Art as Microcosm (2004)

[Brant Gaede]

20 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Which emotions???  Do anger and hatred promote cognition or do they cripple cognition.  A little fear increases watchfulness.  Panic  destroys reason and judgement.  

Why does a human being have a need for panic?

Is hatred an emotion or an emotional overlay?

Can cognition be dangerous?

Does panic destroy or merely displace reason?

--Brant

the capacity for panic is built into the organism

[Brant Gaede]

20 hours ago, anthony said:

Ah. OK. It is disallowed for me to infer Sublimists' premises from all the implied, but unsubstantiated support they have for the concept.

Obligingly, I have to await "a position" voiced by someone -- before counter-arguing, else it's a "straw man".. I see.

Making personal attacks is vanishingly low on my agenda. The ideas count far above personalities, in forum. The ideas, and their final consequences on people and countries is of concern to me (greatly, the politics of left-progressivism and its potential causes).

You use ideas/words like a spider uses a web.

You must have an ancillary food supply.

--Brant

is English your first language?

[Brant Gaede]

On 6/2/2016 at 5:41 AM, Brant Gaede said:

I can't stand to call you stupid, Tony, and I can't stand to call you a liar. I don't think you're either. It might help if you were one, the other, even both.

I went to a church on Sunday to witness a baptism. First, not about the baptism, I experienced something over-whelming and terrifying in me then I experienced transcendence. (This wasn't religious; I don't believe in God.)

Was this transcendence an experience of the Sublime?

Yes? No? Just a simple answer. Don't add on five paragraphs of explanation or explication; you can do that in a following post. Just a naked answer. Even only, I don't know. There. You have three choices and no outs. As for me, myself and I--I think I did.

Yes

No

I don't know

That's all--nothing more. Not a word. Save more words for the next post which you are welcome to immediately write and post.

(There's a TV show I've never watched: Naked and Afraid.)

--Brant

I asked Tony and he didn't answer. He just came with something else. I think he meant "No," but why didn't he just say "No"?

--Brant

if I'm riding a horse am I experiencing riding a horse or an elephant?--how could I know if I didn't know one from the other to begin with but someone keeps saying I'm on an elephant and someone else I'm on a horse?--so I asked Tony, Tony am I experiencing a horse: yes, no, I don't know?--so Tony says you're experiencing movement and don't get hijacked by Jonathan

[Brant Gaede]

On 6/2/2016 at 9:17 AM, anthony said:

Brant, you experienced an instant emotion of your own value-making and realizing. Because it was individually and personally to you of a "sublime" nature, don't let the Sublimists hi-jack it from you.

See? Tony had to put "sublime" into quotes otherwise he'd have to own knowledge of The Sublime (as an actuality or only as an idea being discussed). That's why he didn't answer with a "yes" a "no" or "I don't know."

So, Jonathan, since Tony, not being stupid or a liar, is ignorant of the Sublime, did I experience it? Yes, no or I don't know? I'd like only a simple answer. I can reconcile your answer with what you've written previously. Or, expand on your answer in a following post.

--Brant

just for the record is enough, J., because you've yet to make me think you don't know WTF you are talking about--so you don't even have to say anything at all (I'm going looking regardless) unless you don't know WTF you are talking about in which case just say you don't know WTF you are talking about so I don't waste time looking (I'll take your word)

[BaalChatzaf]

6 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

First off, I have to enthusiastically second William's recommendation of Damasio's work. I've read two of his books so far and thoroughly enjoyed and learned from them. I liked Descartes' Error very much, but I especially liked Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. If these sound like too much work, check out Damasio's TED talk here: http://www.ted.com/speakers/antonio_damasio

Secondly, while I think emotions are very important, both in our lives and in our knowledge and understanding, I wouldn't call them tools of cognition. Instead, I think that, like sensations, percepts, memories, etc., they are data of cognition - conscious products that we use to gain further insight and awareness into ourselves and the world. The tools of cognition that we use on that data are concepts, propositions, and arguments. (These are discussed in detail in Henry B. Veatch's and Francis Parker's fine but sadly out of print book, Logic as a Human Instrument.) But without emotions and all our other experiential data, there is nothing for those tools to operate on!

REB

In a way, then,  emotions are somewhat analogous to a reaction mass.  A rocket won't go (regardless of potential energy in it) unless that potential energy is converted into the kinetic energy of the reaction mass (usually a gas,  but some times a stream of ions in an electric rocket).

