What is Beauty?

[Korey]

that' the x factor in this debate. human emotions. how can people justify their emotions scientifically. i can't say it's a horomonal imbalance that causes me to laugh when something is funny and be striken with grief when tragedy strikes. it just don't work that way.

as the center for all human thought and emotion and whatnot...i can see why you would think that the mind is the reason we can percieve beauty. the mind tells us that what is beautiful and what is not, but how does the mind know what beauty is? i think for this to be valid we have to say that beauty is a perception that is made within the mind[I]with the combination of[/I] natural beauty that can be experienced by the five senses and innner beauty which can be seen through the emotions and personalities of others. so while the process make take place within the mind, it is there because of outside stimuli that make it percieve things that way.

[Guest Copycatalyst]

[quote name='Retribution'][SIZE=1]Mitch -- for clarity, my position is that beauty does not exist in the world, but in our minds. I think it's a calculated and profoundly complicated process, but a technical one nonetheless. Just because we can't easily perceive it at this moment doesn't give us the right to relegate the mind's perception of beauty as something deeper than chem/bio processes.[/SIZE][/quote]

My prior post was philosophic. Did you know, Ret, that science was at first merely a branch-off of philosophy and it was often called "naturalistic philosophy"? Science is merely the philosophic stance of empiricism, taken further and it has become our own philosophical method of inquiry in the West, by in large.

You cannot necessarily apply empircism to what I was saying. . .my post in essence discredits your. . .almost Humeian use of reason. . .and what I am trying to show you is the Copernican Revolution which Kant shone upon us all. Kant was more or less what one would call a rationalist, which is a dichotomy--empiricist and rationalist--that fights with each other throughout the history of philosophy.

Yes, as a scientist of course one can say "we cannot say anything other than what science has." I am not talking [I]science[/I] here, however; I am talking about philosophy, which does have to deal with science, in part, but philosophy is all about the use of wisdom and the use of an [I]as pure of reason as possible[/I] to discern what is the value of something, and what it is just exactly.

If you want to get into your scientific perspective. . .we can here get into some of the arguments of science if you wish to. A philosophy of science implicates the troubles of science, as well as just what its value is, and just what it is. . .as I said before. Your blatant naturalism is fine. . .but I think you are trying to apply it to my post prior, which was probably my best attempt yet to date to try and make you see what I am attempting to give you. And thus you are missing its greater values to you--[B]philosophically[/B].

[quote]let's start with beauty as a whole again. we divide it into natural beauty and beauty of reason. with natural beauty we see outward things, like scenery and so forth. but i ask this? is natural beauty limited to the sense of sight? what about the other senses. can we say that a cry of an animal sounds beautiful? i would like to think so. so what i can deduce is that natural beauty is limited to our senses and our senses only. correct?

beauty of reason seems to me coming from a logical standpoint or from emotions. we can like the way a person acts around other people and find their mannerisms and so forth beautiful. so what we see in a person's personality traits as beautiful is considered this"beauty of reason"

so synthesizing these two concepts makes this hybrid "technological beauty" where man's thought processes and physical senses combine into one and make our definition of beauty. am i right so far?[/quote]:)

Yes, nice.

[quote]so what i'm trying to say is that if a person grows up with the same repeated scenarios, his sense of awareness seems to dwindle, because his brain has already compiled this information and his senses have experienced being in his tundra and he is dissillusioned with the scenery and it's "Feel". so what i am proposing is that humans are more inclined to see beauty in the newer, more life filled areas that they are not accustomed to because they haven't experienced this area before and the need time to assilmilate this area's beauty.[/quote]Yes. This is what I meant. The more novel, new, and at the peak-of-its novelity of its form an object is. . .the more we will say it has beauty. Yes. Our use of our senses all goes along with our comfort in them, and our inability to almost child-likenly say things like, "Wow, I can't believe I can see!" This kind of child-like sense of things. . .if you keep it. . .will make your life much more nice than many peoples' lives. :) It is all about wonder and awe, and absolutely how strange and weird it all is. It's really quite R & A - Ridiculous and Awesome.

Very nice. It seems you understood what I said well, which pleases me. :)

[quote]it is there because of outside stimuli that make it percieve things that way.[/quote]

Yes. This is the point Ret needs to realize.

It is really [i]quantum[/i]--what is going on when we say something is "beautiful." All things have an awareness, even those things which are not human. A rock is aware in a sense that maybe many humans wish they could be--plants and trees and the like are endlessly aware and wise, otherwise how could they have survived so long alongside such predatorial animals as ourselves? When there is a "beauty event" it is not just the subject, the ego, you, the person looking, that is undergoing the event. It is a large amount of [i]quantum[/i] data being perceived and somewhat, though not too terribly, distorted in the mind.

