- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Marcus , that’s fine I just wanted to see exactly where you’re coming from
I’ve spent my life working in the arts , I’m a full time watercolour artist and occasionally oils , my work is mainly landscape and seascapes and weekly I sell my work at a weekend gallery here in Dublin .
At my weekly showings I’m surrounded by all types of art and every year more and more so called modern and abstract art is on show , the trends every year indicate that the world is slowly been won over to purely abstract art
Art colleges over here no longer teach kids to paint or draw as it’s all about “ ideas “ now , kids are encouraged to make installations and art using video and of course performance art , college kids come to me from some of the best Art colleges begging for lessons in painting , it’s tragic to say the least
Another remarkable trend is colleges world wide now offer courses in Art speak which is basically learning to talk absolute bollocks and applying it to art , huge money is made by people who can effectively use this language whilst talking to a customer about a piece of abstract art
It’s remarkable to think that in a hundred years maybe people will think that abstract and modern art were in fact the real deal and people who did not “ get it “ were just ignorant , impressionist art caused outrage when first shown and paintings were hung high so spectators would not destroy them in a rage , now look at the public and their almost universal love of impressionist art
It’s interesting to watch people in a gallery looking at modern art , men normally adopt a pose where they knowingly stroke their chin and proceed to explain to their other half what the artist is trying to “say “ the gallery owner then presents himself and shovels the bullshit using the most bizarrely nonsensical arty sounding language , a lot of times the buyers are buying to present an image of being worldly and upwardly mobile and buy the art because it’s what others are buying and it surely must be brilliant because the lovely man in the gallery used language that sounded artistically intellectual
Incidentally I caused outrage online last year by saying I detested Van Gogh and rated him as a dreadful artist ( I still do ) , his later pencil drawings were superb compared to his clumsy earlier works but showed how much he advanced in this medium as in the pencil , his paintings to me are clumsy and truly appalling
There are brutal and uncivilized people in every society if your armed they’re also armed , I would much prefer a brutal individual to be un - armed
I’m not talking about moral advancement whatever that means , do you think moral advancement is not defined by what one is allowed to do ?
If advancement is self restraint then society has a long way to go , using law to prevent people from carrying lethal weapons is what I want the law to do
A truly advanced society is one where no feels the need to carry a gun in order to walk freely and go about their day
The mistake you make here is in concluding that the complexity equals impossible complexity.
"The 29 observed reactions include the formation and/or interconversion of glucose, pyruvate, the nucleic acid precursor ribose‐5‐phosphate and the amino acid precursor erythrose‐4‐phosphate, antedating reactions sequences similar to that used by the metabolic pathways."
"We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry."
"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, cytosine, and thymine, all three components of RNA and DNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space"
"The results demonstrate that the initial dissociation of the formamide molecule could produce a large amount of highly reactive CN and NH radicals, which could further react with formamide to produce adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil."
One of the reasons we don't know yet how life originated on earth, is that there are so many ways that the processes can happen - ice, clay, space, hydrothermal vents, etc. etc.
If you would like to falsify abiogenesis - name the process that can't happen - nucleotide formation (check), lipid-based membranes (check), metabolism (check), self-replication (check), etc...
I don't know if it is more civilized to be unable to defend yourself against brutal and uncivilized people.
I tend to think that moral advancement (which is what I understand you to mean by civilized) is not a defined by what people have, or by what they are allowed to do.
I think advancement is defined by self-restraint.
Using law (and the violence implicit in enforcing that law) to prevent people from carrying firearms merely creates the illusion of advancement.
A truly advanced society would be one in which everyone carries a loaded firearm, but no one discharges it.
That is a great clip.
It is also a fascinating question.
I do not know what to think about AI, truthfully. What you are really asking comes down to "Is AI equivalent to human?"
I saw I Robot, and Sonny was as human seeming as any anthropomorphized cartoon character ever has been in a movie, but that is a result of my suspension of disbelief. That he makes art is some of what supports the audience buy-in that Sonny is essentially "human" (A "real boy" in the parlance of Pinocchio.)
I doubt that is how real AI will work. I think it will be VERY different than us.
Consider that the emotional content of human experience and expression is not based on logic, and it is not only neurological, but hormonal and visceral.
As a result, I am distrustful of the proposition that a being that cannot feel butterflies in its stomach when nervous, or is incapable of indigestion can feel real emotions, or create art by means that surpass the merely mechanical.
Marcus you have not defined what art is , you’re merely saying what art is not , so what is art ?
My observation is that in many modern academic and artistic circles, merely saying something is art has been given authority.
Often, the only way anyone would know it was supposed to be art is that it was given a title, put in a museum, and some critic/scholar/curator wrote some explanation of it in an article or museum label, regardless of whether the artifact meets any defined criteria whatsoever.
My son and I have a game we play in the modern art galleries of museums.
We stand in front of some mundane, purely functional object, for example, a fire extinguisher or drinking fountain mounted on the wall, or we contemplate a green exit sign mounted above a doorway, and then, in earnest tones, talk about it as if it is on exhibit.
