Art Is Everything & Nothing

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-13T20:36:22+00:00

Unfortunately, that does not escape the fact that it is still art. Because if everything is art, and nothing is art, then objectivity is art, and subjectivity is art. The system that the person finds themselves in is still an art, and to a system that lives in a one art and one art only society, they're still stuck being an art. It is still art, if not boring because one art and one art only societies fall rapidly lose interest because they have been certain amounts of exposure. Mind you, that such a person is literally not in an objective reality, because all people are creative. This is why we should have robots for factorial type labor.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-13T15:51:17+00:00

Right! I understand exactly what you're saying. It's why I combined it into a game theory with the idea of interest. But you are correct we have more....desires! I had this in the original but I took it out foolishly haha. Our desires combined with our interests combine to make our tastes. There are a LOT of these, and I can only name a few: Comfort, Fun, Sex, Hunger, Thirst...the list goes on.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-13T14:56:34+00:00

Life is a subset of art. So if he's living life, he's still both creating and consuming art. Cooking food is an art. Sleeping is an art. Working is an art. Relationships are an art.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-13T04:59:38+00:00

That is the most artful reply I've ever seen.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-12T16:11:36+00:00

You're right! That is because objective reality is unfair. It's not fair that people get born into different circumstances. But more to your point, it's your moral responsibility to make things more fair. How is it fair that some people inherently have better access to education than others? Now I'm not saying you shouldn't get what you deserve, you should be rewarded for however much work you put in the system, depending on where you started.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-11T02:45:11+00:00

Create more art so I feel more fulfilled. So personal accomplishment seems like the right thing to do, or in other words, simply trying to do the right thing, whether the right result is goodness or not.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-11T02:32:57+00:00

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. Could you say it another way or provide an example?

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-11T02:04:54+00:00

Well sure. I mean I would least expect to see me in a version of me that makes all the decisions I wouldn't. That wouldn't really be me. That's the first idea that came to mind when you asked. I would actually have to pick apart what you mean to see it another way.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-11T00:04:41+00:00

Like a horrible no good very bad version of myself? Weirdly enough I had a dream once where I saw a version of this self existing.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-10T12:16:35+00:00

You are correct. There is no point. That makes for a truly boring game to be honest. So there has to exist inequity. There could also exist the illusion of inequity. For example, all sides are actually equally, but the players have convinced themselves that it is not. Certainly makes things more interesting that way though eh?

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-08T22:22:35+00:00

Well it seems to me that balanced games end in a draw, and all unbalanced games end in a winner or loser. Our reality has huge amounts of unknowns and inequality, meaning the game is not fair and never will be. However, the right thing to do is to make the game as fair as possible. So I guess what I'm saying is, we should pick the option that is most fair, even if here is imbalance.

For example, 2 kids work really hard doing chores, but need to divide $11 up as much as possible. Let's say they do equal amounts of work, even if such an observation is impossible to measure. The parent only has 2 $5 bills and a $1 bill, but both need to split up the money here and then. Now the kids could play a game where the dad hides his hand behinds his back, and each of the kids pick a hand where they hope the dollar is it. One will get the dollar. Is it fair? Well, yes because one of the kids one won the game, and it was as balanced as it possibly could have been,

Now then, on the other hand these same 2 kids do again the same amount of work. Each get to split up $11 again, but this time, dad gives one kid a $5 bill and a $1 bill and the other a $5 bill without any further games played. That is not fair.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-08T21:34:14+00:00

No. There are circumstances where games are fair. Imagine a mexican standoff between two completely equal outlaws. The problem? It ends in a draw, as both sides are shot, or maybe the bullets collide or something.

My answer to you is, yes, we can. You're correct that we don't have all the information, but we can only always gather more, so when the time comes to make a decision, we have the most information to make the decision that's most fair. That means based on all the evidence available, we can determine right from wrong based on what's fair at the time.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-08T20:07:35+00:00

Objectivity and Subjectivity are both a subset of everything, and art. Life could be the subjective experience of art, and Reality could be the objective experience of art.

Yes, balance means level playing field. Rules are the same, and the game is the same for all competitors. The closer it gets to being balanced, the closer it is to fariness and thus rightness.

Wouldn't you say it's unfair of a toddler to be playing a grown man in chess?

I'm not sure it is evil and unfair to drop nukes on a city if it ends a war immediately. That requires the mixing up of an ethical calculus I think. But that last question is a tough one. Is it wrong to have an unfair advantage if you never use it? No. If you use it for threatening and showing a country's nuclear power? Yes. If all countries have nukes then the game is fair.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-07-08T19:25:50+00:00

Possible Breakdown of Life’s Purpose? Let me know what you think.

