Why do so many people discount psychedelics?

Never bothered with psychedelics, but this. This right here.

Whoa man its like all mental proccesses are ultimately based on brain physiology, and alteration of it can lead to altered mental procceses

whoa like dude whoa

Describing it in those terms, might give you the illusion of simplicity, but you are too immersed in your formalism to understand the meaning behind the symbols...
Regerdless of how those states of mind are achieved, they are part of the possibilites of reality. If anthing it shows that the spectrum of consciousness goes beyond the mundane..

difficult to obtain.

>Why do so many people discount psychedelics?
Because of threads like this. If acid doesn't melt your brain, why are you people so stupid?

Hi choaboy

Man, i have dedicated an unholy amount of time to neurophysiology to pass my neurosciences and neurology courses.
I even took all the optative subjects i could on it plus neuroanatomy because it interests me a lot.

Yet I consider my knowledge to be VERY superficial.
I know the brain can be many things, but not simple.

Of course you can alter your perception and thinking witg drugs. Like no fucking shit sherlock

You are speaking nonsense my man
Define what you mean by possibilities of reality, spectrum of consciousness, the description of consciousness you are using and the fuck you mean by it going beyond the mundane

>Man, i have dedicated an unholy amount of time to neurophysiology to pass my neurosciences and neurology courses.
>I even took all the optative subjects i could on it plus neuroanatomy because it interests me a lot.
The physical workings of the brain aren't really the same topic as the phenomenology of altered states of consciousness. That's like the difference between being an expert luthier who's dedicated an extreme amount of time learning how violins and guitars work vs. being Niccolò Paganini or Jimi Hendrix. You can't have music without an instrument, but physical knowledge of the instrument isn't going to tell you much about how music works.

>Define what you mean by possibilities of reality, spectrum of consciousness, the description of consciousness you are using and the fuck you mean by it going beyond the mundane
Also not him but one of the notable things psychedelics do is turn off your verbal / rational mind and let you experience things in a totally different way, so trying to capture that experience with logical verbal definitions sort of defeats the purpose. It's like being stuck on one channel and wanting a clear picture of how this thing operates on that channel when the thing in question is itself largely defined by how it changes your channel over to a completely different contextual framework. That makes it somewhat state dependent and not very amenable to rationalizing.

They just make you cling to some random thought and believe it's somehow super profound. They don't give you any real insight into anything. If you are unlucky, the thought will be something that sounds almost reasonable if you don't think about it too hard and you will spend the rest of your life lecturing everyone you meet how "everything is, like, connected, man".

Shit analogy

Im working under the assumption that all mental phenomena are the result of physiological proccesses, and god isnt a prankster who gave us a methaphysical "mind" thingy

Altered states of consciousness would be a result of cellular and chemical proccesses out of what would be considered the norm (if there even is such a thing). That could be (and actually can be) altered by exogenous interventions, be it drugs of some kind of neurosurgery or som like that.

I was asking him his definitions of terms he used, so we could discuss the matter on "the same grouds"

Actually are verbal definitions fit for any concept we "know"? Or mental states? Or emotions?

We both can define what "red" or what we feel when happy and we would probs understand eachother. But is the concept we have the same thing?
Who the fuck knows

I never claimed we could understand or define "our mind" under the effects of psychdelics, because it is impossible to really "know" without going through it.

You are right in the sense of the limitations of language in thinking.
I never said anything contrary to it.
Actually very interesting to think about how our mind would be without language to organize ideas and logic concepts.

I think we arent getting eachothers point and this is degrading. My english is shit too.

OP please what do you mean by psychdelic state of mind.
Nobody denies the effect of psychdelics on the mind, they are just stigmatised, or people just dont really care.

