart thing.
Well, I was hoping to have a good discussion on this.
But, srsizzy, you made some good points about conscious thought and obviously we were looking at it from different perspectives.
But then you spent the rest of the time just calling me names and telling me I'm too stupid to understand your incredible grasp of philosophy and claiming that metaphysics is science.
It's not transcended of science just because it's transcended of physical reality.
I mean, really? Come on.
So I'll treat you like an idiot if I want to, and you can continue on feeling like your life has no meaning and not hanging out with your lack of friends.
Bacon's not the only one here who feels that way notacrook. I just havn't really been speaking openly because I came into here by being a blithering random scary person in the first place. Don't be rude like that just because he spoke openly about it please.
Posts
EDIT: To be honest, I'd likely get it anyway...
Your mom is pretty damn fun
motherfucker I will destroy you!
I don't want to offend Bombs delicate thread-skimming sensitivities so I'll spoiler this so he doesn't have to go cry to mully.
You start off by redefining a term central to the discussion. You can't have a rational debate about a topic if you change what things mean.
Sub-conscious. Below the conscious. It is, by definition, external to the conscious. We have a pretty clear way of defining it as things that occur in the brain that we aren't conscious of. I'm not sure what you mean by saying it defines consciousness and can't be understood by it. It has a definition and we understand basically what it encompasses, if not exactly how it functions. We know a lot more about subliminal effects, instinct and other "subconscious" effects than we used to and we are learning more.
Either way, I didn't mention the subsconscious for a reason. Creativity, as far as we understand it, doesn't come from there. There are studies linking the portions of the brain responsible for vision, memory, and decision making that are helping us understand the neurological side of creativity. But really the thing is, generally I think people are aware of their creativity and work at it, and that, by definition, would make it a conscious pursuit.
We know a good deal about the brain, but nowhere near everything. We certanly do not understand the function of everything.
And there are millenia of research looking for the mathmatics of aesthetics. Symmetry is certainly the first thing that comes to mind, fractal math, the golden ratio, Greek proportional studies, Pythagoreas, etc.
There is a clear grounds for continuing to explore the Science behind aesthetics. Your mistake is in saying that because Science hasn't found an answer yet, then it won't ever. That's not logical at all.
This is all just opinion.
It's very possible that one thing killed the dinosaurs. It's very possible that one ice age drove the migration patterns of animals. It's not stupid to believe that one thing brought about the birth of society, we just don't have a lot of evidence to support any one particular claim. However, there is a point called when there was a major change in human behavior, and it was influenced by one event only: mankind's newfound ability to speak. It is unknown if this was from a change in the development of the vocal chords or a rearrangement in the brain to allow for spoken communication, and there is a lot of debate, but this one event was huge turning point in the development of early man.
The clovis people were the earliest settlers to North America, and it appears that they died out around the same time as most of the megafauna of the area, so it could have been one related event that caused that to happen.
Besides the fact that you are limiting your scope here to just the scientists you've personally heard speak, the logical flaw here is once again assuming that since we haven't figured it all out, we should either stop looking and assume that it CAN'T explain it.
But all you ever get is the discussion. What is the point? Why not search for the answer with Science, where there is at least a chance of actually getting an answer eventually, or at least making progress?
I would suggest talking to a psychologist or psychiatrist about that. It's not my field, to say the least and I wouldn't want to get into what your particular nuture/nature situation might be.
Did you know that there were multiple studies that showed that children who were told about the traits they were "supposed" to have were much more likely to exhibit those traits when grown up than kids who weren't told?
I don't think everything about our personalities and brains is as mystical as you assume it is.
You really don't love Science. I don't know what it has to do with materialism, but to love science you must love the scientific method and you obviously don't because you subscribe to unfalsifiable concepts.
This is that false dichotomy again. If not A, then B. That's not the case. Your assumption is that Science CAN'T explain this. Someone who understand what the scientific method and discovery is actually about just realizes that science just HASN'T explained it yet.
Yes it is. That's exactly what it is. How could it possibly not be? It's "above" the natural, outside the realm of physics, transcended of science or whatever else. That is what supernatural means.
Neither am I. I never said anything about spiritual anything.
Well, that sounds like an interesting theory. It is completely affected by science but also completely outside of it.
Someday maybe you'll come up with some math or an experiment to test your theory and then I will certainly be happy to consider it more.
Yes, but instead of that, the exact opposite of what you said.
The Universe is so immense, so complex that it has dimensions we can't even comprehend with our simple 3D minds. Science IS all of that. It is the explanation. That is your problem. I just realized it. You don't know what Science is. Science IS fact. It is the knowledge we have and the process we used to get it. If we discover proof of another realm or dimension of spacetime where only ideas and dreams live on, THEN THAT BECOMES SCIENCE. Do you understand that? Science is what we know and how we know it. It is not everything, no, it is the pursuit of knowing everything.
In regards to the bolded part, I most certainly do. How audacious to tell me what I believe.
You keep skipping out of rational conversation to talk about whether ideas have meaning or not or whatever. I'm trying to have a logical discussion with you, not a philosophical one.
Well, there we go.
