Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

But the symphony emanates from the human soul, and can only be perceived as a symphony by the soul.

A web is just a physical thing emanating from the natural instinctive behaviour of the spider.

Only if 'soul' is code for 'brain' (in this case Beethoven's brain).

[Nearly Sane]

The reason for our existence is in fact very clearly stated in the divine revelations of scripture. Which is aptly summed up in my memory of the penny catechism:
God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

You were overcharged. Severely.

[Alan Burns]

You didn't answer : does Beethoven's Seventh exist and if so, where is it ?  Where does the design for the spider web reside ?

Beethoven's Seventh originates in the creative imagination of the composer, not in a pattern of physical brain activity defined by unguided deterministic events.

The design of the spider's web is physically programmed into the spider's brain and can be replicated by all similar spiders.

The composition of Beethoven's Seventh is unique to the composer.

This aptly illustrates another feature which identifies humans as different to other animals.  Every human being can demonstrate a creative ability unique to that individual.  (My posts are like no one else's!).  Any observed creativity in animals is common to the species, indicating a programmed instinctive behaviour.

[Anchorman]

If you want bang for your buck, try the Shorter Catechism....... http://www.opc.org/sc.html (Or, alternatively, a Lagavulin.)

[Nearly Sane]

If you want bang for your buck, try the Shorter Catechism....... http://www.opc.org/sc.html (Or, alternatively, a Lagavulin.)

I will happily buy you the Lagavulin (and we must sort out, Gordon, Gonnagle) hope you had a blessed Christmas and the new born year kisses you with felicity.

[torridon]

Beethoven's Seventh originates in the creative imagination of the composer, not in a pattern of physical brain activity defined by unguided deterministic events.

The design of the spider's web is physically programmed into the spider's brain and can be replicated by all similar spiders.

The composition of Beethoven's Seventh is unique to the composer.

This aptly illustrates another feature which identifies humans as different to other animals.  Every human being can demonstrate a creative ability unique to that individual.  (My posts are like no one else's!).  Any observed creativity in animals is common to the species, indicating a programmed instinctive behaviour.

Again, you didn't answer : does Beethoven's Seventh exist and if so, where is it ?  Where does the design for the spider web reside ?

Each spider web is unique; they share common design characteristics that are particular to each species but you won't find two identical ones.  So it is with symphonies, they broadly share a common overall structure and character and style, but each one is unique.

[Alan Burns]

Again, you didn't answer : does Beethoven's Seventh exist and if so, where is it ?  Where does the design for the spider web reside ?

They both exist only in conscious human perception.  The sound waves can only be perceived as a symphony by humans, similarly the spider's web can only be perceived as a design in human perception.

[Alan Burns]

So it is with symphonies, they broadly share a common overall structure and character and style, but each one is unique.

Can you honestly say that the works of Bach and Stockhausen share a common overall structure and character and style?

[Sebastian Toe]

Can you honestly say the works of Bach and Stockhausen share a common overall structure and character and style

He said , broadly, or did you miss that bit?

[Alan Burns]

He said , broadly, or did you miss that bit?

I do not think the word "broadly" can be used to cover up such stark differences in human creativity.

[Sebastian Toe]

I do not think the word "broadly" can be used to cover up such stark differences in human creativity.

Well, I do.
Maybe your 'creativity, and 'imagination' are stifled by something?

[torridon]

Can you honestly say that the works of Bach and Stockhausen share a common overall structure and character and style?

<pedantry>eerm, well neither Bach nor Stockhausen wrote any symphonies at all, iirc</pedantry>

Well, pedantry over, if a composer calls his piece a 'symphony', in his mind at least, the work does conform to a certain style in terms of structure and instrumentation and compositional style. Likewise for 'cantata', 'sonata', 'requiem' etc.  What, otherwise, would be the point in having such terms ?

[torridon]

They both exist only in conscious human perception.  The sound waves can only be perceived as a symphony by humans, similarly the spider's web can only be perceived as a design in human perception.

Music exists in the perception of other animals too.  Most creatures are unmoved by manmade music as it falls outside their range of tonal dynamics, but clearly birds respond to birdsong, coming up with their own variations on themes. The animal that responds most emotionally to human music is perhaps the one that has for the longest co-evolved with humans - the dog.  Research suggests that dogs respond in a calming manner to classical music but get aggressive or agitated by heavy metal.  The same emotional responses as us, broadly speaking.

[Gordon]

I do not think the word "broadly" can be used to cover up such stark differences in human creativity.

So, would you say the term 'art' is quite precise or does it have a broader meaning?

[Alan Burns]

<pedantry>eerm, well neither Bach nor Stockhausen wrote any symphonies at all, iirc</pedantry>

Well, pedantry over, if a composer calls his piece a 'symphony', in his mind at least, the work does conform to a certain style in terms of structure and instrumentation and compositional style. Likewise for 'cantata', 'sonata', 'requiem' etc.  What, otherwise, would be the point in having such terms ?

I think you have missed the point.
I was just illustrating that human creativity is infinitely more diverse than any perceived creativity in the animal world, because it does not emanate from programmed instincts, but conscious free will. We are the free spirits of our human souls.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you have missed the point.
I was just illustrating that human creativity is infinitely more diverse than any perceived creativity in the animal world, because it comprises something which does not emanate from programmed instincts.

you use the word infinitely like Jimmy Savile would use a five year old child

[floo]

you use the word infinitely like Jimmy Savile would use a five year old child

Oh come on, it isn't fair to compare Alan with that pervert Savile!