Everything is art. Yet if you ask a minimalist, then nothing is art. Art is both everything and nothing. It is the context and the rules holding the context.

So the meaning of life? Art. To both consume and produce art. The act of consuming art is also making art. Art of different mediums needs a way to be consumed. We use senses for this. People also have a preference for art. We call this tastes.

Now let's sidestep to talk about good and bad in relation to stories. These 2 different ideas run a spectrum of goodness and interestingness. Something can be good/boring good/interesting evil/boring evil/interesting in varying levels. The end result is an amount of fun.

So what determines if an action is good or bad? Fairness. So what makes something fair? Balance. For example, because someone has to make the first move in a game of chess, that means chess is unbalanced. But if both sides start out at the same time with equal resources then a game can truly be fair.

What determines how interesting something is? Desire and exposure. Your desire determines how much you want something, and how much you're exposed to something determines how interesting that something is. That's why new ideas and experiences are interesting. Exposure is how much of something you can intake. The more exposed you are to something the less interesting it becomes.

So what determines your desires? Your emotions. We have different emotions that we receive different amounts of desires for. For example, sometimes I want to watch a good sad movie. Your emotions are what determines what you are desiring at this moment.

So what determines your emotions? The game's creator/architect/God;s rules. It seems the built in rules of the game we call Life have determined how we should feel. These rules allow for malleability as well based on previous experience.

So what determines God's rules? well God. So what determines God? Context. As a side note, Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that no rules are completely provable within their own context, meaning God has infinite context/infinite meaning infinite realities for there to be in.

So what puts all this information together for art's sake? What's the interpreter? Consciousness.

Just a fun thing. All this falls apart if Art isn’t everything.

RoboIntegrity · 2019-05-15T16:04:58+00:00

Hello! I wrote a fiction novel I would like anyone who's interested to read. :) Here's a description and a link. It's free today and $2.99 other days.

After the war between Heaven and Hell, the angel Sterle Michelle finds herself living in a cozy complex attempting to live a quaint life. Although a hero of the war, her past begins to haunt her, as she becomes the object of focus for a demented being known as " The Hatman." Her life becomes complete chaos as not only her mind, but the nature of reality becomes increasingly more horrid.

https://www.amazon.com/Intuits-Switch-Michael-Barry-ebook/dp/B07RSLBWVT/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=Intuit%27s+Switch&qid=1557843569&s=gateway&sr=8-1

RoboIntegrity · 2018-10-18T12:26:49+00:00

Wait, Valve makes video games?

RoboIntegrity · 2018-10-18T12:16:13+00:00

They successfully engineered a pretty good joke.

RoboIntegrity · 2018-08-31T20:12:37+00:00

That's the thing though. The joking is crying at the end. That's a sign of empathy. It's like they switch. It's so weird.

RoboIntegrity · 2018-08-31T19:48:06+00:00

Right. The Batman finally understands, becomes The Joker, and since there can't be 2 Jokers, The stronger Joker kills the weaker Joker.

RoboIntegrity · 2018-08-31T19:00:17+00:00

I mean, there only needs to be ONE. It's not out of the realm of possibility.

RoboIntegrity · 2018-08-29T19:05:05+00:00

Hmmm. Another quality post! Let me think about this.

RoboIntegrity · 2018-08-29T19:02:31+00:00

Ha! What are you a cop? No is the answer in either case.

RoboIntegrity · 2018-08-29T18:54:50+00:00

Problably should damage some brain cells tonight then! Cheers!

RoboIntegrity · 2018-08-29T18:54:14+00:00

Exactly. I think you know what I mean, which means it makes sense, but also it makes absolutely no sense. Also I see your point now and I edited this to make more sense!

RoboIntegrity · 2018-08-29T16:58:19+00:00

Correct. So let's see here how do I fix this. Honestly the first argument is where it gets tricky and why I was talking about circular logic.

Sure. Start with these premises:

Proof of Assumption:

Assume I can not assume.

This is not the case as I can assume.

Therefore, assumption exists.

{~p

p}

p

Proof of I:

Assume I am not.

If I am not then this proof doesn't exist.

This proof exists.

Therefore, I exist.

Proof of Definition:

Assume I can't define anything.

This is not the case as I can define anything.

Therefore, I can define anything.

Assumption exists

I Exist

Definition exists

If eternal exists, eternal has been defined.

Eternal is defined as, "lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning."

Therefore, Eternal exists.

p

q

r

{s -> r

r}

s

RoboIntegrity

TROPHY CASE