You have just admitted that you have no criteria for falsification. You are such a true believer that no evidence or reasoning will convince you otherwise.
And you call Science arrogant. The key tenet of modern science is making theories falsifiable. Making it so that they can be proven wrong if they are not correct.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that what you say is true if evidence is presented to prove it, but you are unwilling to accept that what you say might not be true regardless of anything presented, and you dare call me immature?
I'm sorry you feel so worthless and are so narrowminded that you can't see purpose and beauty in the world beyond deeper, insubstantial, intangible concept of metaphysical value. I'm going to educate people. I'm going to do something worthwhile with knowledge because I can. How about that for meaning?
Fuck you and go back to the fucking dark ages where you belong.
I have to write 4 pages comparing and contrasting god-human relationahips in Gilgamesh to those in the Old Testament. Then I have to throw in something about the Song of Songs.
that's right, I did fuck your mother
She said you'd get mad. She said to ignore you, that that's what she did.
that was the worst insult you could have chosen after a your mom joke
you couldn't expect me not to do it.
Give a guy a freebie once in a while and he gets a big head...
My head was already big- it's as large as the rest of my body!
do you know how much of a hassle it is to get a complete outfit in my size?
Dude, pick away.
I was rushing so I could watch LOST and I certainly was less than thorough. On second reading, I'll probably do some nitpicking myself.
No, I didn't change anything. Subconscious and conscious; they're both in our brains. What we actively think (train of thought, words and concepts we develop and are aware of), and how we think, which we cannot control, which is defined by our environments interacting on us and our inherent behavior.
It's lovely that you think you can say that "Creativity doesn't come from the subconscious, but from portions of the brain responsible for blah blah blah," and that means there's no subconscious. What? Do you think people are saying subconsciousness isn't IN the brain? Since when are memory and vision active conscious thought-processes? Memory is recalled without any active effort, spurred by outside sources, and made by association. That is in itself subconscious.
I think you might be mistaking what I mean by subconscious. Conscious thought is what we actively "decide" to think, "decide" to focus on, "decide" to manipulate, etc. If I WANT to remember the taste of ice cream, I can choose to. If something I smell suddenly reminds me of some event in my childhood, that is not CONSCIOUS. I did not make a conscious decision to remember that event, but something outside of me triggered a subconscious process inside of me.
Memory is, by definition, subconscious. It is all the associations and information contained in our minds from history that is not being actively accessed by our current conscious thought. I can recall all of my childhood, teen years, thousands of disparate events unrelated to the current moment, and I can do it on command or by being prompted to by an outside source. Fact: Listening to old music puts me in the "head space" of when I used to listen to it (reminds me of smells, feelings, situations, etc), and I do not CHOOSE to remember this. The music causes my brain to make associations beyond my ability to control. I can STOP it, but STARTING it isn't my choice, FEELING it isn't my choice, etc.
That is hilarious. I'm not talking only about visual aesthetics, bud, so your "golden rule, symmetry, etc." isn't as genius as you think. Poetry, for instance, is based entirely off of semantic ideas (words, concepts, emotions) in either a technical or purposefully non-technical presentation, and their effectiveness in affecting change in the mood or thought of the audience depends ON the format of this presentation of ideas (which are metaphysical by definition). This isn't mathematical, ideas are NOT mathematical, the current disposition, emotional state, thought process, personality, none of that is all so much "conscious" and "rational." And yeah, I KNOW, all of that is defined by science, but at the same time, you cannot EVER predict how one human being will respond to ANYTHING exactly, perfectly, without flaw. Just as stars are not evenly distributed, just as not all galaxies are expanding at an exact rate, just as nothing gives a total linear graph that is PERFECT and only happens ONE WAY within the functional parameters.
Man, art, writing, music -- aesthetics are MOSTLY based off of what they incur in the subconscious of both the creator and the audience. Have you read about the psychology of aesthetics outside of a mathematical context? Do you know what "subjectivity" is, and the significance that word has to human existence? Emotion? Expression?
Art is mostly dependent on what it calls forth from the historical memory of the observer. How you interpret a work is dependent on who you've become over time, what you've seen and heard before, the ideas developing in your head at the time, and what you're disposed to believe, feel, and think. None of these things are CONSCIOUS decisions. All are subconscious attributes of a human being brought about by how they've taken in the world around them and applied it (also subconsciously and consciously) to their internal self.
No, it wasn't, snark snark. If you're going to say that Hamlet is the equivalent of me saying "Life sucks," then you're a dunce, and talking to you is useless.
Nyark, facts, nyark, I'm so smart.
Oh, speech is "responsible" for society. You think so?
[edit] Wait, this next thought is unrelated to society, and dumb. Whatever. -- Well, actually, kind of a "chicken or the egg" idea. Was speech a thing that just HAPPENED to people? Suddenly our vocal chords evolved through magic to be capable of SO many new things they couln't. Dude, speech evolved from thought, not the other way around.
That's not even what I was talking about anyways. I'm just going to let this one drop, as it doesn't matter.
