Spirituality In The Artistic Sense

ossobuco wrote:

In my opinion the first definition has nada to do with spirituality.

Both definitions of spiritual are straight out of the dictionary.

local monolith realtor!)

Doktor S wrote:

To recognise it AS art, yes.
That I would say.

OK. Then let's do an experiment

For the sake of argument would you be willing to accept that a sophisticated enough computer program could be wholly rational and exempt non-rationalities, and therefore be a fair portrayal of the rational part of your mind?

Chumly wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

To recognise it AS art, yes.
That I would say.

OK. Then let's do an experiment

For the sake of argument would you be willing to accept that a sophisticated enough computer program could be wholly rational and exempt non-rationality's, and therefore be a fair portrayal of the rational part of your mind?

Hmm..bit of a loaded question there.
Considering we don't even understand how the rational mind works yet, I'm not sure how to answer.
Your question also seems to suggest that we are capable of separating fully our rational mind from 'the rest' in practice.
I don't think I'm willing to accept that premise.
Where are you going with this?

In answer to your question, I am firstly trying to get you to see that (at least in the hypothetical sense) that is its possible (for argument's sake, if nothing else) for the rational and non rational to be discrete. If not in your mind as you know it, then in an externalized format. So the question is not as loaded as you perhaps make it out to be.

On that basis I have said the rational process might be achievable with a sophisticated enough computer. So here is where you would need to agree in order for me to move forward !

1) Personally I would be willing to argue that such a computer is achievable in the real world sense, in the not too distant future, and others such as Kurzweil and Minsky support my contention, but that is somewhat of another matter and not the point at hand.

2) Also I would like to point out that you do not need to fully understand how the rational mind works in order to build a computer that functions on that basis. In fact in designing this computer, the builders themselves need not understand it fully, but again that is not precisely the point at hand.

Oh but I do see them as very distinct from each other in functionality and method. I just don't know that they can be separated, or even how one may function free of the other. Would a rational mind free of all emotional stimuli react the same as we would expect? Kinda hard to say until it is tested, which if not impossible, to my knowledge is beyond our means at this time.

I would need to tack a few qualifiers on there to get close to agreeing. First, we would need an understanding of how the mind works. Second, we may need to feed the computer some sort of approximation of emotional stimulation to make it mimic the human mind, as per above.
Third, we would need to assume computer technology could achieve this, which is still hotly debated.
But ok, given all those things I could agree to said premise.

An easy argument to make (easier still for those of us with a bachelors in comp science) but you can't argue something into reality. Just ask the theists, they have been trying for centuries.

Even if no one person understands everything, a total understanding would be needed for the schematic in order to produce an accurate approximation of human reasoning.

Agreed, but I have something to argue with that the theists do not appear to have, i.e. past and present exponential growth of computer power and sophistication, hence my arguments have real world substance and precedence.

This is not needed. Why? Because even with today's computers and software (although the hardware cannot reconfigure itself YET) the software can "learn" to some degree. So we have the concept of a computer designing / redesigning itself (at least in part without direct human understanding) in an evermore able form, plus as mentioned we have the Turing test: it if quacks like a duck…

Quote:

What does your rational mind tell you about something that is inherently art first and foremost?

Not a lot. I appreciate art as art.

Oh, I know for a fact software exists that can adapt and 'learn' It isn't a thing of the future, but of the present. The technology is there, and I can very easily foresee thinking reasoning machines in the sooner than you think future.
My contention here is that I don't see any reason to believe their 'thinking' would in any way reflect our own. To build a machine that acurately reflects 'human' reasoning is something wholly different from a machine that reasons.

What does your rational mind tell you about something that is inherently art first and foremost?

Not a lot.

OK. Would it then be fair to say that you use your non-rational mind to recognize the art in question, and your rational mind to categorize it?

To recognise it AS art, yes. That I would say.