Not memeing i love this discussion

>Im working under the assumption that all mental phenomena are the result of physiological proccesses
Then you didn't understand the analogy because I never implied that wasn't the case with it. In fact I explicitly pointed out that you need physical instruments in order to make music. This doesn't mean that music is the same thing as the physical instruments. Music, like consciousness, mathematics, baseball, language, and money, are all abstract concepts. Violins, brains, calculators, wood, ink, and paper each tell you very little about melody, thought, numbers, games, stories, and economics. The physical things in each of these cases are just tools for allowing the abstract concepts to play out. This doesn't mean there's a magical non-physical metaphysical thing that needs explaining like "hard problem" dualists claim. It just means there's a physical world and there are abstract concepts that don't actually exist at all but are useful fictions to behave around.

/thread

A more realistic guess is that a hammer will neither always result in masterful craftsmanship nor in broken fingers. A tool is just a tool, some will put it to good use and some won't. Saying an altered state of perception is always going to result in useless shallow insights is as stupid as saying an altered state of perception is always going to result in profound world changing insights.

yeah and this tool is for the weakest people. If you care so much about ''changing perception'', you do samatha mediation. If you want to insight into life, then you you do samatha meditation and reflect on life and the natural and stupid personalization of consciousness, feelings, emotions and whatever is experienced.
Drugs are good for the hedonists and after a few months of use, the effects fade they whine like the turds they are.

Why do you think samatha meditation and every psychedelic drug in existence should all be lumped together as the same tool with only efficacy as the distinguishing factor? I don't think meditation has anything to do at all with DMT. If anything I'd put stimulants closer to single pointed concentration type meditation and NMDA antagonists closer to zen style open awareness type meditation as far as classes of drugs go. Also I don't think you've meditated very much yet since you're apparently still prone to oversimplified black and white thinking.

I still think the analogy doesnt hold.

There is no guitarist, guitar and music.
You are a guitar, who is conscious (whatever that is) and plays music by itself through some not-understood mechanism.

If you feel happy, its because a physical proccess that elicits that mood.
If you hallucinate in any modality, that has a physical base too.

Psychdelics will alter your normal brain functioning and the way you think, perceive things or whatever. That may or may not give you insight on the workings of your mind.

A better analogy imo would be putting siticks, or manually spinning the wheels of a giant watch and infering conclusions on its working and functions through that interaction. Given that you are a smart man with a limited knowledge of whatches or mechanical systems.

On altered states of consciousness, whats so special about them, apart from them being abnormal. As I said above they may help you gain insight on how your mind works, and nature of the concepts of "me" and the perception of the world. But that is not some reality-shaking truth. It is a very old discussion.

Once again, you didnt make a clear point.
Please make one, i get the feeling that we might even agree on it

If you are speaking of what you would consider to be the music on that analogy (consciousness and the variations it may have and we dont experience normally), the same holds.

It may be an interesting personal experience, and you might learn from it, but we arent discovering anything new here.

People just doesnt give a fuck, you see

Still me ranting

Maybe you are speaking about becoming a masterful "musician" and create some sick ass consciousness forms experimenting with drugs and other techniques for introspection.

That would be a very interesting thing to experience tbdesu, but it would be closer to being an artform than anything else really

still normos dont give a fuck about this shit because they are busy filling their meaningless life with meaningless thhings that they perceive to have a meaning so its ok because your perception of things is the only thing that youll ever have, like we should be doing because we are possibly built to do that and put penis in vagina

spurdo sparde happens to be the most accurate phylosophist measured by a word/life meaning ratio

really depolarized my neurons back there

>le LSD makes me smarter face

And I'm sure Rick and Morty is the funniest and deepest show in existence... right leddit?

>abstract modes of consciousness legitimately exist in this universe - they are REAL
So is the idea of an infinite number of anus, with differing sphincter diameters.