. Me: The artist is clearly making a comment on modern man's frustration with societies sexual mores. The red cylinder, an obvious phallic reference, is constrained by a gauge, a handle, and a directable nozzle. This symbolizes the control society seeks to exert over men's sexual urges.
. My Son: Oh, clearly you are correct. This theme is further reinforced by the fact that society has put male sexuality into a closed box with a glass front, so we can see the male sexual self, but it is contained, separate from society, unable to express itself.
. Me: The artist even made a pun, writing on the case that imprisons the phallus 'In case' of emergencies, break glass.' This symbolizes the fragility of societies sexual rules, and a tacit admission that men are only wanted when there is grave societal need of masculine services, like war.
. My Son: This is a complex piece. There is a subtext about feminine power. The penis is painted red, a clear reference to menstruation. The case symbolizes the vagina, called a 'box' in slang, and the case is also a literal box. The male power is locked in the vagina....
And so on...
People can think anything is art if they want, and I am fine with that.
But that does not mean I won't make fun of them for it.
I would agree with you except for all the evidence. You know all that falsifiable information collected by thousands of scientitst over hundreds of years and across multiple scientific disciplines. You can’t go to a philosopher and be like so what makes everything untrue? And he says well all information is biased by the interpretation of the evidence and everything is just an opinion that is falsifiable by other with differing opinions. And then use that philosophical position to refute actual scientists. These people that use thier brains to think and come up with new ideas, if they had to listen to your demarcation argument would just laugh and turn away because there is no point in arguing with an idiot because they will just drag you down to their level.
You contradict this by now stating what you claim art is
The "what art is" post is additive to the "what art is not" post, halves of a whole.
Marcus you stated ......Pollack's work is not art.
Neither is a host of other works commonly classify as art........
My definition is not law by any means. It is just how I look at it.
I don't see evidence of intent in Pollack.
I don't see evidence of skill or discipline in Rothko.
Neither Serra nor Duchamp made the pieces I discussed.
Serrano did something we would try to keep special education students from doing. If Michelangelo had sculpted David in his own feces, I would not consider it art for the same reason.
However, as far as I am concerned, people can call anything art.
This debate seems oddly vacant if refuting positions. This is weird. I said I wouldnt ban anybody for any reason and the response is nothing, no opposition.
I’ve already been banned in like 3 debates because I was making insanely good points but I didn’t answer the question. But not one of those little Peter puffers is here to refute our positions. Looks like we won by a landslide, not a surprise but definitively an indication of real life attitudes.
Following your ridiculous logic it should be legal for citizens to own tanks and missiles. Furthermore, the idea of winning an armed conflict against the United States government is deranged but I urge you to walk your tough talk and give it a shot but you and I both know that you don’t have the balls, your just another right wing blowhard making a fool out of himself. Lastly, your idol, Cliven Bundy is a turd who was given nearly free grazing on federal land and was living the American dream at taxpayers expense but even that government gift wasn’t good enough for the welfare cheat. The whole family is a genetically damaged mess.
If Cliven Bundy and his inbred sons and friends had been any other color they would have all been shot down like deranged dogs.
Typical gun nut NRA jungo babble.
and....uh....you conveniently neglected to mention that gun deaths have plummeted since the Aussies banned guns twenty years ago. And that they have not had One mass shooting.
Can a fellow christian answer this unanswered question which I ask many of you guys?
Since the basic doctrine of the christian faith is Trinity, Why there isn't a clear statement in the bible where it clearly says for example: "God is three" or "I am God. So worship me!" So people won't be confused about if Jesus is God or not.
While in Islam, you would find so many statements in the quran saying clearly that "God is one" or "He has no partner", since the basic doctrine of the Islamic faith is the belief in the oneness of God.
Seems like the first cell or cells evolved by chance:
The most important things for a cell are oxygen in order to respire and Glucose, also for respiration. This is used in a process called glycolysis where the cell makes a chemical called ATP which is basically our energy. But then in order for the cell to live and make all its components and proteins and release hormones etc you need lots of essential amino acids (there are 20 in total and put together in the right order they make almost all of you) The cell also needs water because that is what all the chemical reactions take place in. It needs fats because it is surrounded by a fatty membraneto protect it and it needs small amounts of metals because most enzymes have a metal atom at the heart of it and enzymes do all the cutting and gluing and controlling of us. So basically a cell needs lots to stay alive.
The prefect environment for a cell to survive can't exist by chance. Also a cell can't adapt if the environment lacks one of these ingredients. Eventually, it will die which means it cannot evovle in order to adapt with the lack of one of the ingredients.
This is Science ladies and gentlemen. And how life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory: It is an unfalsifiable theory.
"Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of testing or observing it to showcase how false or how true it is. They are falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which could negate them and in the corollary, conceive of an observation or an argument which proves them. Thus, the term falsifiability is synonymous to testability."
Now here is the best part:
"The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is UNFALSIFIABLE is classified as UNSIENTIFIC, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is PSEUDOSCIENCES"
Ok I admit it's not a theory; It's something worse :p