No, that's not what I believe, but I guess that's what it sounds like. It's obviously pointless to debate with you that metaphysical, personal, emotional conversations are worth anything. You're obviously a robot, feelings aren't real, and discussing metaphysical concepts is totally pointless. You win Mr. Scientist. All the metaphysicists of our race are misguided fools! Kant, Plato, Socrates, Nietzsche, etc, etc, etc. It was all useless! So unfortunate that they didn't have you to guide them with your superior knowledge of the meaning of life.
Ok, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you don't understand what discussion is. You don't know what ideas are, perspectives are, different ways of approaching situations, subjectivity. You honestly think that all there is is an objective reality, and nothing beyond that matters. Well, how I wish I could be you. Oh wait. I was! And then I grew up and realized objectivity will never be attained! Ever! It's impossible! Human's are subjective by nature!!
Too bad you never think metaphysically, or you might know what I mean by that. So how do we deal with society, our own family, our own life?! With science?!?! Yes! All of it! All of it can be dealt with experiments and raw empircal data! Every bit of it!
Ahaha. Ahahahahaha. Oh. My. God. You're hilarious!
Yeah, I'm crazy. People who write fiction, they're fucking nutso. Man, you're such a hack. You've really brought me down to earth, dude. I was in lala-land for a second.
You don't know much about creativity or self-expression, that's for sure. Fucking sucks to be you.
Wait, so it's YOU below who tells me I can't tell you what you think, right?
I fuckin' love science dude, as I hope you might be able to perceive by now.
You're right, it hasn't yet. So I'm proposing a segment of science that is related to ideas, which is called metaphysics. Rather than suggesting that ideas are actually contained in atoms and sound waves, how about we get it through our heads that ideas are trascendent of physical particles and their interactions? It is THROUGH them that they come into being, but their meaning goes beyond what makes them up. Kind of like all the letters on this page! P. A. G. E. It MEANS something, an IDEA, that's JUST IN YOUR HEAD, right now! Blip! Blip! Electrical currents, making up words, making up concepts, concepts related to life, concepts not always dependent on what is material.
Wait...That's not very original. Who was it that already proposed this?
No, it's not. Man, go read Kant or something. You don't even have the ideological basis to understand what the word "metaphysics" means. It's not transcended of science just because it's transcended of physical reality. I know, it's hard to understand what that means, most people don't get it. Sorry, I'm not going to rewrite the handful of books that explain it far better than I can right now.
Do you GET that we can't DISCOVER this "realm" if it is MADE OF IDEAS! HOW CAN YOU PHYSICALLY FIND SOMETHING THAT HAS NO PHYSICAL NATURE! THAT'S PARADOXICAL, NO?
But life is philosophical, my dear mate.
And you don't. Either you don't, or you aren't a person. One or the other. Either there is a "self" or there is not, and if there is, then metaphysics are valid.
Don't be a hypocrite. Just as you're so arrogant as to not allow yourself to be convinced that anything YOU don't think is right and doesn't fall into the rules you PERCEIVE (subjectively) to be true...What a saint you are, dude. Incapable of failing in the eyes of objective truth, you know the true path to live by.
The human race will cease to exist before their "science" accounts for all that is contained within the universe. And what's it matter? We don't need to PROVE it for it to be anyways, it exists regardless of our knowledge of it. "Science" is just as subjective and narcissistic as religion.
A dumbass, he is.
LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT POST
IT IS TOO LARGE
Twitter
they got us to take charcoal, get it on our fingers and draw with our fingers
it was very neat!
i liked it
and then it inspired me to do some speed paints, so i did that too
all in all, productive day
I just dropped my sculpture on the floor. Now they're both covered in fucking lint.
seriously its like finding an opened peice of candy from between the couch cushions.
So I came to the chat thread to post the link, I see that a ridiculous amount of pages have gone by, and oh-my-gosh I can't believe that I missed this because I have input that MUST BE GIVEN!!
facebook.com/LauraCatherwoodArt
don't let that get you down
YES LET'S TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE THIS INSTEAD YES
That sounds like fun!
I spent most of my day playing around with Flash actionscript to see if I could do a cheesy thing for Valentine's Day, but I decided even if I figured out it wouldn't be worth the effort. So, meh.
Now I'm doing some sketches for the PA fanart thing.
Hooray!
Twitter
Edit: I'm gonna take my painting home though I really wana make it look nicer and i'll update my thread with itttt
i need to get started on the pa fanart stuff.
I spent 3 hours tracing a photo of a turtle.
if you need help, i made a tutorial a long time ago
it's outdated, and confusing
http://frank05.critter.net/vector.html
if you need additional help, pm me.
that would be unique though
since most people will be doing it in photoshop/flash/illustrator
also, there are free options, eh?
like gimp
and o.c.
Its part of a class I'm taking. Thanks though.
But, srsizzy, you made some good points about conscious thought and obviously we were looking at it from different perspectives.
But then you spent the rest of the time just calling me names and telling me I'm too stupid to understand your incredible grasp of philosophy and claiming that metaphysics is science.
I mean, really? Come on.
So I'll treat you like an idiot if I want to, and you can continue on feeling like your life has no meaning and not hanging out with your lack of friends.
I didn't see any rules for the chat thread that said that too many words would scare all the arty-types.
I think Bacon got that I was being sarcastic.