PROFOUND

some shallow ones might exist too you brainlet

or you could just not buy into the psychedelic propaganda and effect the same outcomes

You could also just not buy into the automotive propaganda and walk ten miles to the grocery store. What's your point? If a drug can help you get somewhere useful that you could also get to without a drug, that doesn't mean the drug isn't still much better at getting you there. Willpower alone could get you to stay awake and alert enough to do a good job at the office, but that doesn't make coffee obsolete either. Why are you irrationally opposed to utility chemicals?

Are people ITT speaking from experience or just regurgitating anti-drug memes? In my experience, psychedelics have definitely helped me get a better perspective on things and figure some shit out in my personal life.

And I know the whole "being one with the universe" thing is clichéd beyond redemption, but it's a real feeling that I think everyone can benefit from, whether they get there with the aid of psychoactive substances or forms of meditation. That's what I assume OP means by "psychedelic state of mind."

yeah your argumentation style is indicative of someone who has done psychedelics and will justify their use by any means necessary.
>Why are you irrationally opposed to utility chemicals?
there are none. you're justifying your life's decisions. when will you realize all that you're trying to do is legitimize another social barrier to knowledge? it's not necessary. learn to conform or get fucked, we don't care.

>inb4 "you wouldn't understand you haven't done psychedelics"
yeah? and i've never fucked a child. i've never committed murder. what other subcategory of human experience do i have to have committed in order to feel authentic in my own knowledge? you people how push psychedelics are a legitimate threat to society. moreso than the psychedelics themselves.

As I expected just about everyone walks into this thread with preconceived conditions. They make assumptions about my position such as:

>Psychedelics make you smarter
>The thoughts you have on psychedelics are profound insights into reality, because they feel like they are
>Psychedelics give you insights into yourself similar to meditation

While some people would try to make an argument for some of these, I never made any of these claims and as such you shouldn't be responding to my post as if I did. That's a straw man and fallacious argumentation should not take place on Veeky Forums unless you just want to shitpost. And if you want to shitpost get the fuck out of my thread

What I am saying, is that consciousness exists. I am experiencing consciousness RIGHT NOW. So are you unless we delve into abstract philosophical debates regarding solipsism. You are reading this.

Consciousness is a real "thing" that exists within the universe as an emergent property of certain types of physical objects, in this case the human brain and nervous system, and those of sufficiently complex animals

The phenomenological nature of consciousness in day to day life is already strange. There is waking consciousness, and dream consciousness. Within those there are stimulated consciousness when you're exercising for example, or hypnagogic consciousness where you're already falling asleep. These are interesting but we consider them mundane

Psychedelics as a whole, in their large variety of effects, show us that consciousness seemingly exists in a parameter space of a far wider quantities of parameters than we experience in our daily life. We have evolved to live in the physical world as meat sacks that scavenge for food and have sex to reproduce.

Continued in next post

>Muh philosophy major
Biochemistry is still biochemistry, Sigmong Fraud.

cont.

But consciousness as an element of the universe, which I will call "theoretical consciousness" exists in a far larger parametric space. Psychedelics show us this. As of yet this is our only brush with the vast space of theoretical modes of consciousness that we have encountered

Simple molecules can vastly change our consciousness in ways that are truly profound. Take care reading that last sentence - I am not saying that there are profound realizations while on psychedelics. I am saying that the changes to consciousness, the ways in which your experience of the universe change, are profoundly different from everyday consciousness.

Nobody who has experienced sufficiently strong doses of the right psychedelic would dispute this, and this is well documented scientifically and culturally all throughout history. This has been studied extensively and there is not much room for debate at this point

When you take these first person accounts from ANYONE who has taken a sufficiently large dose of the right psychedelic with a scientifically inquisitive mind during the experience, they will report this. That aside

The space of potential consciousnesses is clearly much larger than we experience during waking life. Are there limitations? Why should consciousness be limited to the modes where the sentient agent experiences the world in a sensorily accurate way? There is no such requirement as psychedelics show us since your experience of consciousness quickly diverges from reality

tl;dr
If you don't understand at this point I don't know how else to explain it to you. Psychedelics show us that consciousness exists in a large parameter space outside the one we usually experience. This should be interesting to anyone curious about the universe. We are a part of the universe and so is consciousness, so this is a part of the universe and as such it is a real scientific topic, not one to be delegated to hippy nonsense just because they used it first

I'll leave with a quote here and if this doesn't stimulate your imagination I don't know what will. Maybe the general scientific community is not ready to handle this yet.

