The mind body problem is an aimless problem because of the assumptions involved. Why do we continue to assume that consciousness is a process in the brain, when there is evidence against this? Correlation is not causation
You say we assume that consciousness is a process in the brain so you're missing the whole point of the issue. The mind-body Problem is the subject of the investigation! The brain is a physical organ but the conscious mind is without substance, you see? This is what Robert Cuhn is looking into.
Humans have always had dreams during their sleep. It wouldn't surprise me if art evolved because of that. A way for us to share and express the crazy visions and unlimited creativity our dreams produce, long before we had developed a language to sufficiently explain them.
I think art in and of itself is enjoyed as something without a distinct purposeful beginning nor a distinct purposeful ending. It’s enjoyed as something transcendent and eternal which appeals to the core of who we are . Although there is something strange about why we are disturbed by colors clashing. Anyway, I know of a case study where a man had severe Alzheimer’s and could only live within the same minute over and over again. Couldn’t remember his own name or his family, but could remember how to tend to his garden and he could remember music. Because art is transcendent of space and time
I saw an episode of Nova on pbs like 15-20 years ago, about strange brain disorders, and I think he was featured... if it was the same guy. He was british, and had his brain damaged by herpes virus. Only had a minute or two of short term recall, but could still play the piano like a pro for entire songs. The strangest thing on that episode was probably the guy who had a severed corpus collosum.
@@David.C.Velasquez I think that’s the one, only because I think Oliver Sacks who wrote a book about it was Britain. But when you think about it, what we call brain disorders are actually simply the unraveling of social conditioning. I think art and music appeal to something that is existentially At the core reason of why we are here or what we are capable of
Creativity is nothing more than the mind plagiarizing it’s own memories. Creativity is not the birthing of new thoughts, just recollection of experienced events. Writers block is the inability to recall something experienced, or something experienced that isn’t boring. Inspiration is a trigger of a past experience and the need to express the memory through art. The only created art is abstraction. Objectivity is mental regurgitation of experienced nouns in different arrangements.
I agree -- there is no mental (creative) content that has its origins independent of our experiences. The myth of objectivity relies on the the regular, repeating aspects of human-environment interaction (experience).
I wouldn't be sure of that. For instance think about da Vinci drawing flying machines back when no one had ever seen one. That seems to me, not yet recollection of his experiences, but rather an interesting merging on existing memories using some kind of reasoning to create a whole new experience. That's why the world creativity. It's making something that never existed before
@@themuslimview davinci juxtaposed parts of objects he was already familiar with. That’s why the flying machine looks so old fashioned. Every part of those drawings could be traced to a source. Even the concept of flight was a learned concept. His genius lies in the fact he was an excellent observer.
From my groundbreaking book, An Artist Empowered: A perspective on placing academic labels on art is eloquently revealed in the 1973 documentary Painters Painting by filmmaker Emile de Antonio who interviewed many of the figures, including Barnett Newman, who, after the Second World War, had fueled the abstract expressionism movement in New York City Barnett: “Yes, because many years ago at a conference in Woodstock that was held with a panel consisting of philosophers-aesthetes, really, professors of philosophy, professors of aesthetics-and artists, I declared that even if they were right, and even if they could build a system, an aesthetic system that they could claim explained the activity, the creative activity, it would be of no value, because aesthetics for the artist was as meaningful as ornithology must be for the birds.”
Depends on your definition of “something truly new”. According to your interpretation of the brain, the more significant problem would be could anyone recognize originality?
If the material remains the same but the algorithm changes? Then the algorithmic perceiver would have a different material whereas the artist wouldn't...the artist is the new material so to speak. Edit: I think it has to be this way because if the art was the same as what it's trying to describe then it wouldn't be original, only a copy, and the artist can perceive the original but the translation is somewhat offhand, something to be got rid of, yet this is original to the viewer of the art because their reaction is original to them.
@@projectmalus Yes, changing algorithms (= transfer functions) - I think this could be part of an explanation. Makes sense. And the algorithms are changing based on DNA, childhood, experience in life,.. and so on. Also how something is perceived (and hence stored in memory) might differ vastly for different humans which would produce different outputs. I like this idea. Thanks!