[torridon]

I think you have missed the point.
I was just illustrating that human creativity is infinitely more diverse than any perceived creativity in the animal world, because it does not emanate from programmed instincts, but conscious free will. We are the free spirits of our human souls.

if I were free to write great symphonies then I would have done it already and be world famous by now.  Brilliant ideas do not spring from free will. Do you imagine Einstein came up with special relativity because he had free will ?

[Alan Burns]

if I were free to write great symphonies then I would have done it already and be world famous by now.  Brilliant ideas do not spring from free will. Do you imagine Einstein came up with special relativity because he had free will ?

Yes, of course.
How could he ever have come up with his theory without the freedom to consciously drive his own thoughts?

We all have been blessed with different gifts, and the freedom to use them as we so wish.

[torridon]

Yes, of course.
How could he ever have come up with his theory without the freedom to consciously drive his own thoughts?

We all have been blessed with different gifts, and the freedom to use them as we so wish.

But you claim we all have free will, so why have we not all come up the relativity theory ?  We do not consciously choose to have brilliant ideas, otherwise if that were the case we would be having brilliant ideas all the time.  Brilliant ideas come to us out of lower depths of mind, we cannot choose to have them.  I think you are mixing up free will with creativity.  Free will, in the everyday sense, is the ability to override instinctive behaviours. Creativity springs from imagination, the ability to do what-if abstracted scenarios in mind.  Corvids are good at this : they show creativity in repurposing twigs to use as tools, although they haven't written any good symphonies yet as far as I know.  But they do display a rudimentary unlearned creativity.

[Alan Burns]

But you claim we all have free will, so why have we not all come up the relativity theory ? 

We are limited by our physical attributes as to what we can achieve.  The body is a complex biological machine capable of many different things, and every body will have different strengths and weaknesses.  But it can still be driven by the gift of free will of the human soul to utilise our attributes, or indulge in our weaknesses as we so wish.  Einstein could have chosen to just lead a comfortable ordinary life without using his gifts if he so wished - this is free will.

[Enki]

But you claim we all have free will, so why have we not all come up the relativity theory ?  We do not consciously choose to have brilliant ideas, otherwise if that were the case we would be having brilliant ideas all the time.  Brilliant ideas come to us out of lower depths of mind, we cannot choose to have them.  I think you are mixing up free will with creativity.  Free will, in the everyday sense, is the ability to override instinctive behaviours. Creativity springs from imagination, the ability to do what-if abstracted scenarios in mind.  Corvids are good at this : they show creativity in repurposing twigs to use as tools, although they haven't written any good symphonies yet as far as I know.  But they do display a rudimentary unlearned creativity.

Actually the new Caledonian crow seems exceptionally good at not only utilising tools but using them to access other tools. The following is well worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVaITA7eBZE

This seems to show an ability for forward thinking, for retaining important ideas in memory(at least in the short term, the working memory), self correcting and an awareness of the potential usefulness of objects within the environment. All these attributes, I suggest, are a long way from the idea of simple basic instincts.

It is also interesting to note that bird brains are not primitive undeveloped versions of mammalian brains. The bird brain looks very different to the mammalian brain(not surprising as they have evolved separately from mammals for more than 300 million years), but they do have their own elaborate cortex like neural system suggesting the ability to show complex behaviour, which is shown in a variety of species, from grackles to pigeons, and, not least, in the way they utilise singing/calling.

[Alan Burns]

Corvids are good at this : they show creativity in repurposing twigs to use as tools, although they haven't written any good symphonies yet as far as I know.  But they do display a rudimentary unlearned creativity.

But the fact that many Corvids work in a similar manner indicates that their ability is a physical attribute which is inherited.

The stark difference with human creativity is that each human can display unique attributes of creativity which are not repeated in their peers.  If our creativity was dependent on the physical attributes of inheritance, we would all display similar forms of creativity.  But this is not the case, which would indicate that human creativity is not entirely defined by physical attributes, but by something non physical which is not bound by the deterministic rules of science.

[Nearly Sane]

But the fact that many Corvids work in a similar manner indicates that their ability is a physical attribute which is inherited.

The stark difference with human creativity is that each human can display unique attributes of creativity which are not repeated in their peers.  If our creativity was dependent on the physical attributes of inheritance, we would all display similar forms of creativity.  But this is not the case, which would indicate that human creativity is not entirely defined by physical attributes, but by something non physical which is not bound by the deterministic rules of science.

'Stark difference' asserted with no justification. In what way is 'human creativity' not defined by physical attributes? Stop just making assertions and attempt some form, any form of argument.

Just to take one example change here in your statement about corvids to humans and it is just as true 'But the fact that many Corvids humans work in a similar manner indicates that their ability is a physical attribute which is inherited.' But you dishonestly approach it as different.

[wigginhall]

Now, now, pedants, the Assertatron is in full swing, and nothing should disturb its evidence-free, fact-free, argument-free journey through the Slough of guesswork, and the Hill of dishonesty, and the Valley of wishful thinking.   It's a fun-filled pilgrim's progress!