>It is the very thing which all these religions are yammering about. It's there, it's real. I mean, if you think the world is empty of adventure, then you just haven't been hanging out with the right crowd
>I mean, on a Saturday night within the confines of your own apartment on 5 grams of psilocybin mushrooms in silent darkness, I guarantee you you will believe that Ferdinand Magellan will take second place to you
>You will see things which no human being has ever seen before, and that no human being will ever see again. That's how big that universe is.
>The incredibly constricted space time locus of the here-and-now that evolution has forced upon us for survival purposes is simply one point in an apparently infinite hologram of explorable data that is the human world
>[The] entire world of every science fiction novel and story ever written is miniscule compared to the universes of strangeness and peculiarity that are accessible to any one of us if you will but apply the method...
-Terence McKenna

As I expected just about everyone ambulates into this thread with preconceived conditions. They make postulations about my position such as:

>Psychedelics make you more astute
>The phrenic conceptions you have on psychedelics are profound insights into authenticity, because they feel like they are
>Psychedelics give you insights into yourself homogeneous to rumination

While some people would endeavor to make an argument for some of these, I never made any of these claims and as such you shouldn't be responding to my post as if I did. That's a straw man and fallacious argumentation should not take place on Veeky Forums unless you just want to shitpost. And if you optate to shitpost get the fuck out of my thread

What I am verbalizing, is that consciousness subsists. I am experiencing consciousness RIGHT NOW. So are you unless we delve into abstract philosophical debates regarding solipsism. You are reading this.

Consciousness is an authentic "thing" that subsists within the macrocosm as an emergent property of certain types of physical objects, in this case the human encephalon and nervous system, and those of amply intricate animals

The phenomenological nature of consciousness in day to day life is already peculiar. There is waking consciousness, and dream consciousness. Within those there are stimulated consciousness when you're exercising for example, or hypnagogic consciousness where you're already falling asleep. These are intriguing but we consider them mundane

Psychedelics holistically, in their sizably voluminous variety of effects, show us that consciousness ostensibly subsists in a parameter space of a far wider quantities of parameters than we experience in our circadian life. We have evolved to live in the physical world as meat sacks that scavenge for victuals and boff to reproduce.

Perpetuated in next post

>As I expected just about everyone walks into this thread with preconceived conditions.
Must be nice to just decide that everybody who disagrees with you does so out of prejudice and not because you're a moron

That's not what I'm doing but okay. They're bringing up topics I never brought up and responding to them. If that's not textbook straw manning I don't know what is.

youtube.com/watch?v=Si-jQeWSDKc&t=365s (timestamp)

A philosopher in the 1950's, pre-hippie movement, talks about LSD.

>not microdosing LSD or Psilocybin

It was an expectation of me (a conscious human being) that every person coming inside this thread, if you pardon me the figure of speech, yould already have a previously conceived condition about it, me, and the subject. They present postulations about the position I, OP, hold of the likes of:

> Psychotropic drugs of the psychdelic kind increase youre cognitive habilities
>The ideas organized through speech you have while under the effects the aforementioned drug-class (psychdelics), are profound insights into the nature of existance, because the individual has the subjective feel that they may or may not, but probably are true.
>Psychdelic drugs (from now on referred to as PsychDrus or PDs for short) allow a introspective examination of your self (of the drug user) akin of that achieved during the practice of meditation

While it would probably be a wish of somebody to engage on debate aroun some or all (or none) of these points, the autor (me) never made any of the above claims and such, my post shouldnt be responded to as if I had done so (the autor.) That would be falling into a fallacious argument (man made of straw), and that is intolerabe behaviour in this, our board dedicated to science (Veeky Forums), unless your intentions are those of a feces-writer. If it is your choice to poste feces, begone the fuck of my thread.