[Brant Gaede]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In a way, then,  emotions are somewhat analogous to a reaction mass.  A rocket won't go (regardless of potential energy in it) unless that potential energy is converted into the kinetic energy of the reaction mass (usually a gas,  but some times a stream of ions in an electric rocket).

Let me get this straight: you personally experience emotions? Being an Aspie doesn't mean you don't experience emotions?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

32 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Let me get this straight: you personally experience emotions? Being an Aspie doesn't mean you don't experience emotions?

--Brant

 

32 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Let me get this straight: you personally experience emotions? Being an Aspie doesn't mean you don't experience emotions?

--Brant

Not true.  I do not generate emotions and process them the same way you Normal Folk do.   Basic emotions like fear work the same in Aspies as they do with Normal Folk.  Aspies do not  process emotions connected with self esteem or socially generated pleasures  the same way as with Normal Folk which is why Aspies  seem  "odd".  Aspies are NOT  what Mr. Spock tries to be.  By  the way Spock has emotions but he puts a lid on them. 

In fact some Aspies and Auties  have  "melt downs"  (expressions of anger or rage) provoked by things  that would not bother you Normal Folk.  In the case of extreme Autistics  this can be a real problem which is why some Autistics cannot live live well  with Normals. 

In my case, I worked for decades  to make my emotional presentations  be congruent with the Normal world.  That means not laughing, crying or getting angry (or showing those emotions)  when  "inappropriate" (by Normal custom and standards).  

By the way, Spock is still my patron saint  but I cannot -be-  Spock  because I am a human,  not a Vulcan.  My blood is red,  not green.  I admire Spock because he makes logic and reason  primary  over anger,  fear and panic.  He "keeps his head".

Finally,  I consider it my burden to make my externals conform to what most Normals  present.  I am in the one percent (or less)  so behaving correctly is my problem and burden.  I devoted decades to doing just that.  In most situations  I pass for Human very  nicely.  Under stress, however, my Aspie self sometimes shows.  So I make sure I don't laugh or smile while attending funerals and that I don't blubber or sob  at the death of a non-family member which has devastated me (yes, my good fellow,  I can be devastated just like you). 

[Brant Gaede]

I get that an aspie can't be a "normal" aspie either. That is, if we were all aspies most of us would grate on each other the way real-life normals naturally avoid through standard social lubrication which comes naturally--that is, aspies are abnormal whoever they are around?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

22 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I get that an aspie can't be a "normal" aspie either. That is, if we were all aspies most of us would grate on each other the way real-life normals naturally avoid through standard social lubrication which comes naturally--that is, aspies are abnormal whoever they are around?

--Brant

I think of the song put out by "The Platters"  50 years ago:  Oh yes, I'm the Great Pretender,  pretending whenever I can....

It is very simple.  I either conform my externals for the sake of peace and quiet in my life, or I am constantly grinding against everyone I live or deal with.  Given that one has to work for a living it is sensible not to rub one's boss or fellow workers the wrong way,  and if a proprietor  it is sensible not to rub one's customers the wrong way.   We are social beings living in society  so external conformity is of some importance.  However what goes on inside  is ALL MINE..

[Brant Gaede]

8 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I think of the song put out by "The Platters"  50 years ago:  Oh yes, I'm the Great Pretender,  pretending whenever I can....

It is very simple.  I either conform my externals for the sake of peace and quiet in my life, or I am constantly grinding against everyone I live or deal with.  Given that one has to work for a living it is sensible not to rub one's boss or fellow workers the wrong way,  and if a proprietor  it is sensible not to rub one's customers the wrong way.   We are social beings living in society  so external conformity is of some importance.  However what goes on inside  is ALL MINE..

So, you have lived your social life as a lie. If instead you laughed at funerals might those around you knowing you were just being you might have said--"That's just Bob?" Might not this have caused an inner corruption you know not of for you haven't the other life you did not live as a reference point? I don't know if Andy Grove was an aspie, but he was bluntly honest. Someone once gushed to him how important a book of his was to him and turned away. "That's just Andy." But if you worked for Intel you could contradict him to his face about what he was doing and if you could argue him down--good luck with that--he'd change his mind. (I have absolutely no info on his personal life or if he was normal or not but he wasn't "normal" when it came to his work. Maybe he also lived his social life as a lie. I couldn't care less. I care about how I live my life and others can be concerned about theirs.)

