The Death of Artists?

[uncloned]

In general, those problems don't require creativity. Creativity is, for now, a human feature only. The "communication" you mention is still in the human realm. But things that can be automated can be left to computers, so humans have more time to address what is really important they address.

This is were I'm getting my POV from.

That computers are a tool as any other, such as a hammer, or violin, sure thing.

But I  question the validity of "creativity" as "art" from a non-sentient machine.

[uncloned]

. Dolphins is not a good example, because they are not as intelligent as humans, or at least, their mind is not like that of humans.

Why would you want minds like humans?

Isn't a totally different way of thinking from human just as valid?

That is like saying a growing plant based on silicon instead of carbon would not be truly alive.

[uncloned]

I found that a lot of people interpret art differently. However, I do find the increasing view on everything as cold and materialistic. I think a lot of it is connected to the way religion is portrayed in the mind of the majority.

If you look at modern movies which touch upon religion in the mainstream, you would see stories about people to whom faith is something of a perversion of what faith should be and of how it was understood in the past. Today faith is basically a zombified state of human mind when a person tries to persuade oneself to believe in something that is truly impossible in our world, and he does not believe in it but he tries to persuade himself that he does. And people try to live in that illusion and they call it faith - no wonder thinking people reject that kind of "religion".

.

I think often atheists are substituting technology, science or some version of "the universe / multiverse" for "religion" and "God".

My take is that many people equate religion (which is ritual) with spirituality . These things are not necessarily the same and do not need each other to exist.

[PPH]

In general, those problems don't require creativity. Creativity is, for now, a human feature only. The "communication" you mention is still in the human realm. But things that can be automated can be left to computers, so humans have more time to address what is really important they address.

This is were I'm getting my POV from.

That computers are a tool as any other, such as a hammer, or violin, sure thing.

But I  question the validity of "creativity" as "art" from a non-sentient machine.

I never disputed that.

[PPH]

. Dolphins is not a good example, because they are not as intelligent as humans, or at least, their mind is not like that of humans.

Why would you want minds like humans?

Isn't a totally different way of thinking from human just as valid?

That is like saying a growing plant based on silicon instead of carbon would not be truly alive.

Again, I never said only human thinking is valid. If a dolphin thought like a human, he would probably die. I never said dolphins should think like humans. I just meant, of course humans can't communicate well with dolphins. I was exploring the possibility of an artificial being becoming sentient like a human. Of course, his perspective would be different from a human. But given sufficient intelligence, why wouldn't it be able to communicate with a human being? We are not so far apart in our opinions.

[oxxi]

I think you guys need to read this to stimulate your brains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Computer_Music

[uncloned]

it reminds me of the flying spaghetti monster.

[Louigi Verona]

My take is that many people equate religion (which is ritual) with spirituality.

Religion is not only ritual. While it is true that religion and church as a human organization has and will always have a lot of imperfection, religion is not just a set of rituals.
Spirituality, on the other hand, is a very vague term.

[g]

To them spirit is a only and not more than a set of chemical reactions in the brain, art is a mere recombination of something seen before and nothing more, love is only a set of biological instincts combined with those chemical reactions and nothing more, and life is only an existence of a biological organism and nothing more.

Louigi, all of the above is just as magic with or without religion. As for "and nothing more", I think "an existence of a biological organism" is infinitely more amazing (and also infinitely more likely) than "So God created man in his own image". You don't need an imaginary friend to feel butterflies in your stomach you know...

[Louigi Verona]

I cannot agree. A biological organism has no purpose. It lives and then it just dies. Religious view puts a man and any other creature into a larger context.

But at this point we again come to how we understand religion and God. If by religion one means just some things that people made up, then of course - it is pointless to philosophize with him at all.

I do not find any special wonder in being amazed by the world as it is. Of course it is impressive, but that amazement is not self-sufficient. Knowing how great nature is and yet knowing that my life has no greater purpose and I will eventually just disappear forever as if I never existed - it will not give the foundation I seek.

I am not sure if this is the right place to say this - we are all from different countries and very different cultural contexts. Anyway, for someone who might know what I mean, religion is something you come to inevitably.

A religious man has a wider look on everything. No matter what happens he can put it into a larger context. Religion is not dogmatic (or rather, the word dogma in its modern sense is a bit different from what it was originally meant).

Anyway, I am sure I am not making sense to many people.

[uncloned]

I think spirituality came before religion

Religion is ritual and codes of conduct

A religion is any systematic approach to living that involves beliefs about one's origins, one's place in the world, or a responsibility to live and act in the world in particular ways. Religion is often equated with faith and belief in a higher power or truth, but it is more commonly defined in religious studies as the patterns that express that faith and reinforce it in day-to-day living. One can share the philosophy of a religion, believing in its higher truth, without manifesting that faith religiously.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

I think aboriginal peoples have a clue somewhere....

At some point in history an ancestor a thought occurred that there might be more than what the senses say. Unfortunately I think this revelation has been abused throughout history to control and use people.

[Sam_Zen]

Right on. Religion took over, claiming spirituality. And then abuse it. to abuse people.

Aboriginals were spiritual people. They declared a mountain as 'holy', meaning that from that moment on nobody would enter that area.

Look what happens when religions declare something 'holy'.
They will smash each other heads for centuries because of some stupid temple or book.

[Louigi Verona]

Chris, Sam - this is not the point. If religion is abused, it says nothing about religion. If a technology is abused - it says noting about the technology. It is possible to abuse almost anything in this world.

Also, do not generalize, Sam. Not all religious people are religious fanatics.

[PPH]

Right on. Religion took over, claiming spirituality. And then abuse it. to abuse people.

Aboriginals were spiritual people. They declared a mountain as 'holy', meaning that from that moment on nobody would enter that area.

Look what happens when religions declare something 'holy'.
They will smash each other heads for centuries because of some stupid temple or book.

You are confusing religion with religious institutions. The aboriginals you are referring to had a religion.

[g]

A religious man has a wider look on everything. No matter what happens he can put it into a larger context. Religion is not dogmatic (or rather, the word dogma in its modern sense is a bit different from what it was originally meant).

Once again we have completely opposite views. I find it a religious man makes everything fit into his predefined context, which to me is the most narrow way you can look on anything.

What is this larger context you speak of? Is it the meaning of life? To worship a god so that one can enter heaven? I pity you if you truly think life has no purpose without religion. You don't like it when people tell you what you're like as a religious person, so why do you make assumptions about how atheists perceive the world? Do you know what it's like not to be a believer?