Sense of Beauty.. resides in GENES .. for survival..Evolution takes beautiful things.. it comes from "BIG BANG" origins of nature .. It is like a CLOUD OF trial and errors aiming to perfection.. that perfection is absolute beauty.. no end..for an art in appreciating the irregularities in the nature .
I posit that there exists a speed faster than light. As we evolved self awareness and language so we continue to evolve. If we adopt the 'I don't know so I won't struggle to know' attitude and throw our hands we cease to progress. The evidence indicates that we can be pretty dumb if left to our own desires. Enter the spirit.
@Id I'm wary of the nothing you include in your theory. If light is a particle it can't exist without a medium. Space is pretty vacant and apparently quite cold yet our sun gets through. I guess the received wisdom of the 'speed of light' is an agreed constant that facilitates calculations and enables descriptions of vast distances. I like the idea of 'the speed of light' plus one! When you say 'the shock waves of existence' do you mean gravitational waves?
@Id Coffee, schmoffee! Hey, what do I know? As much as the next guy, maybe more than a lot. We need theories, there's enough doctrine suppressing free ideas. I mean, flat earthers and the like..wtf? Light is a mystery, eternally fascinating. The big bang is an idea, no more real from having been turned into chalkboard speculation. Something from nothing? Enter the god concept...
You missed a great opportunity to delve into how art as communication is different than art as “beauty.” The vast majority of “successful” ancient art was communicative. Today, success in the art world relies almost exclusively on connections and art dealers. This has led much of the public perception of art away from a discussion of either element. Asking whether “art” can help us solve the mind-body problem is like asking whether addition can help us understand E=MC^2. It’s vital, yes, but only a sliver of the truth needed, and currently nobody is talking about beauty OR communication in a way that is constructive for the art world, let alone the world of neuroscience.
In a hierarchy of difficulty (with respect to success in ancient art), “religious symbolism” is the most difficult, since it has to convey ideas that often transcend our own reality. In today’s world, this takes the form of superhero and comic book art…itself a form of divine humanism. The sad part is, nobody seems to care outside of a handful of people.
I personally think it can clarify the mind body problem because I know in my head what I want to draw but my body cannot do it hence the clarification of the mind body problem. 😉
Culture, of which art is an expression, is primary. Many animals have culture. But non-human animals do not have the combination of hands, vocal chords & DNA that predispose them to COMPLEX cultures. The HUMAN mind-body combination is integral to human-level cultural complexity. And bodies wire brains... or rather, bodies predispose us to the sorts of choices & experiences that wire our neuroplastic brains (Norman Doidge - experiences wire the neuroplastic brain). A brain is just a colony of neurons, not unlike a colony of bacteria, which self-organizes subject to external stimuli. But BODIES provide the crucial interface that establishes which stimuli get to do the wiring. For humans, imitation in culture & language are central.
@@matterasmachine You generally proceed from false premises and thus take liberties with both artistic and scientific processes. My guess here is that you are neither scientist or artist. The evidence of your posted videos suggests that your narratives are digital fabrications ("AI" generated) in that while they sound competent, they are nonetheless disingenuous.
The mind body problem is an aimless problem because of the assumptions involved. Why do we continue to assume that consciousness is a process in the brain, when there is evidence against this? Correlation is not causation
Where is the evidence of which you speak?
Evidence? Lol.
You say we assume that consciousness is a process in the brain so you're missing the whole point of the issue. The mind-body Problem is the subject of the investigation! The brain is a physical organ but the conscious mind is without substance, you see? This is what Robert Cuhn is looking into.
@@robertthomas4234 NDEs…. Research them. Better still learn lucid dreaming or OBE techniques.
Humans have always had dreams during their sleep. It wouldn't surprise me if art evolved because of that. A way for us to share and express the crazy visions and unlimited creativity our dreams produce, long before we had developed a language to sufficiently explain them.
I think your art is also contributing to the clarification for most people.