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

So, you have lived your social life as a lie. If instead you laughed at funerals might those around you knowing you were just being you might have said--"That's just Bob?" Might not this have caused an inner corruption you know not of for you haven't the other life you did not live as a reference point? I don't know if Andy Grove was an aspie, but he was bluntly honest. Someone once gushed to him how important a book of his was to him and turned away. "That's just Andy." But if you worked for Intel you could contradict him to his face about what he was doing and if you could argue him down--good luck with that--he'd change his mind. (I have absolutely no info on his personal life or if he was normal or not but he wasn't "normal" when it came to his work. Maybe he also lived his social life as a lie. I couldn't care less. I care about how I live my life and others can be concerned about theirs.)

--Brant

Not a lie.  An accommodation.   We live in a society.  We must conform our external doings in order to live  with others.  It is a social necessity.  Whether I am Aspie or Normal  I have to live among others.  I have no intention of becoming a hermit.   

That is why we drive on the right hand side in the U.S. and that is why we knock on doors before trying to open them. 

I would call it Good Manners and Good Behavior.   I am being considerate.  Why should I  make life hard on everyone around be just because I process reality differently from them?  My externalities are conventional.  My internalities are beyond your comprehension. 

[william.scherk]

On 6/2/2016 at 10:35 AM, william.scherk said:

Google Image is a tool of cognition, and thoroughly infused with a Kantian emotional-collective-behavioural AI programme. But that is beside the point:  using Randian philosophy of the arts we can look forward to an Objectivism-heavy AI programme that stresses the rational approach to cognition. Key findings from the Randian project will probably ultimately allow humankind to infuse robotic-mind/AI/cloud-computing with emotion -- which will make robot cognitions much more useful.

Robot cognitions may be able to show a simulacra of 'creativity,' but can one program the necessary emotions into the Beast?  We need to know if the programmers are infused with Kant or Rand.  

A note from tech ephemeral marks a minor milestone on the road to AI-produced "art." In this case, it sounds to me like a dull MIDI doodle, but hey. From a neat bloggy item at the CSMonitor: "Can machines make music? Google tests creative boundaries of AI" ... subhead Google's Project Magenta uses algorithms to try and develop music, but critics question whether a machine could ever really create art

The latest venture from Google's innovation team has many in the creative community pondering an old question: What is art? 

Magenta, the internet giant's latest artificial intelligence project, is a stab at programming an algorithm to create music.

Magenta has already produced a single "song" of sorts, a four-note melody composed by Magenta and accompanied by a human-produced drum beat.

Recommended: Would Google hire you? 10 test questions to find out
"Machine learning has already been used extensively to understand content, as in speech recognition or translation," wrote Magenta researcher Douglas Eck in a blog post. "With Magenta, we want to explore the other side – developing algorithms that can learn how to generate art and music, potentially creating compelling and artistic content on their own."

Will it work? If art is a creation of beauty and a means of sharing a message, then Magenta has struck out so far, as reviews have been scathing. 

"It’s not totally awful," wrote Alexander McNamara for the BBC's Science Focus. "

Not totally awful?

From the Google Magenta blog, which gets pretty wonkish and Galtish about the engine of the world (Intelligence):

What is Magenta?

Magenta has two goals. First, it’s a research project to advance the state of the art in machine intelligence for music and art generation. Machine learning has already been used extensively to understand content, as in speech recognition or translation. With Magenta, we want to explore the other side—developing algorithms that can learn how to generate art and music, potentially creating compelling and artistic content on their own.

Second, Magenta is an attempt to build a community of artists, coders and machine learning researchers. The core Magenta team will build open-source infrastructure around TensorFlow for making art and music. We’ll start with audio and video support, tools for working with formats like MIDI, and platforms that help artists connect to machine learning models. For example, we want to make it super simple to play music along with a Magenta performance model.

 

Unrelated image; click for explication:

Edited June 4, 2016 by william.scherk
Spelking, grrrammar.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 My internalities are beyond your comprehension. 

Would you elaborate on this?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Would you elaborate on this?

--Brant

you would not comprehend how I think any more than I comprehend how Normals think.  The best I can do is simulate externalities.  When in Rome  do as the Romans do.

[BaalChatzaf]

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Why does a human being have a need for panic?

Is hatred an emotion or an emotional overlay?

Can cognition be dangerous?

