User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-10-01 at 4:58 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-10-01 at 5:03 PM UTC
-
2018-10-01 at 5:03 PM UTC
-
2018-10-01 at 8:30 PM UTC
-
2018-10-02 at 12:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Again, what would the mathematical description of the artistic properties of the mona lisa look like? Is it a big column vector with a 3 for the palette value and a 20 for the composition value and numeric values for every other artistic property of a painting? That doesn't seem to really capture what we mean when we talk about that artistic properties of a painting.
If you can define a good parameter for artistic quality as a phenomenon, then of course. But again, it will be an explanation that is way more linked to your mental states vs neurology, than to the painting itself.
For example we might just look for the parameters that a painting has to fit, in order to be aesthetically pleasing to you. You might agree that it's conceivable that we might approach a way to solve this problem with, for example, a machine learning approach that tries to use statistics to model your preferences. In fact, we already have some insanely good tech on that front, no? Of course you'd probably need a completely unreasonably massive data set to really get to a perfect model of your insanely complex brain, but technically, it seems possible. But if we do get a close to 100% accuracy model, I can safely say that there is some deterministic machinery behind whatever process you use to generate a judgment of artistic value.
Now, we are never going to find some physical law where we measure artistic value in "art units" (Pablos). But that's because the problem doesn't even exist in that form.
If you want an explanation of some more semantic or qualitative or intentional aspects of artistic value, the question to ask is: what phenomenon are you actually considering describing? If I can model your choices, whether you run that experiment in your mind to generate a choice and then do it, or if I run it to predict how it works in your head and then you tell me, the outcome is the same; you either mentally decide to click on the next video in the YouTube sidebar, or you do it. The semantic or seemingly qualitative content of the choice doesn't really matter.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-02 at 1:51 AM UTCIt all boils down to animals don't want to die. They want to live a full and happy life. Animals have unique personalities, just like people do. They don't want to be roughly treated, killed and then eaten. Just imagine if it were you that we're treated cruelly, killed and then eaten by a more advanced alien race of beings. Would you think that was fair? Of course not.
-
2018-10-02 at 1:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL It all boils down to animals don't want to die. They want to live a full and happy life. Animals have unique personalities, just like people do. They don't want to be roughly treated, killed and then eaten. Just imagine if it were you that we're treated cruelly, killed and then eaten by a more advanced alien race of beings. Would you think that was fair? Of course not.
That's been addressed though in that we don't want to die but certain animals eat us anyway if given the chance. And some animals eat their own species. And plenty of them kill and eat other animals, very painfully and greusomely at that. -
2018-10-02 at 2:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ That's been addressed though in that we don't want to die but certain animals eat us anyway if given the chance. And some animals eat their own species. And plenty of them kill and eat other animals, very painfully and greusomely at that.
Sooo... if an advanced alien race landed and started harvesting and fattening humans for consumption, you'd be fine with that?? -
2018-10-02 at 2:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Sooo… if an advanced alien race landed and started harvesting and fattening humans for consumption, you'd be fine with that??
No, but I would GET it. They like the taste of humans and they see how we savagely slaughter animals ourselves so they'd probably say, well, its fair game, fuck 'em.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-02 at 2:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin You don't need to believe in a higher power to agree with Kant's essential point. His ethics are an incredible framework for egoist social contract theory. You can replace the coocoo parts with far more rational ideas, but keep the meat, the framework, the exact same.
That's not what I said at all.
His reasoning structure post-premise is sound, but his premise is flawed, so none of his later reasoning matters.
Kant believes that things "ought" to be a certain way, in that things "matter". Things only "matter" if humans are somehow more specialer than other species. Kant was of that opinion.
It is most likely that none of this INHERENTLY matters. To assert that any of this DOES inherently matter requires hard evidence of such. Since no evidence of deities, higher force, or whathaveyou I have witnessed is convincing enough for me to have faith in, to believe in such deities, higher force, or whathaveyou, would be irrational.
Since nothing inherently matters, the only things that matter are what we decide matter. What matters to you is the only thing that matters. That doesn't necessarily mean it matters to me, though, because my interpretation of what matters will be different from yours becoos of my different genetic structure, life experiences, and exact positioning in spacetime.
Since most of the evidence I have witnessed suggests that none of this probably matters, that is the rational conclusion I have come to. Could it matter? Sure, but that is much less likely given the differing sets of evidence I've witnessed.
This is what I've been trying to explain to Lanny, but he keeps bringing up Kant, insisting that that his premises are somehow based on universal truths/laws, which don't exist.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-02 at 2:40 AM UTCIt amazes me that DP goes from posting like that to some of the gibberish he says.
