LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

[PensFanInDC]

So morality is outside the spectrum of physical evolution. I would think that if millions of years of evolution granted me with the perfect tools for tearing flesh with the sole purpose of eating it then it would probably be in my best interest to do so considering the length of time it took to get this way.

I think you're assuming there is some purpose to evolution. There certainly is not. It's simple adaptation to environment, nothing more. Adapt or die.

I guess in that case the incisors have a chance to evolve out with the advent of the supermarket...

[PensFanInDC]

New flash: eggs contain protein.

This just in: eggs are animal meat.

[shmenguin]

if eggs are now vegetarian, that is definitely a "News flash". I'll give you that.

[PensFanInDC]

We are considering becoming baco-ovolactovegetarians. I refuse to give up bacon (I only eat it once a week) but the rest I could go without for a while.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

I'm an equal opportunity meat eater.

Except for cat...dog...poultry because I don't like the taste...-monkeys because Ebola...a bunch of other nasty crap...

[Gaucho]

Eggs are vegetarian but not vegan. They are most definitely not meat.

[redwill]

I think you're assuming there is some purpose to evolution. There certainly is not. It's simple adaptation to environment, nothing more. Adapt or die.

I guess in that case the incisors have a chance to evolve out with the advent of the supermarket...

They certainly do have that chance. Or anything else evolving out or in. Let's talk again in ten thousand generations to see what happened.

[PensFanInDC]

I think you're assuming there is some purpose to evolution. There certainly is not. It's simple adaptation to environment, nothing more. Adapt or die.

I guess in that case the incisors have a chance to evolve out with the advent of the supermarket...

They certainly do have that chance. Or anything else evolving out or in. Let's talk again in ten thousand generations to see what happened.

Works for me. I put a reminder on my Outlook calendar. Should I have my people get in touch with yours or do we just want to make reservations now?

[shmenguin]

I think you're assuming there is some purpose to evolution. There certainly is not. It's simple adaptation to environment, nothing more. Adapt or die.

I guess in that case the incisors have a chance to evolve out with the advent of the supermarket...

They certainly do have that chance. Or anything else evolving out or in. Let's talk again in ten thousand generations to see what happened.

if it goes your way, we'll all have bewbs and prostate cancer.

[redwill]

What is the definition of 'original art'? Is it a picture of some sort (medium notwithstanding) that has never been created before? Would Starry Night minus a few brush strokes be considered original?

That's definitely part of the question. There is a division of philosophy (aesthetics) dealing with it, but I'm not really up on the arguments. I think many contend that there has to be a conscious, creative artistic intention behind the work. So, yes, a human throwing paint on a canvas with the intention of creating something is art. A cat smearing paint around on a canvas maybe is not art. Just like Hamlet by Shakespeare is art, but a computer algorithm throwing words together which happens to come up with Hamlet is not art.

Something along those lines, I think.

edit: I'll have to think about the "what's original?" question.

[Gaucho]

Yes.

[meow]

"Oh, he says he believes in art, but all I've seen him do is dribble his own blood on a canvas and smear it around with a stick!"

[PensFanInDC]

What is the definition of 'original art'? Is it a picture of some sort (medium notwithstanding) that has never been created before? Would Starry Night minus a few brush strokes be considered original?

That's definitely part of the question. There is a division of philosophy (aesthetics) dealing with it, but I'm not really up on the arguments. I think many contend that there has to be a conscious, creative artistic intention behind the work. So, yes, a human throwing paint on a canvas with the intention of creating something is art. A cat smearing paint around on a canvas maybe is not art. Just like Hamlet by Shakespeare is art, but a computer algorithm throwing words together which happens to come up with Hamlet is not art.

Something along those lines, I think.

edit: I'll have to think about the "what's original?" question.

AI is artificial intelligence. Are we assuming that creative thought is part of intelligence? Is it even possible to generate such a thing (creativity) artificially or does 'artificial' discredit any and all creativity?

[redwill]

Back to the original hypothetical question. Burning building, save Rembrandt or save cat, blah blah.

A classic response to the question is that one should save the cat, since art only imitates life but the cat is alive. Why would one save an imitation of something as opposed to the thing itself?

Others might respond that the value of art is more than just an imitation of life. It is humans demonstrating our appreciation of life. In other words, without art, the cat in a way is not alive to us, since we can't appreciate it. I mean, if we take away what it means to be human, we become like the cat. Do you think the cat appreciates the life around it in more than a simple survivalist manner? Then again, do we?

[redwill]

AI is artificial intelligence. Are we assuming that creative thought is part of intelligence? Is it even possible to generate such a thing (creativity) artificially or does 'artificial' discredit any and all creativity?

I dunno. You tell me.

Haha.

[count2infinity]

but not saving that one piece of artwork doesn't mean that art is not valuable, just like not saving that cat doesn't mean that you find life not valuable.

[redwill]

but not saving that one piece of artwork doesn't mean that art is not valuable, just like not saving that cat doesn't mean that you find life not valuable.

I know. See, that's how these philosophical things work. Get used to it. Haha.

It's supposed to get people to ask themselves what they value and why in a simple stark choice. Then they can move deeper into more important things like bewbs and prostate cancer.

[Rylan]

I would save the art over the cat personally.

[count2infinity]

well... I think if caught in a burning building, you're not thinking philosophically.

[Gaucho]

Would you save Rembrandt over a Rembrandt?

Would you save any person over any cat?

[meow]

Would you save any person over any cat?

Absolutely not.

[stopper40]

Would you save any person over any cat?

No

[redwill]

I would save Art, but he's already dead.

Spoiler:

[Gaucho]

Would you save any person over any cat?

Absolutely not.

Neither would I.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

if it was you in the building vs a cat, would you tell the saver to save the cat over you?