Does panic destroy or merely displace reason?

--Brant

the capacity for panic is built into the organism

Humans don't -need- to panic but they sometimes do...

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Humans don't -need- to panic but they sometimes do...

The tornado is coming! Where are the children? Panic, panic, panic!

What do you think panicked Mom is doing when she's in a panic? She's gone to find her children! She finds one then remembers the other one is already in the storm cellar. End of panic.

That's a good need and use for panic.

The stock market is falling! My stocks! My stocks! Panic, panic, panic! Sell, sell, sell!

Not a good need and use for panic.

The first example goes back to primitive times. The times of the cave bear, for example. A time when there were no stock markets.

--Brant

there is panic and there is panic

kinda like fire--warms your house or burns it down

[BaalChatzaf]

20 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The tornado is coming! Where are the children? Panic, panic, panic!

What do you think panicked Mom is doing when she's in a panic? She's gone to find her children! She finds one then remembers the other one is already in the storm cellar. End of panic.

That's a good need and use for panic.

The stock market is falling! My stocks! My stocks! Panic, panic, panic! Sell, sell, sell!

Not a good need and use for panic.

The first example goes back to primitive times. The times of the cave bear, for example. A time when there were no stock markets.

--Brant

there is panic and there is panic

kinda like fire--warms your house or burns it down

I make a distinction between rational fear or concern as opposed to a loss of focus and  reason because of alarming events.  Being reasonable alarmed or afraid increases ones focus and the use of one's wits.  Being in state of total panic means a loss of focus and a decreased ability to deploy reason.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

you would not comprehend how I think any more than I comprehend how Normals think.  The best I can do is simulate externalities.  When in Rome  do as the Romans do.

I think I know what you're trying to say--through inference--but you aren't. You have data on how you don't know how Normals think but you have none or little on how I think about how you think. This is projection. You simply don't know if you are thus way incomprehensible to me through lack of brain power, the original implied supposition. Now, many thought processes are not comprehensible to me. This is different than a mind set. An algebra teacher can teach me first year algebra. A high school teacher, calculus. (Assuming I wanted to learn.) Isaac Newton would go bat shit crazy trying to teach me (and most people) any math at all. (My friend Petr Beckmann was happy to be retired from teaching at the University of Colorado. He strongly disliked teaching. When I finally figured out how to do something with my computer he was trying to tell me he said, "Thank God!")

The correct statement is no one can experience how another brain works the way the owner of that brain does. However, your statement revised is quite defendable and likely correct. It's how to bet in Vegas.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

10 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I make a distinction between rational fear or concern as opposed to a loss of focus and  reason because of alarming events.  Being reasonable alarmed or afraid increases ones focus and the use of one's wits.  Being in state of total panic means a loss of focus and a decreased ability to deploy reason.

You do not belong on the front lines. You don't have enough reactive capacity. If you and I were running from a bear and I passed you and you said, "You can't outrun the bear," I'd reply, "I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you."

--Brant

I probably don't belong on those front lines either, based on my real life combat experiences: but if you know panic you can teach yourself not to be overwhelmed by it

[BaalChatzaf]

50 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I think I know what you're trying to say--through inference--but you aren't. You have data on how you don't know how Normals think but you have none or little on how I think about how you think. This is projection. You simply don't know if you are thus way incomprehensible to me through lack of brain power, the original implied supposition. Now, many thought processes are not comprehensible to me. This is different than a mind set. An algebra teacher can teach me first year algebra. A high school teacher, calculus. (Assuming I wanted to learn.) Isaac Newton would go bat shit crazy trying to teach me (and most people) any math at all. (My friend Petr Beckmann was happy to be retired from teaching at the University of Colorado. He strongly disliked teaching. When I finally figured out how to do something with my computer he was trying to tell me he said, "Thank God!")

The correct statement is no one can experience how another brain works the way the owner of that brain does. However, your statement revised is quite defendable and likely correct. It's how to bet in Vegas.

--Brant

In general I have no idea of what other people are thinking.  I only know what I think.  I know what other people say (if I can hear and understand them).  I know what other people write (if I read the material).  I know what other people do (by direct observation and by witnessed description).  But I will be gosh-darned if I know what other people think.  I have no idea.  I only know what is observable and what other people think is not observable.