These words Im articulating, have the ulterior motive of transmitting to you the idea of consciousness existing (as oposed to not existing). As, Im pretty sure you will agree, Im a conscious being and as such Im conscious AT THIS VERY MOMENT. So are you unless we fall into the ill-defined philosophy-centered argumentations regarding solipsism (or you are not a conscious being or you happen to be in a state of unconsciousness or coma). You are most certainly reading these, my words.

...

That's a fuckload of words to say "I think psychedelics modify your consciousness instead of your perception."

That's not what I said though but okay

Consciousness is a concept which does exist on the greater framework of the universe, as a peculiar property of certain pluricellular beings such as (but not limited to) the human ἐγkέφαλος (enképhalos, “within the head”) and system of nerves, and their analogues in likewise complex animals.

The phenomemenological character of consciousnes in our mundane daily and nightly life is already strange enough (by contrast, the lack of it tends to not be strange). There is consciousness of the waking time, and oniric consciousness (dream-consciousness). Withing those there are exhalted (or stimulated, definitions still not clear [1]) when, for example performing physical exercise, or "falling asleep" consciousness (definitions clearly defined, can also be called hypnagogic). These provoke profound thought to the sharp-minded individual but are otherwise deemed mundane.

PDs in their whole, in the myriad of effects they may elicit (the term provocation may result not accurate, due to the fact that they merely bind to a receptor, thus not properly provoking anithying by themselves, but just signaling the provocation), leart us that consciousness apparently exists in a parameter of space of far wider quantities and qualities (parametrically) than we experience in our day-night cycle following life. We have undergone the proccess of evolution to live in the physical word (not methaphysical, important distinction) as sacks of meat (and more constituents, but mainly meat) that scavenge for edible matter (depends on species and personal tastes) and fornicate to reproduce (also dependant on personal tastes)

Please wait for my next publication of a post (contact Elsevier for pricing info) for further insight on the subject

>Consciousness is a real "thing" that exists within the universe as an emergent property of certain types of physical objects, in this case the human brain and nervous system, and those of sufficiently complex animals
this is what rationalist normies believe. the best part is that you have faith that you are an empiricist

Can you please justify your post. Do you think consciousness doesn't exist? Who is reading this post you just wrote then, and who is writing this one? You're an idiot.

Either that or he's a panpsychist.

I think it's ridiculous to think only brains are conscious when there is nothing special about the atoms in brains. Thinking only brains are conscious is the anthropocentrism of modern philosophy.

WHOA you BTFO out of that FAG

I bet you think free will exists too, and the proof is free will existing.

>I think it's ridiculous to think only computers are computing when there is nothing special about the atoms in computers. Thinking only computers are computing is the bad thing of modern philosophy.

What a IDEIT u are

Computing is defined as something that a computer does, and a computer is something that computes.

So if you think your analogy holds, then you define consciousness as that which brains experience and brains as that which experience consciousness.

Begging the question fallacy.

Yeah. It's very clear I think that, as I said, consciousness is an emergent property with a very large or even infinite spectrum of possibilities as a result of certain states in the universe. Sufficiently advanced AI, once we create it, will likely be conscious in some abstract way we cannot comprehend - since why wouldn't it be? What reason is there to believe that consciousness is something unique to configurations of energy that evolved naturally and not at the hands of other conscious objects? There is no reason to believe so

An emergent property of ant colonies is that they can compute the shortest paths between food and the colony regardless of whether they consciously employ an algorithm to do so. We can compute in our heads so we are computers even if we are not digital computers.

i am criticizing your illogical extrapolation mo-ran

You
>Derp, because brain atoms arent special, the process arising from the brain function is not related to the atoms

Me
>Double Derp, because computer atoms arent special, the process arising from the computer function is not related to the atoms.

