User talk:Künstlerin

Relax. Have fnu. Look around the help pages. 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * I never thanked you yet for your welcome. Thank you C®acker. I'm starting to get bored now though. But it's cool for learning wikiediting. ø_ºØk  ünstlerin  06:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello Künstlerin. Returning to an earlier discussion we had.... what do you think of the whole materialism vs idealism vs dualism debate?

I find your apparent willingness to question rationality refreshing. To me, it is not that I don't believe in rationality - I do - I just acknowledge that there exist many different opinions as to what it actually is. One person's rationality is different from another's, and while I do believe that ultimately some version must be objectively right, I think determining which account is the right one is very difficult, and its difficulty is frequently underestimated by those who would rather ignore the existence of this problem. -- 08:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Maratrean =). as for materialism vs idealism vs dualism, i tend to take a kind of buffet approach. a bit of this and a bit of that. i don't like to say i'm an "ist" of any sort (besides an "artist"). i don't buy into all encompassing ideologies. i tend to see the universe as my own subjective experience - it's all based on my senses, no matter what. any machine or instrument or book or voice or whatever must ultimately be sensed by me and processed. everybody has their own subjective experiences, but some people just don't have room in their own subjective experience for any other subjective experience that is differently defined. as for rationality, i think it's only rational to question rationality. if one were to build an unwavering ideology around anything, even rationality, that would have to be irrational. i have had mystical and psyche-delic experiences, and i don't care if a rationalist has no room for that within their own subjectively constructed paradigm of the universe, because i have experienced it so therefore it is true. if that doesn't answer your questions, please just ask again in a different way. cheers =) Künstlerin (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you might not like -ist terms, but the way you've described yourself "i tend to see the universe as my own subjective experience - it's all based on my senses, no matter what" - sounds pretty idealist. All idealism is basically saying, is that all there is to reality is mind (my mind, your mind, every other mind). Material things are just patterns in the subjective experiences of minds, they have no objective existence independent from subjective experience. -- 23:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * well, i'm not quite sure. but, yeah i think so. like, i wonder what would be a thing or a meme or a universe or whatever without a viewer to experience that. but like, that comes from my experience... in the last 60 to 100 years, artists have been asking "what is art?", but now the question has become "what is not art?"... then i started to think that because art is whatever you can get away with in the name of art, and because art can therefore be anything, then at a bare minimum, art needs an audience (like, a sculpture is not art until there is an audience to look at it, even if that audience is a future civilization that uncovers it after 1000 years without it ever having been seen by anyone before other than the artist). and then i started seeing everything that way (because art is everything). .......but anyways, about the term "idealism", i tend to stay away from that word because in the Art World, it carries connotations of creating things better than reality; I explore syntheses between idealism, simulacrum, and various other binaries. ....actually, that's a whole nother tangent I could go off about (binaries), because i tend to see things not so much anymore in terms of binaries (either/or), but even in terms of triads and quadrads (either/or/neither/both) and spectra. obviously, im not the first person to say this stuff, and other people do a better job, but it is something i explore in my practice, and i think i probably do a better job of approaching an understandable/transcendent "point" through the Visual Language. ...also, I see these same developments arising in the Art World at the same time as developments arise in the scientific world regarding the apparently wave-form of the universe, I think we're coming to the same conclusions through different methods, but I could be wrong. =P Künstlerin (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Confirmation bias Maratrean... she's used language that indicates that just because you don't see light doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You're struggling to see her as an idealist because you want her to be an idealist, or read the first sentence in her statement that suggests an idealist notion of the world. However, she still acknowledges that a component of sound is "a vibration of a medium or media" which would exist independent of someone hearing it. It's just "meaningless" or moot if no one hears it. -- 11:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the parts that make up a sound other than the organism that hears it are "meaningless," I'm just saying that these parts -in and of themselves- are not a "sound." Suppose a tree fell in the forest and something was there to hear it; we can say that there was in fact a sound because there was auditory sensory input and processing. Now suppose a tree fell in the forest but nothing was there to hear it; we cannot in fact say that auditory sensory input and processing has occured so we cannot say that there was a sound. .......Things get interesting when you start messing with this concept through MIDI relays or Arduino-type devices that can take in and process auditory information and turn it into something else: Suppose a tree fell in the forest and nothing was there to hear it except a microphone that was patched into an Arduino that was programmed to dim and brighten a lightbulb in an observer's sealed roomoffsite according to the numbers generated by the information coming into the microphone; Does it still make