| |
I'm continuting to try to focus us down on this conversation to a relatively
few points since we're getting crazy in our post lengths.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > What is it that to your way of thinking is outside the realm
> > of scientific inquiry, that I (or others) have been ignoring?
> >
> > Do you agree that the scientific method is a good tool for investigating
> > _anything_ that can be perceived? That would be my assertion.
>
> Anything in the physical world can be investigated by the scientific method.
So the short answer is "yes," right? You do agree with me. Since our senses
are physical, anything that can be perceived takes place in the "physical
world." Right?
Now...what is the non-physical world?
> most artists say they were 'inspired', whether by a muse or
> something. Science can understand what makes up the art, but
> it cannot give us a point by point method for producing art.
I don't believe that for a second. It just hasn't done so yet. We are
studying the human sense of aesthetic and we will continue to do so. We will
make generalizations and refinements. I expect serious computer-generated art
in 20 years.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Anything in the physical world can be investigated by the scientific method. Art maybe made of physical properties such as clay, rock, dyes(paint) on canvas, whatever. However, most artists say they were 'inspired', whether by a muse or (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