Said with love of course. -
2018-10-02 at 2:41 AM UTCI'm going to ZT Rheahab in a couple days. If I run outta time, Meat Thread TBC
-
2018-10-02 at 2:43 AM UTCGood luck DP
-
2018-10-02 at 2:51 AM UTC
-
2018-10-02 at 2:54 AM UTCWell I guess it’s another night of eating a cheese sandwich by myself in the cornerThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-10-02 at 3:07 AM UTC
-
2018-10-02 at 3:12 AM UTC*Keep your filthy paws off my silky drawers
-
2018-10-02 at 5:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL It all boils down to animals don't want to die. They want to live a full and happy life. Animals have unique personalities, just like people do. They don't want to be roughly treated, killed and then eaten. Just imagine if it were you that we're treated cruelly, killed and then eaten by a more advanced alien race of beings. Would you think that was fair? Of course not.
true,
but the purposes of the higher beings [on the food chain] is to consume these lower beings.
thats what nature intended when it created all eaters of other creatures, including us. to deny that is to deny the order of nature.
and do you know what else is against the order of nature ?
sodomy.
are you also an advocateur of sodomy ? do you like assfuck ? -
2018-10-02 at 8:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin It is possible that the "true" rules of logic say A=A except every billionth iteration, where A=C.
What do you think it would mean for "A=C on the billionth iteration"? Like how would the world where "A=A" being an eternal truth be different from the one where it wasn't?
Originally posted by DietPiano Kant believed that humans are a "special" creature of the universe that are more important than all other creatures due to some existential force. I reject this conclusion as it is unprovable, and less likely and reasonable than my conclusion that things simply are, and there is no way to know if they ought to be anything.
He thinks that there is a higher force, but what is his evidence that humans are not as animalistic and are inherently more important than anything else? My logical reasoning leades me to conclude that his premises are more faulty than mine.
Therfor, I do reject his premises as they are less reason based and more mystical based. This would be acceptable, except for the lack of hard, witnessable evidence provided (which is what, exactly?).
Kant did believe in a God but like captain pointed out, it has little to do with his ethics. He things humans are "special" not because of divine endowment necessarily, but simply because we have faculties that are absent in lower animals. You don't need to suppose the divine for his ethics to work and there's really little to nothing in it that's "mystical based". If you disagree with what Falcon and I are saying about it I welcome you to point out the point in Kant's ethical argument that does hinge on the supernatural. -
2018-10-02 at 8:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin If you can define a good parameter for artistic quality as a phenomenon, then of course. But again, it will be an explanation that is way more linked to your mental states vs neurology, than to the painting itself.
Yes, I don't deny that artistic qualities of paintings are probably contingent on things like cultural opinions or "neurology" in some very reductive way. This doesn't seem to do much to establish a mathematical description of the artistic qualities of a paintings.For example we might just look for the parameters that a painting has to fit, in order to be aesthetically pleasing to you. You might agree that it's conceivable that we might approach a way to solve this problem with, for example, a machine learning approach that tries to use statistics to model your preferences. In fact, we already have some insanely good tech on that front, no? Of course you'd probably need a completely unreasonably massive data set to really get to a perfect model of your insanely complex brain, but technically, it seems possible. But if we do get a close to 100% accuracy model, I can safely say that there is some deterministic machinery behind whatever process you use to generate a judgment of artistic value.
If we had really good generative art (I think there's some good generative art today!) we'd have a mechanistic process that produced something with artistic properties, yes. The generative process may be describable in mathematical terms. But describing the process that generates something with artistic properties is different than describing artistic properties, just as describing the physical properties of a thing is distinct from describing that things artistic properties.Now, we are never going to find some physical law where we measure artistic value in "art units" (Pablos). But that's because the problem doesn't even exist in that form.
Yes, I agree that questions about artistic qualities of things don't have answers like "this painting possesses 12 Pablos", which was my point to start with: not every fact about the world can be described mathematically. Maybe all substance can be described mathematically, but some emergent properties (like artistic properties) resist mathematical quantification. The project itself if ill conceived. We don't have to assign any mystical or supernatural qualities to art and such, I'm simply saying we can't describe it fully in mathematical terms.If you want an explanation of some more semantic or qualitative or intentional aspects of artistic value, the question to ask is: what phenomenon are you actually considering describing? If I can model your choices, whether you run that experiment in your mind to generate a choice and then do it, or if I run it to predict how it works in your head and then you tell me, the outcome is the same; you either mentally decide to click on the next video in the YouTube sidebar, or you do it. The semantic or seemingly qualitative content of the choice doesn't really matter.
I'm not talking about physical phenomena, choices, or observable verbal behavior and the like. I'm simply talking about what we mean when we talk about the artistic qualities of some paintings. When I say "the composition in this painting is good" I'm not saying "X% of people will view this painting and say the compositions is good", or that "I've chosen to believe that the composition of this painting is good" or "if you subject this painting to the good-composition reagent it'll turn purple", I'm talking about an artistic quality of the painting. Are you familiar with the logical positivists and how their movement is viewed in contemporary philosophy?