Herp

He didn't say that.

You can construct infinitely many different types of computers, using vacuum tubes or transistors it doesn't matter, and they perform the same function.

Is there a good reason to think this isn't the case for brains?

>Is there a good reason to think this isn't the case
Therefore, it must be the case

IDIOT LOGIC

No-one said that, only that the hypothesis brains aren't special is more likely since there is no compelling evidence brains are special.

Indeed, there's no compelling evidence anything in the universe except for you is even conscious in the first place.

Thinking only electronic computers can compute is actually retarded. Computation existed long before ENIAC.

neuropsychological citation needed*

heheh

Would he be wrong though? What is consciousness if not a subjective awareness and interpretation of ones' surroundings that emerges from continuous memory retrieval and auto-cognition?

Radically change the way sensory input and thoughts are examined and elaborated on, and you have a way of experiencing and thinking about oneself and the world that's entirely different from the "typical" state of mind.

Please justify your assumption that it IS the case, the burden of proof is on you. The anthropocentric default case of the human brain being special and in fact a divine creation, is not a justification to call the contrary claim "there is no reason to think it is special" the one who shoulders the burden of proof. Because in reality, you shoulder the burden of proof

Please justify the idea that the brain is special in its ability to create consciousness when there exist plenty of other examples of emergent properties that can be constructed from numerous physical implementations

The burden of proof is on you. You can't just scream "no no no we're special until you prove we aren't!" because that is a positive epistemological claim whereas my claim is the neutral stance.

this is as reddit a comment as it gets, the cringe is real

I hate how there exists so many sociological levels of the expression of distaste towards pseudo intellectual ideas.

>True intellectualism where all points are considered, but with reasonable heuristics employed to prune out crap
>Mimicked intellectualism where the points of others are regurgitated
>Cultural intellectualism where nothing is ever actually discussed apart from the concept of intellectualism itself

Unfortunately people on the lower level rungs of the ladder are often unable to recognize the fact that they are indeed on the lower level rungs (Dunning-Kruger Effect).

I also really hate the phenomenon where, since valuable terms are often illegitimately used by people, legitimate usage is discounted.

Maybe this is just the meme culture of Veeky Forums, not sure what else I expect on an anonymous image board I guess. People just write posts because they want to take part, as opposed to actually having something to say, so they latch on to cultural indicators of intellectualism as opposed to actually thinking. Whatever

they dont have any experience. that is why they are so agains it. Like virgins against women on r9k

or...you know........newton didn't do psychedelics.....feynamn stopped doing psychedelics. einstein, von neumannn......the proof is up to you. all you do is try to create another barrier to knowledge without quantifying a knowledge that people who have never taken psychedelics can quantify. are you more happy in your marriage? are your children more successful? or are you just someone who sees outside of some set parameters. do you think these are the identical parameters to truth?

>or...you know........newton didn't do psychedelics.....feynamn stopped doing psychedelics. einstein, von neumannn......the proof is up to you. all you do is try to create another barrier to knowledge without quantifying a knowledge that people who have never taken psychedelics can quantify. are you more happy in your marriage? are your children more successful? or are you just someone who sees outside of some set parameters. do you think these are the identical parameters to truth?
Your post is a valuable reply to the hippies who think psychedelics provide insights into the nature of human life and how it should be lived.

But it's not a reply to my post. I'm talking about the theoretical nature of consciousness itself and the fact that psychedelics shed more light on the nature of consciousness as an abstract emergent property of physical systems, more specifically shedding light on the fact that consciousness exists in a space far larger than that which we experience in everyday life, and one which is seemingly infinite in its quantity of configurations and unique manifestations.