And anyway, distorted is kind of an incorrect word, or anyway its connotation is tainted with negativity. I do not mean we destroy the beauty there. What I do mean, however, is that our sensual appartus, as a whole thing, is built to only detect certain aspects of objects and it has done so for, from a scientific perspective, adaptive purposes; and in another perspective, and a greater one, it is because this allows us to have a certain "piece of reality" which we call our lives, and to experience, have, and know it together. Whether this involves a God's creation of this or such is of course an entirely different matter so we'll stave that off for now.

But any beauty event is not merely just a fashioning of the human mind. . .here is what I thought of last night that best explains what I am saying.

[i]Beauty is experienced from a subjective level, but it is the allotment of the objectivities of an object and an event and therefore it is not merely in the eye of the beholder whatsoever[/i].

[Retribution]

[size=1]Ugh, my post just got lost in cyberspace. Let's try again.

[quote name='Sesshomarufan']that' the x factor in this debate. human emotions. how can people justify their emotions scientifically. i can't say it's a horomonal imbalance that causes me to laugh when something is funny and be striken with grief when tragedy strikes. it just don't work that way.[/QUOTE]
Emotions [i]are[/i] scientific. Emotions arise from the infinitely complex operations of your brain, they don't spontaneously generate at will from an ether. If you're debating this, I have nothing else to say because you're arguing against the entire scientific community. Just because we cannot easily quantify emotions or fully comprehend them doesn't mean they have no base in science. Just because we can't understand what exactly drives emotion does not mean you can say "it doesn't work that way". I mean, MRIs have shown certain regions of the brain are associated with certain emotions.

[QUOTE]but how does the mind know what beauty is?[/QUOTE]
Again, you do it here. You assume that because we do not currently have comprehensive knowledge on the mind, there must be some higher order to it. This is not necessarily the case, and has often been proved wrong in various instances.

Most notably is the use of religion to explain natural phenomena such as lightening or earthquakes or plagues. People back then didn't know what was going on, but their lack of knowledge does not give validity to the idea that the gods were smiting them.

[QUOTE]so while the process make take place within the mind, it is there because of outside stimuli that make it percieve things that way.[/QUOTE]
No, there is nothing about a stimuli that forces you to encode it that way. Your brain encodes the information, which is influenced by your previous experiences, culture, and social norms. Again, this is supported by the scientific community. I'm not really sure what else to say.

[quote name='Copycatalyst']Science is merely the philosophic stance of empiricism, taken further and it has become our own philosophical method of inquiry in the West, by in large.[/QUOTE]
So? What you are describing (your position on beauty) is based off of anecdotal evidence (at best), and you expect me to swallow it. What I'm describing more or less debunks yours because it is supported by extensive and repeated observations. I'll go with the people who give me more concrete support.

[QUOTE]You cannot necessarily apply empircism to what I was saying. . .my post in essence discredits your. . .almost Humeian use of reason[/QUOTE]
I don't understand, because science has studied a fair deal of what we're talking about. On that front, you're not discrediting me.

[QUOTE]It is really [i]quantum[/i]--what is going on when we say something is "beautiful." All things have an awareness, even those things which are not human. A rock is aware in a sense that maybe many humans wish they could be--plants and trees and the like are endlessly aware and wise, otherwise how could they have survived so long alongside such predatorial animals as ourselves? When there is a "beauty event" it is not just the subject, the ego, you, the person looking, that is undergoing the event. It is a large amount of [i]quantum[/i] data being perceived and somewhat, though not too terribly, distorted in the mind.[/QUOTE]
See, you expect me to believe this because you're saying it. I mean, I understand what you're saying on a philosophical level, but even there I disagree. The closest I can get to you in terms of common ground is absolute awe of how interconnected all life is.

[QUOTE]And anyway, distorted is kind of an incorrect word, or anyway its connotation is tainted with negativity. I do not mean we destroy the beauty there. What I do mean, however, is that our sensual appartus, as a whole thing, is built to only detect certain aspects of objects and it has done so for, from a scientific perspective, adaptive purposes; and in another perspective, and a greater one, it is because this allows us to have a certain "piece of reality" which we call our lives, and to experience, have, and know it together. Whether this involves a God's creation of this or such is of course an entirely different matter so we'll stave that off for now.

But any beauty event is not merely just a fashioning of the human mind. . .here is what I thought of last night that best explains what I am saying.