a sound? In this case, has "sound" been visually experienced? Has a visual experience been transduced from a sonic source? Or has something else entirely happened? =) ø_ºØk  ünstlerin  04:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the fact that you accept that there are parts that make up a sound other than the organism that hears it indicates a belief in a non-idealist world. -- 04:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it would indicate belief in a non-idealist world =). But allow me to get a little weird here, please... Is it the case that maybe the world is both idealist and non-idealist at the exact same time?? I guess I believe that the universe can ultimately be expressed as a geometric object, and that all modes of existence (real-ity, ideal-ity, virtual-ity, any more?) are just different perspectives "looking" towards this same geometric object; so for me, I could accept that everybody is correct at the same time that they are not correct at the same time that they are neither correct nor incorrect. Maybe that's just nonsense? ø_ºØk  ünstlerin  23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a perfectly happy "can't we all get along answer" and unfortunately a lot of metaphysical arguments and religious ideas are mutually exclusive. For instance idealism says that nothing but minds exist, so anything that says something other than a mind exists would be incompatible with idealism. It's possible to consider "exists" to be an operative function that means different things in different perspectives. Fundamentally, each of us really is trapped in a solipsistic oubliette, caged by our veil of perception. And so for the most part we can look at the existence of concepts projected upon that veil as valid in any number of ways. One is that I perceive them therefore they exist, the other being that I perceive them because they exist. If one chooses to pick "existence" properly, and carefully avoid equivocation, there is no reason one cannot explain the world through the multitude of unfalsifiable metaphysical designs at the same time. -- 00:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you
trying to be a dick, or does it come naturally?  PsyGremlin  09:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I really didn't mean to be anyone's pain in the ass. i'm here to try to evolve complexly by inserting myself into a strange environment. i might seem like a bit much at first, but i promise i'm (mostly) harmless. i'm sorry for getting off on the wrong foot. =3 okay, but seriously, on a slightly more assertive note, just don't call me a dick anymore either, okay? - it's totally disgusting >.<¡ Künstlerin (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You are my favorite type of person to troll.
thanks for saying that, now I can do stuff to you to make you go away. Goodbye! Totnesmartin (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * awwwe, please don't make me go away. just because i said he was my favorite type to troll (in the infinitive), doesn't mean that he's my favorite type that I troll (in the present) or that I will troll (in the future). And actually, I'm not really sure what "to troll" actually means. I thought it meant like "get under your skin" or something. Anyways, I'm genuinely here to try and learn from you guys while also sharing what i've come to learn during my journey here on earth. Sorry if I came across as anti-socially at first. This is my first ever venture into random internet wiki-ness. I don't know many people like the people here; we come like from totally different worlds, I think (I went to art school, and then I imagine the editors here in my mind as maybe being like science kids or maths or something). Also, I have no idea how to alert a sysop about turning over new leafs or anything like that if I wanted to. I looked around the help pages but all I can figure i might be able to do in that regard is send a site-wide thingie maybe?? The block ID is #1496? I'm not a vandal. A transducer maybe, but not a vandal. =) Künstlerin (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * try it now. (i'm not very good with the vandal bin) Totnesmartin (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Clothing that interprets reality
Like this? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish!! No, just with like contact microphones or other sensing devices, patched into like a processing board with a program written into a little chip on the board, which then patches out and makes abstract art out of the numbers generated by the contact microphones or infrared or sonar or whatever sort of information you are starting with. it's more of a tangent than anything.ø_ºØ¿h0VV dΩ ¡ mAk3 mei S¡GnÅ†®3 ∂iﬁﬁ3®EnT c0LøU®$? 06:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Jetzt nur bin ich Übercool?
...coz, yo, checks the mad signature, right?? ø_ºØk ünstlerin  08:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nö, aber es kommt gleich... auch man kann ein nützen, und dadurch kann man einen dynamischen Sig haben. :) -- 08:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wie machst mann die ? ø_ºØk  ünstlerin  08:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * hohoho. Das ist sehr cool. Ich werde jetzt mache einen dynamischen Sig! Vielen Dank, Eira. <3 ø_ºØk  ünstlerin  08:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bitte sehr :) -- 09:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Eira, sig ist denke ich weiblich. Kommt von Signatur. (Just being pedantic. It's kinda fun actually) --ǓḤṂ³ 09:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ich kenne gar nicht die Geschlechten von Wörter. Deswegen höre ich oftenmals sehr lustig aus. -- 09:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Q.E.D. --ǓḤṂ³ 09:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Meine Aussprache und Flüssigkeit sind aber perfekt. Manchmal denken Menschen dass ich gar nicht Amerikanisch sein könnte... aber einige Zeit später habe ich etwas doof gesagt, und sie glauben mir danach. >_< -- 09:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

--Uh, Oh--

I forgot my password. and I never hooked up an email address to get it back. o_ºØKünstlerin70.72.49.178 (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)