I think art in and of itself is enjoyed as something without a distinct purposeful beginning nor a distinct purposeful ending. It’s enjoyed as something transcendent and eternal which appeals to the core of who we are . Although there is something strange about why we are disturbed by colors clashing. Anyway, I know of a case study where a man had severe Alzheimer’s and could only live within the same minute over and over again. Couldn’t remember his own name or his family, but could remember how to tend to his garden and he could remember music. Because art is transcendent of space and time
@Id Thanks. You can read that story I believe in the Oliver Sacks book “the man who was mistook his wife for a hat”
I saw an episode of Nova on pbs like 15-20 years ago, about strange brain disorders, and I think he was featured... if it was the same guy. He was british, and had his brain damaged by herpes virus. Only had a minute or two of short term recall, but could still play the piano like a pro for entire songs. The strangest thing on that episode was probably the guy who had a severed corpus collosum.
@@David.C.Velasquez I think that’s the one, only because I think Oliver Sacks who wrote a book about it was Britain. But when you think about it, what we call brain disorders are actually simply the unraveling of social conditioning. I think art and music appeal to something that is existentially At the core reason of why we are here or what we are capable of
After Prof.Kuhn introduction @1.40 goes a convinced like... then i can keep watching :)
Creativity is nothing more than the mind plagiarizing it’s own memories. Creativity is not the birthing of new thoughts, just recollection of experienced events.
Writers block is the inability to recall something experienced, or something experienced that isn’t boring. Inspiration is a trigger of a past experience and the need to express the memory through art.
The only created art is abstraction. Objectivity is mental regurgitation of experienced nouns in different arrangements.
I agree -- there is no mental (creative) content that has its origins independent of our experiences. The myth of objectivity relies on the the regular, repeating aspects of human-environment interaction (experience).
I wouldn't be sure of that. For instance think about da Vinci drawing flying machines back when no one had ever seen one. That seems to me, not yet recollection of his experiences, but rather an interesting merging on existing memories using some kind of reasoning to create a whole new experience. That's why the world creativity. It's making something that never existed before
@@themuslimview davinci juxtaposed parts of objects he was already familiar with. That’s why the flying machine looks so old fashioned.
Every part of those drawings could be traced to a source. Even the concept of flight was a learned concept.
His genius lies in the fact he was an excellent observer.
From my groundbreaking book, An Artist Empowered:
A perspective on placing academic labels on art is eloquently revealed in the 1973 documentary Painters Painting by filmmaker Emile de Antonio who interviewed many of the figures, including Barnett Newman, who, after the Second World War, had fueled the abstract expressionism movement in New York City
Barnett: “Yes, because many years ago at a conference in Woodstock that was held with a panel consisting of philosophers-aesthetes, really, professors of philosophy, professors of aesthetics-and artists, I declared that even if they were right, and even if they could build a system, an aesthetic system that they could claim explained the activity, the creative activity, it would be of no value, because aesthetics for the artist was as meaningful as ornithology must be for the birds.”
What I wonder is how can original art - something truly new - be generated out of a materialistic algorithm following brain. Is that even possible?
Depends on your definition of “something truly new”. According to your interpretation of the brain, the more significant problem would be could anyone recognize originality?
If the material remains the same but the algorithm changes? Then the algorithmic perceiver would have a different material whereas the artist wouldn't...the artist is the new material so to speak. Edit: I think it has to be this way because if the art was the same as what it's trying to describe then it wouldn't be original, only a copy, and the artist can perceive the original but the translation is somewhat offhand, something to be got rid of, yet this is original to the viewer of the art because their reaction is original to them.
All art is original. That makes it art.
It's not just possible. It's how they built the first pyramids right?
@@projectmalus Yes, changing algorithms (= transfer functions) - I think this could be part of an explanation. Makes sense. And the algorithms are changing based on DNA, childhood, experience in life,.. and so on. Also how something is perceived (and hence stored in memory) might differ vastly for different humans which would produce different outputs. I like this idea. Thanks!
Sense of Beauty..
resides in GENES ..
for survival..Evolution takes beautiful things..
it comes from "BIG BANG" origins of nature ..
It is like a CLOUD OF trial and errors aiming to perfection..
that perfection is absolute beauty..
no end..for an art in appreciating the irregularities in the nature .
Art is freedom.
I posit that there exists a speed faster than light. As we evolved self awareness and language so we continue to evolve. If we adopt the 'I don't know so I won't struggle to know' attitude and throw our hands we cease to progress. The evidence indicates that we can be pretty dumb if left to our own desires. Enter the spirit.
I put this in the wrong section!
