26 Apr 15
Originally posted by stellspalfieOriginally posted by robbie carrobie
thats not what i said.
Tell us why making an examination of the origins of the biological electrochemical impulses of our mind explains why we create and appreciate art. If you will not or cannot then you will admit that biology and physics simply are not enough to fully explain the human experience and reducing the human experience to a molecular level in an attempt to explain such phenomena is pure folly. I will hear your confession now.
Then explain the above as robbie requested.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsi did. this was the question.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Tell us why making an examination of the origins of the biological electrochemical impulses of our mind explains why we create and appreciate art. If you will not or cannot then you will admit that biology and physics simply are not enough to fully explain the human experience and reducing the human experience to ...[text shortened]... . I will hear your confession now.Then explain the above as robbie requested.
Tell us why making an examination of the origins of the biological electrochemical impulses of our mind explains why we create and appreciate art
my answer was - it doesnt. we would need combine other forms of science to explain why we create and appreciate art.
its all there a few posts earlier. in baffled by your confusion.
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by stellspalfie
i did. this was the question.
[b]Tell us why making an examination of the origins of the biological electrochemical impulses of our mind explains why we create and appreciate art
my answer was - it doesnt. we would need combine other forms of science to explain why we create and appreciate art.
its all there a few posts earlier. in baffled by your confusion.[/b]
That does not seem to explain anything to me. Maybe that is why robbie does not get it either.
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonhouseWell we are NOT molecules and nothing more. That is an absurd way to describe humanity. The self evident reality that we are material beings (demonstrated with a sharp kick to the shin) does not exclude the fact that we are more than that.
That is totally true, we ARE our molecules, nothing more. We have some magnetic fields sticking out of our bodies and likewise with some electrical fields but that is not some magical spirit world, we essentially stop at the skin.
The concept you need here is "emergent properties."
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon life as studied in biology is commonly perceived as an emergent property of interacting molecules as studied in chemistry, whose phenomena reflect interactions among elementary particles, modeled in particle physics, that at such higher mass—via substantial conglomeration—exhibit motion as modeled in gravitational physics. Neurobiological phenomena are often presumed to suffice as the underlying basis of psychological phenomena, whereby economic phenomena are in turn presumed to principally emerge.
In philosophy, emergence typically refers to emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the lower levels.
You then need to engage with the debate about Reductionism, bearing in mind that it is a very dated one and largely resolved with the conclusion that one cannot reduce emergent properties back to lower levels of explanation. (See my earlier post about levels of explanation). The persistence of Positivist thinking and its association with ideologically tinged "scientific" approaches such as Sociobiology is one indication that many scientists are poorly trained in philosophical thinking and poorly equipped for debates such as this one. Ideologists like Ayn Rand and economic bumkins like Mieses pretend to arrive at their theories by construction from fundamentals and their claims are demonstrably spurious, but Americans in particular seem to love them all the more for that. I call this "cod science."
As long as strong atheistic argument is couched in crudely reductionist terms like this, one can be confident that the debate of radical atheists with fundamentalists of the various religions will continue ad nauseam, no doubt to their mutual delight and entertainment.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit explains where thoughts and feelings are made and what they are made of rather than why we have them.
To what extent does it explains it then?
when we look at art and have an experience. what part of that experience do you feel cannot be described by physiological methods?
Originally posted by stellspalfieExtent denotes a measurement, for example, a lot, a little, not that much, extensively etc etc You said ' electrochemicals alone will not explain why we create art', I was wondering to what extent they explain why we create art.
it explains where thoughts and feelings are made and what they are made of rather than why we have them.
when we look at art and have an experience. what part of that experience do you feel cannot be described by physiological methods?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei think ive answered this already. on their own they do not explain why we create art, so that would be zero percent. the evidence and data we find combined with other scientific knowledge provides reason on why we think people create and look at art. i would say the study of electrochemical is a large part of the process. as it gives us so much valuable information.
Extent denotes a measurement, for example, a lot, a little, not that much, extensively etc etc You said ' electrochemicals alone will not explain why we create art', I was wondering to what extent they explain why we create art.
Originally posted by stellspalfieWow you think that science can tell us why we create and appreciate art. Go on then, what has the God of science to say on the matter?
i think ive answered this already. on their own they do not explain why we create art, so that would be zero percent. the evidence and data we find combined with other scientific knowledge provides reason on why we think people create and look at art. i would say the study of electrochemical is a large part of the process. as it gives us so much valuable information.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethats an extremely complicated question to answer as there are so many combinations and variables and aspects to take into consideration, it's a huge topic. so ill boil it down to what i think it the key point.
Wow you think that science can tell us why we create and appreciate art. Go on then, what has the God of science to say on the matter?
chemical reward. we pursue things that make us feel good. i think the roots of this evolutionary wise are connected to the importance of communication. those who communicate better survive better. art was and still is a form of communication.
perceptual grouping and binding is an interesting subject when talking about appreciating art. we cannot help but try to find images in abstract patterns (i.e. faces in clouds) similarly we look at marks on paper and we like to see those marks as a thing, person, animal or whatever. again this is a throw back to survival.
just to clarify im not saying these are the only reasons, just some of the reasons.
why do you think we appreciate and create art?
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by stellspalfieWhat a steaming pile of conjecture, supposition, hocus pocus and outright fantasy that would make the meanest medieval monk seem enlightened. A throw back to survival? We create art because its a throwback to survival, bwahahahahahah! Comedy gold. Ronald Jonah Hinds eat your heart out! The God of science has spoken. All hail!
thats an extremely complicated question to answer as there are so many combinations and variables and aspects to take into consideration, it's a huge topic. so ill boil it down to what i think it the key point.
chemical reward. we pursue things that make us feel good. i think the roots of this evolutionary wise are connected to the importance of comm ...[text shortened]... the only reasons, just some of the reasons.
why do you think we appreciate and create art?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhy do you think we create and appreciate art robbie? (also you have misrepresented what i wrote, funny considering how you reacted when you thought i had done the same in an early post)
What a steaming pile of conjecture, supposition, hocus pocus and outright fantasy that would make the meanest medieval monk seem enlightened. A throw back to survival? We create art because its a throwback to survival, bwahahahahahah! Comedy gold. Ronald Jonah Hinds eat your heart out! The God of science has spoken. All hail!
edit: its also interesting to note that you make no effort to logically refute any of my points and resort to cheap mud slinging. can you logically refute my points?
Originally posted by stellspalfieYes its nonsense because the creation of art is absolutely superfluous to anyones survival. We do not nor ever have needed art to survive. I really should thank you for demonstrating the folly of the materialist. Tell me Stellspalfie how we needed art to survive, I'm interested to know.
why do you think we create and appreciate art robbie? (also you have misrepresented what i wrote, funny considering how you reacted when you thought i had done the same in an early post)
edit: its also interesting to note that you make no effort to logically refute any of my points and resort to cheap mud slinging. can you logically refute my points?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei didnt say we needed art to survive. read my post again.
Yes its nonsense because the creation of art is absolutely superfluous to anyones survival. We do not nor ever have needed art to survive. I really should thank you for demonstrating the folly of the materialist. Tell me Stellspalfie how we needed art to survive, I'm interested to know.
edit: and i ask again - why do you think we appreciate and create art? ive politely answered all your questions, could you do the courtesy of answering mine?