Life is not a requirement for existence.
You donât know what life isâŚbecause you only exist because you need to exist to claim that you donât existâŚYou still believe Descartes claim âI am binary electrical signals,therefore I am binary electrical signalsâ
You still believe that you are a lifeless binary processing biological machine which only exists.
The lifeless binary processing biological machine is a representation of reality (a non illusion) NOT a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion).
That is correct. I was confused with the previous statements, but now it is clear.
No. I meant it in a literal sense.
Life is not required for something to exist.
The literal interpretation of what you said would be that no inanimate matter exists because everything in existence is alive.
1 Like
Not everything in existence is alive if its dead.
Oh, sorry, you are responding to Jupiter123âŚ
Nevermind, I agree with your statement.
1 Like
You spelled âspelledâ wrong. Spelt is a type of grass..
fair enoughâŚNaill
Youâre good at this. How did you find one to render the text so perfectly?
I used the AI image generator of Adobe. The previous images were done with chatgpt. With so much AI on the internet, everyone can become an artist 
It certainly has improved much over the last few years, things that used to present big problems donât seem to at all anymore. I always like to ponder thoughâwhat prompt did the person use? What did they tell it to create?
Itâs probably better left a mystery, after all, thatâs where the human creativity comes in, it doesnât always need an explanation, just a result.
Personally, I donât mind it being used for this, itâs not masquerading as art, and is obviously generated. Itâs when itâs passed off as âartâ that I shake my head. Humans introduce âhappy little accidentsâ, as Bob Ross used to call them, and thatâs what makes our creations more human, and in my opinion, much more interesting to look at.
But I am off-topic, again.
2 Likes
I will never really understand this sentiment.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. I mean⌠my brother in christ⌠you live in THIS reality:
I mean i am sorry, but one of the things i abhor the most in life is applied double standards.
We either settle on the fact that anything can be art as long as the observer gets something out of observing it, or art is just a product based on materials used and time/effort spent.
Of course art is subjective, as is my opinion on it, and what I offered, was just my opinionâthatâs why I opened it with âpersonallyâ.
Practically any creative assembly can be called artâas long as one person considers it to be art, then it is. Practically any assembly of noises can be called music, as long as one person can hear it, and appreciate it as such, then it is.
Personally, I donât think there is much imagination involved in duct-taping a banana to something. For me it feels more like a lampoon than an actual creative statement, but hey, thatâs just me. Anything can be interpreted as âmaking a statementâ, but what is the statement, and how was the end result interpreted as beauty? Does beauty have to be involved at all? Are Francis Baconâs works beautiful? Perhaps things just have to be interesting?
My argument is that art is not a process that can be industrialised or automated. When that happens, something is lost, something important which can be hard to pin down, but itâs missing nonetheless.
I agree that if the observer gets something out of it, and derives some meaning, then it is art. But I have my own standards, not double-standards, just my standards. You will have your own.
1 Like
I dont think that our âopinionsâ are opposites or different.
Here, let me see if i can steelman your position:
Wouldnt it be more accurate to say that art (as in capital letter ART) is a tool of self-expression and thus requires a human (or other self aware entity) that wants to express something through it?
A transformative process if you will.
Expressing emotion, story, thought in alternate means. Stories, sculptures, images, etc.
Because i CAN by all means acknowledge that higher form of standard for âARTâ
Its just that as someone who has done AI art for two years, i had such an amount of insults and double standards poured onto me that i start tripping whenever i hear someone loosely sling these concepts around⌠f me, i guess if you want to say it that way i got triggered.
Was not meant as an offense or critique towards you though.
Just kinda tired of living in a world where âNOTHINGâ can be sold as art for tens of thousands of dollars but f my parents for creating me because i dared to set up a locally ran AI for myself and learn how to do illustrations with it.
EDIT: Anw, done with offtopic. Sorry.
That never happens to me on here, ever..
I see where youâre coming from, and my compromise is that as long as the human skilfully plants the seeds, at least, then the AI is capable of producing art. If the human is removed from the equation, then the output is just the result of a process that mimics but cannot replace the human imagination. Thatâs my take on it (so far).
Also done with off-topic, maybe a separate thread is in order?
1 Like
Well, do not worry about the off-topic, Jupiter123 has entered the thread 
You both have good points.
I believe that AI will eventually change many standards on our society. Maybe in our days we still want to keep our âpraise for artâ to strict human creations, but this perhaps will change with the continuous advancement of AI.
If we develop AI with artificial feelings, prepare to have AI battles on philosophical topics (including objective vs subjective morality).
There is a lot that needs to be emulated there. Do we even understand ourselves what it would be trying to emulate? For me, I think youâve just hit the crux of the matter, true art emerges from feeling, not just knowing.
1 Like
Moral absolutes have been defined by God already.Didnât you know?
God doesnât define himself just like he doesnât create himself. There is no morality without persons, and persons are objectively real.