[Brant Gaede]

22 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I make a distinction between rational fear or concern as opposed to a loss of focus and  reason because of alarming events.  Being reasonable alarmed or afraid increases ones focus and the use of one's wits.  Being in state of total panic means a loss of focus and a decreased ability to deploy reason.

I note your modification of "panic" into "total panic."

--Brant

great slight of hand; you got it by me the first time I read it; I suspect you got it by yourself too (were you panicked?)

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

I note your modification of "panic" into "total panic."

--Brant

great slight of hand; you got it by me the first time I read it; I suspect you got it by yourself too (were you panicked?)

same thing.  I distinguish panic from fear or concern.

[william.scherk]

On 6/2/2016 at 10:35 AM, william.scherk said:

Quote

[T[his means we must proceed like an anthropologist, using Rand’s concept of “art” as our guide; we must trace the full hierarchy of concepts that validly link “selective recreations of reality according to the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments” into the overall category of “human instruments” or “tools.”

'Discombobulation'!

 

On 6/3/2016 at 10:20 AM, william.scherk said:

Perhaps I could just sketch the scope of what I mean by 'tool of cognition' ...?  I will call cognition not just thinking, but reasoning, reasoning in the sense of normal everyday evaluations, decision-making,  analyses and self-reports. For cognition, for a person making his way in the world, a lack of emotion otherwise standard issue from birth, the lack is a handicap.  

http://www.popsci.com/can-computer-make-art

And we’re actually getting closer to that reality-- this year, IBM’s Watson helped fashion firm Marchesa design a dress for the Met Gala, suggesting directions for colors and materials.

During the production process, Marchesa gave Watson five emotions to draw from: joy, passion, excitement, encouragement and curiosity. Watson analyzed previous dresses from Marchesa, and through its tool that connects colors with emotions, designed a color palate for the garment. Watson services then were able to narrow 40,000 fabrics down to 150 choices, and provide 35 recommendations for designers.

Project Magenta aims to create truly generative music and art, writes Eck. The idea is to start with nothing but the machine, and with the click of a button suddenly have a piece of music with all the elements that a human composer would incorporate.

Magenta will also work on bringing narrative arcs into the generated music through recurring themes and characteristics of the music.

 

[From Newberry's site, on The Veil:]

 

Quote

 

The Veil

by Newberry ArtJune 3, 2016

Can a painter show the inner being? How far can transparency go? Do we have auras that surround us? Do they feel like this?

I am very happy to sign off this work, which had been unfinished for some years. Once I incorporated the smoke her body and mood came alive.

In the background is Eve, part of the Adam and Eve diptych.

 

 

[anthony]

On 2016/06/04 at 3:22 PM, Brant Gaede said:

I asked Tony and he didn't answer. He just came with something else. I think he meant "No," but why didn't he just say "No"?

--Brant

On 2016/06/04 at 3:29 PM, Brant Gaede said:

See? Tony had to put "sublime" into quotes otherwise he'd have to own knowledge of The Sublime (as an actuality or only as an idea being discussed). That's why he didn't answer with a "yes" a "no" or "I don't know."

So, Jonathan, since Tony, not being stupid or a liar, is ignorant of the Sublime, did I experience it? Yes, no or I don't know? I'd like only a simple answer. I can reconcile your answer with what you've written previously. Or, expand on your answer in a following post.

--Brant

just for the record is enough, J., because you've yet to make me think you don't know WTF you are talking about--so you don't even have to say anything at all (I'm going looking regardless) unless you don't know WTF you are talking about in which case just say you don't know WTF you are talking about so I don't waste time looking (I'll take your word)

No.

"...the Sublime...did I experience it?"

You experienced 'an emotion', one of your own making, in keeping with your values. An extreme one. (A baptism, new life and its celebration -of value- by people)."The Sublime" is merely a formal and artificial construct by a few men. Where is The Sublime, in reality? Point to it. Is a mountain imbued with sublimity? A stream, an erupting volcano? Are any of these of intrinsic value/disvalue? Nope, as with the whole universe it just is, independent of a viewer ... who might then, perceive value and emotion in them. 

Therefore, the notion of Sublimity exists in one's head only, as a range of emotional reactions to identifications: sometimes, a modicum of awe or pleasure sometimes mixed with fear, to something of a massive (etc.)scale, or of beauty. How many ways do I have to repeat this?

. 

 

[anthony]

Hell. How indeed have the Sublimists hijacked individual emotion in pursuit of men's commonality (universalizability, collectivism).