[i]Beauty is experienced from a subjective level, but it is the allotment of the objectivities of an object and an event and therefore it is not merely in the eye of the beholder whatsoever[/i].[/QUOTE]
This is probably the best you've put it the entire time. And really, I absolutely understand what you're saying about us being a sensual apparatus, that our eyes and brain are fashioned only to be conduits of that beauty and that we have no power over it, but you and I fundamentally disagree over this. The human mind and all its fruits is as close to a god as we'll ever have.

By the way, this is pretty fun, but our points are getting stale. How about a "What is Justice?" topic or something like that?[/size]

[Zen]

[color=darkred][size=1]

You guys and your silly science.[/color][/size]

[Korey]

[quote name='The Boss'][color=darkred][size=1]

You guys and your silly science.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]

meh philosophy is something i've always enjoyed talking about, which is always a plus for debates like this.

[Guest Copycatalyst]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]
This is probably the best you've put it the entire time. And really, I absolutely understand what you're saying about us being a sensual apparatus, that our eyes and brain are fashioned only to be conduits of that beauty and that we have no power over it, but you and I fundamentally disagree over this. The human mind and all its fruits is as close to a god as we'll ever have.

By the way, this is pretty fun, but our points are getting stale. How about a "What is Justice?" topic or something like that?[/size][/QUOTE]

The greatest scientists know science is not even about the facts.

Also, the human mind and all its fruits? I think you have this presumption. [i]We are born into the world.[/i] Consider this--[b]we are born from the world[/b]. We are extensions of itself, not strangers that find ourselves "alive." There is nothing mysterious or ethereal about this at all.

If you are going to not back down from your scientific ideals. . .Well, let me tell you one thing. The reason why science will continue to thrive is because [i]it is up for constant revision and even its so-called "laws" are theoretical[/i]. Science does not have facts; it merely is the West's Buddhism. It is best for its [i]utility[/i], its [i]use[/i], but when we are discussing its methods, and not its means, we are discussing how it obtains what it obtains and we are not discussing the implications of what it gives via its use.

As far as its methods--which in classes across the country we love to focus upon and see as the cornerstone of good science--these methods are not new whatsoever. A philosopher uses the methods of science, but not in the limited sense that science does. In fact there is an ancient religion called Hinduism, which has existed so long we do not know its roots--and [i]there[/i] there is a scientific perspective that is the mirror-opposite of the way science works.

Here is what science does. It looks at what is without. Here is what the Hinduic concept of [i]atman[/i] (finding Brahman, their word for God within) does: it does what science does but it [i]shuts off the sensual apparti[/i] and delves into the mind itself, at its very core, and [i]objectively[/i] finds what is within. Just as a scientist objectively finds what is without. But what is within and without--what is the difference? This is what you must come to realize. You must be able to understand, and employ, and find appreciation in your scientific perspective--but you must also realize it is just as fallible as any human creation which has come before.

What is mythology? Mythology is looking at things in reality and seeking to give them a meaning and justification for why they are how they are. We find this in the Greeks, whom implicated an entire mythology of Gods to things in nature. In essence how is what science does necessarily any different, other than that it is the use of reason, the use of rationality, and the ability to withhold things until they are revealed to us via our senses.

Science is again, merely the deification of Nature. When man is deifying nature. . .he is only deifying himself. As much as science implicates it is objective, and not subjective, it is still only following the phenomenon the senses can observe. . .and as you just agreed with me, we have a limited appartus which gives as a certain "piece of reality," which is not necessarily the true reality at all. This in fact has been much of the questioning of past philosophers--what is real and what is not. Socrates represents the point where we began to say this reality, as it is now, is not the real one; but it is [i]a form of its realness[/i], a facsimile of it one could say. Plato, his pupil, explicated upon this and perhaps this is in fact where Christianity had its before-birth and the propensities to become what it is.

Let me assume something. In your mind you separate religion and science and mythology and science, correct? However, are not these all merely human creations? All [i]creations of the human faculties[/i] even as much as you may presume science is somehow above them? It is above them, as I said, and it's for this reason--[i]it revises its finds, as our appartus grows or we augment it with the aid of technology[/i]. It's kind of like this subjective absolution of the samenesses we can discern in our reality. . .it's still subjective, no matter how much you want to tell me it isn't. It's still implicated in the entire human appartus and its errors. I mean, for example, as far as science, Newton laid down so-called absolute laws. . .yet these have been quite destroyed by Einstein's theories, and now physics is at a point where it is [i]mostly theoretical[/i] and trying to consider what could actually be scientifically. . .a law of physics.