>the fact that psychedelics shed more light on the nature of consciousness
the perception*

>except for you is even conscious in the first place.
there is plenty of reason to think other consciousnesses exist, in fact, not seeing this is an autistic red flag.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

The ability to attribute mental states to others is an evolutionary adaptation and has nothing to do with the fact that no other brain is actually conscious.

Everyone else could be a p-zombie.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

mmmm that's autism tho

>Do a good job exploring the underlying mechanisms of natural phenomena
>Don't be autistic
Not him and I don't even know which side each of you is arguing in favor of, but pick one and only one of the two items above.

I didnt say it had anything to do with conciousness, i merely stated you lack the ability to detect consciousness, not everybody else like you implied.

You think you can detect consciousness? Based on what rational evidence? "Intuitively feeling that others are conscious" is not a philosophical argument.

you think yours is the only consciousness? seriously?

The brainlet has to find at least some way that they can feel special. How better to get over your own mediocrity than literally making yourself the centre of the universe.

Right on man, well put.

Because you can observe behavior and see how it is like you, and not.

After observing for awhile it feels intuitive, because you see synchronicity with other people's behaviors and yours.

Salty hippie.

No. I'm only playing devil's advocate against the position that something is conscious if and only if it is a living brain.

My actual position is panpsychism.

>panpsychism
Never read much about panpsychism but after reading it it basically describes what I've been thinking for a long time

I think consciousness is just an emergent property of sufficiently self referential computational systems.

>I think consciousness is just an emergent property of sufficiently self referential computational systems.
as easy as it is......yeah

there is already a science of consciousness emerging. co-ordination dynamics, an offshoot of physics. living and conscious systems have unique physical attributes and exhibit unique behaviours due to having to resisting the second laws of thermodynamics. these attributes are being applied to the brain. the behaviour of the system is driven by its need to directly mirror the its own environment.

I have taken a few different tryps and phens and they always held a very very special place in my heart... got some spiritual insights and loved the visuals

however i was so bothered when those deep mind algorithms started pumping out images like this... i thought this was forever a human experience to create these visuals

the fact a machine van now make those images has bothered me so much and made me re evaluate exactly how special psychs really are :(''''''

A machine always could make art. You're a machine.

chemical machine animated by a soul and spirit

Soul and spirit are just abstractions of the behavior of the chemical machine, not literal entities in themselves.

lmao machines can only mimic at best, they cannot invent new styles.

your going to hell... j/k

i love philiosophy... i cant engage in it 99% of the time because i believe that an eternal soul exists encoded holographicly in the energy fields that surround the body

that triggers alot of people

>they cannot invent new styles.
Nothing is really new. Show me someone who's "invented a new style" and I'll show you someone who derived their work from something else that existed prior.

What is a "new style"?

A group of brush stroke techniques and color palettes.

I can assure you "new styles" can be randomly invented if you studied a bit about generative music for instance.

I invent new art styles all the time while they may or may not have some superficial similarities with what others have done in the past, they are never quite the same and I always manage to produce something that is mostly unique and one of a kind.

The picture that user used is very clearly just imitating Van Gogh starry night. Van Gogh's artistic style is very different from some of Picasso's cubist painitngs for example, styles are like fingerprints, meaning you can identify someone's work and influence through a piece. It is not mearly colors and tools but also the human touch of meaning and symbols.

I was not referring to generative music but to visual arts in particular, generative music AFAIK are tools that use already established musical principles to randomly generate experimental sounds and rhythms but it does not mimic or invent lyrics as far as I'm aware, again missing the human element of invention that is interesting/pleasing/has layers of thoughtful meaning to humans.

>I invent new art styles
So can any machine, in fact I machine can specifically analyse how unique and attractive the new style will seem to another and decide its facets accordingly. It is a relatively shallow thing compared to overall intellect, you are not special.

>The picture that user used is very clearly just imitating Van Gogh starry night
AI isn't limited to making pictures that look like other pictures.