@Hazarth what entities “are”? Nobody questions the existence, this is merely an insight that demonstrates the discrete nature

@darkwind that Yakubovich stuff hit really close to home

You have a really good website

@constantanxiety bro calm the fuck down, four eggs? Your kidney probably works like a horse

@darksideofyay sorry

@darksideofyay also, I feel like you’re trying to say that only because something is metaphysical, it’s speculative or useless. This is not the case, otherwise you won’t have a chance to know what this word means.

Secondly, I never invented anything I said here. I merely brought what we know about art.

I’m happy to talk about it, but I’m sad to see sort of attacks like this. They are understandable though, because changing worldview takes an ungodly amount of energy, and the brain is trying to save as much energy as possible, replying to an information that requires such changes with aggression.

@darksideofyay Now, to subjectivity. Beauty is found out to be objective after all. Beautiful art piece is inherently beautiful, and we don’t need a consensus. Again, the language can’t keep up, so there is intrinsic beauty (objective) and perceived beauty (subjective). The latter you can pronounce in words, the former cannot be described because the barrier between your neocortex (e.g. you) is literally there physically, and ancient sense of beauty that predates humans is obviously deeper, it lays under the neocortex.

Just like you can’t describe with words how the heart beat signal does feel, you can’t describe objective beauty. But it’s still there. It found out to influence deeper, more fundamental things like the feeling of pain, mental health, that sort of thing. Objectively beautiful piece has the same influence on all humans without exceptions.

I recommend the Kurzegsagt video on beauty.

@darksideofyay I’ll give you just one example.

James Hampton spent 15-something years building his throne out of rubbish he collected. He was all alone, never showing the piece and never intending to. The throne was discovered when he died, yielding astonishing insight to the art scene. If you want to play subjective, then the throne is definitely art because of a consensus, just like any art pieces.

The throne didn’t became art just when it was discovered. It was art from the very beginning. Thus, observer can be left out and nothing would change.

I recommend Atrocity Guide’s video on James Hampton.

@Hastouki I laughed way more than I should.

@G4nin0 Or, if we build a sophisticated enough neural network that’ll _want_ to make art, and we never tell it about the concept of observers, yes, it will make true art.

You don’t have to be a human to make art. Art is not inherently centered around humans.

@G4nin0 expressing your own vision without thinking about external validation is a process that unlocks the vision itself. This is why it’s so special, it leaves traces in the piece itself, and it makes all the difference. Dishonesty absolutely cannot work here.

If we leave an observer out, then yes, theoretically we can generate art, but to do that, we should either emulate intricate processes that occur inside of artist’s brain, we don’t have simulate the consciousness itself tho, as these processes are on higher level of abstraction. The trick is artists can’t quite explain them, it means the processes are deeper and more ancient than consciousness itself.

Also, we have to simulate lack of external validation on that system. I have no fucking idea how to do it.

@G4nin0 I’ll try to invent a metaphor.

Imagine you developed a programming language, but never developed a compiler. You only have a paper that explains the language.

Is it a programming language then?

Well, yes! It was the case with ALGOL-68 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...).

It’s a classical example that is traced back to that popular eastern philosophy riddle about a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it falling. The riddle insists that the tree falling wouldn’t make any sound just because there is no one to hear it.

This smells making an observer something special, introducing another variable that otherwise is not needed. A classic example of treating humans as if god designed the world just for them.

We know there’ll still be a sound. Observer is not something special. Physical processes don’t care about observers.

In art, it’s something similar. The beauty is still beauty even if there’s no one to contemplate it.

@Root on a serious note, try making an art piece yourself. You're a smart person that been through a lot, you got all the prerequisites.

Start slow and insecure, thinking about reception, but continue working past that, you can even work just when you're in the mood, and it doesn't matter if it takes years.

One by one, thoughts about reception will shatter, and you'll only care about the piece itself and finding ways to express your vision.

When you're done, you'll feel that what you did is beautiful, because it was _you_. It wouldn't matter if anyone sees it or not. It's now your personal, hidden gem that is perfect.

Now, it's art.

@Root doesn’t explain business because money is the end goal

@G4nin0 art is art even without an observer.

@hitko cynicism is not an option

@piratefox Piet Mondrian was a perfectionist. Months after months he moved straight lines around until it’s perfect.

If you have talent and you spend very long time working on your piece, you’ll achieve what you want (because you’re talented), no matter how high is the bar.

When you give it, your piece shines so brightly it’s visible from another galaxies. People will bow to its sheer complexity and beauty, as the sense of beauty is objective and it predates dinosaurs.

Different people, no matter their background and knowledge, would contemplate it and won’t look away even if they don’t understand what’s so special about what they look at.

This is how art is born. Around it, people feel the presence, the magnificence and glory as it speaks to their inner unconscious mechanisms that are as powerful as the ancient signal that makes your heart beat.

@BixelPitch I’m bipolar, and quetiapine-300 and lamotrigine are the reasons I can live at least without constant dizziness, grief and derealization. My treatment hasn’t changed my personality in the slightest. It merely set it free.

@BixelPitch meds absolutely don’t change who you are, except for one specific disorder — schizophrenia. Other than that, your personality flourishes when you take the correct medication that is adequate for your disorder.

Depression brings a huge penalty on your intelligence. Correct treatment mitigates that penalty, so you can think clean and really be who you are. Anyone who denies that is just misinformed.

@BixelPitch it's good, but that's the catch with mental disorders — they don't care about your actions at all. If you feel worthless because of a mental disorder, no action can make you feel otherwise.

@thirdworld bipolar disorder doesn’t care about your salary :(

@sariel I did that when I was studying C. I was fifteen.

Fuck me like you hate me

@Demolishun you literally can without any malnutrition. My post is here to dismantle all that radical myths from vegans who hate everyone and anti-vegans who hate everyone who is a vegan.

You can absolutely live off plants if only you consume B12, the only thing that cannot be derived from raw plants.

@Root is right, as usual.

@darksideofyay I don’t know what to say to you. What you said is a blatant generalization that has no chance in hell to be even remotely true.

It reminds me of my stupid psychologist friend of a friend. Their clients are mainly programmers, and they’re not liking them because programmers earn more than psychologists.

And that person were presenting me the notion that the whole society consists of “programmers” (smartass cynical guys with unfairly high salaries) and “psychologists” (the good guys).

Of your comment I get the same vibe. Though we are on the same page as we both don’t like oppression

When I read “Mexico” I felt like some political business is coming, but I didn’t expect it to be this funny. Have a ++

There is something in the concept of suicide that really attracts me

@NickyBones I think there are many, but their distribution is really uneven.

So, if you want to treat all genders the same, you should realize that under the hood personalities are identical as far as your interface concerned. But to realize that and look past gender, you should have basic conceptual thinking (X and Y look different, but inside they are the same).

If you don't have it, yes, you treat people with other gender than you differently, because you literally only see their gender.

Eclipse? what's next, fucking codeblocks? or maybe borland turbo visual java?