@Id I'm wary of the nothing you in lude
@Id I'm wary of the nothing you include in your theory. If light is a particle it can't exist without a medium. Space is pretty vacant and apparently quite cold yet our sun gets through. I guess the received wisdom of the 'speed of light' is an agreed constant that facilitates calculations and enables descriptions of vast distances. I like the idea of 'the speed of light' plus one! When you say 'the shock waves of existence' do you mean gravitational waves?
@Id Coffee, schmoffee! Hey, what do I know? As much as the next guy, maybe more than a lot. We need theories, there's enough doctrine suppressing free ideas. I mean, flat earthers and the like..wtf? Light is a mystery, eternally fascinating. The big bang is an idea, no more real from having been turned into chalkboard speculation. Something from nothing? Enter the god concept...
The blank canvas of the mind becomes the unifying field of the artists mental projections in space.
You missed a great opportunity to delve into how art as communication is different than art as “beauty.” The vast majority of “successful” ancient art was communicative. Today, success in the art world relies almost exclusively on connections and art dealers. This has led much of the public perception of art away from a discussion of either element. Asking whether “art” can help us solve the mind-body problem is like asking whether addition can help us understand E=MC^2. It’s vital, yes, but only a sliver of the truth needed, and currently nobody is talking about beauty OR communication in a way that is constructive for the art world, let alone the world of neuroscience.
In a hierarchy of difficulty (with respect to success in ancient art), “religious symbolism” is the most difficult, since it has to convey ideas that often transcend our own reality. In today’s world, this takes the form of superhero and comic book art…itself a form of divine humanism. The sad part is, nobody seems to care outside of a handful of people.
If you’d like the full hierarchy, let me know. It’ll be part of a book, eventually, but I would be willing to share some details.
I would love to see some of these scholars being taught astral travel or lucid dreaming and then see what they would make out of their experiences.
"Taught" by who exactly?
@@atthehops by Pablo himself! Who else?!
In Mathematics, fractals like mandelbrot and julia set are for sure facsinating art
I personally think it can clarify the mind body problem because I know in my head what I want to draw but my body cannot do it hence the clarification of the mind body problem. 😉
Can you imagine if Tom Brady was named Greg? Or Peter 🤔
Mr Kuhn should try out DMT
Only if you don't think information is "stuff"
What island were they on? 13:20
Culture, of which art is an expression, is primary. Many animals have culture. But non-human animals do not have the combination of hands, vocal chords & DNA that predispose them to COMPLEX cultures. The HUMAN mind-body combination is integral to human-level cultural complexity. And bodies wire brains... or rather, bodies predispose us to the sorts of choices & experiences that wire our neuroplastic brains (Norman Doidge - experiences wire the neuroplastic brain). A brain is just a colony of neurons, not unlike a colony of bacteria, which self-organizes subject to external stimuli. But BODIES provide the crucial interface that establishes which stimuli get to do the wiring. For humans, imitation in culture & language are central.
01:05 Daniel Dennett must be like 50 cm taller than Rebecca Goldstein
I think you're the world's high priest of agnosticism.
art is a by-effect of our instinct to change the world and nothing more
Not even close!
@@mckeestudio1101 if you said so..
@@matterasmachine Art is a mode of inquiry. By nature it encompasses our instinct to know the world, and in that knowing transcend it.
@@matterasmachine You generally proceed from false premises and thus take liberties with both artistic and scientific processes. My guess here is that you are neither scientist or artist. The evidence of your posted videos suggests that your narratives are digital fabrications ("AI" generated) in that while they sound competent, they are nonetheless disingenuous.
In Godel incompleteness theory of mathematics we should understand what's it reality.
It indicates the theory of everything
Always be truth . It opens the door of knowledge.
Closer to truth contents is my Research Laboratory
NTS: 80
No. Mind body predates art.
No.... Most of it is pretentious bollocks...
Art can illuminate ignorance, which is all this "mind-body problem is".
Superb.
Cops are people too and appreciate art. So talk to them as an artist and they will appreciate you back. Thanks
@@quantumpotential7639 I agree.
@Id man, tell me where come from your so many lives?
@Id your learn in real world arena. Not in labs drinking whiskey smoking cigarettes and dream with coitus.