I'm not saying for you to not use science. I'm saying for you to loosen your relationship with it and realize its problems. A scientist proposes a hypothesis, according to the scientific method. . .and then he assumes a certain result will come. But isn't there an infinite amount of hypothesis for any assumed result. . .this infinity in the very methods of science shows to me that infinity is a direct truth of things, and that as much as science tries to model what is so hard to model, which is infinity or near it, as much as it tries to finite in concreteness what we can see with our senses. . .it is missing the entire point of life.

Again we are only talking of the methods of science; not its means. You are using a scientific method. . .very allied to the inhumanness that science gives and distorts of our humanness. . .and unwilling to budge from your moorings. As far as means, science is, like [i]anything which is of value[/i], a means of progression and a means of understanding. But so, too, is philosophy. Philosophy is a means of progression and a means of understanding; it is in fact the father and mother which contains your science as its child. As much as we assume science is its own entity now, it still is of the blood of philosophy and it will be for forever. As is religion. Religion is of the blood of philosophy too, but it is not as reasoned as science is. Faith is by what it is the very subvertion of the meanings of reason itself, a casting-aside of it which is as ignorant as it is beautiful.

Currently the theory of mind is mostly a functionalist one. This is the way you are viewing beauty; you are saying the man is a machine and it has a processor, which allows its hardware of mind to run, and this is where beauty comes to be. However, your mind is not the only processor, and in fact within and without are merely constructs and limitations you have set upon your own mind due to the experiences you have undergone as your existence as a human being. Outside of the mind, and beyond your misconceptions, there is truth to the fact that beauty must not and cannot merely exist in the dichotomic fallacy you call "yourself" and you call "environment." Both are natural creations and outgrowth of something true. . .

If you look close enough in science, you can observe the samenesses and you can cast aside "distances" or smallnesses and bignesses. . .and truly grasp an underlying theme that is also overlying. . .that is inherent in the functions of all things which exist, yourself included. Beauty points you to this truth. . .it is often conceived of as an aesthetical phenomenon but in the end, what it amounts to, is that it is our use of reason as appreciation of our awareness of things which are still--to this very day, as much as science implicates such a rash understanding--we do not understand. It is what we are and how we are to never fully understand the implications of our life. As a method, science is not applicable, and is just as of worth as any and all other human systems we have created since the dawn of our awareness.

As a means, though, as an acceleration of the use of our lives in a means which is more fashionable, convenient, and allows us to see beauty, and to be removed from the pains of our existence. . .that is where it becomes something, and it lays in technology. The future involves a synthesis of man. plant, and our "technology." Man itself is a technological outgrowth of this Earth, and even further, and outgrowth of something we attempt to understand. . .yet do not, and will never, unless we come to accept what it is. Which I have done, and I understand what it is. . .and I have seen it inside myself, and I have seen it outside myself. . .and Beauty reveals this to me.

[Retribution]

[size=1]Alright, this is my last post on the topic.
[quote name='Copycatalyst']The greatest scientists know science is not even about the facts.[/QUOTE]
Science isn't about the facts, but painting a more accurate picture of the universe and its nature.

[QUOTE]Also, the human mind and all its fruits? I think you have this presumption. [i]We are born into the world.[/i] Consider this--[b]we are born from the world[/b]. We are extensions of itself, not strangers that find ourselves "alive." There is nothing mysterious or ethereal about this at all.[/QUOTE]
You've totally misunderstood what I meant. By "all its fruits" I mean capacity for discourse, free will, invention, problem solving, absolutely unfathomable achievements. All of these are the power of the mind.

[QUOTE]If you are going to not back down from your scientific ideals. . .Well, let me tell you one thing. The reason why science will continue to thrive is because [i]it is up for constant revision and even its so-called "laws" are theoretical[/i]. Science does not have facts; it merely is the West's Buddhism. It is best for its [i]utility[/i], its [i]use[/i], but when we are discussing its methods, and not its means, we are discussing how it obtains what it obtains and we are not discussing the implications of what it gives via its use.[/QUOTE]
You're right in that everything isn't cast in stone. However, it is a constant search for truth that will [probably] never be complete. This quest for the truth is meticulous and methodical, exacting and strenuous. This quest has yielded us great things -- the computer you type on alone is the compound product of centuries, perhaps millenniums of work. The means by which this occurs is truly a gemstone of human ability... and I'm not entirely sure philosophy surpasses it.

[QUOTE]...delves into the mind itself, at its very core, and [i]objectively[/i] finds what is within. [/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how you support that aside from saying "it is so." I'm not certain there's a methodical, quantitative way to delve into one's mind. I personally doubt it.

[QUOTE]But what is within and without--what is the difference?[/QUOTE]
I know the difference, but I don't think there is an objective way of assessing "the core" of your mind. I think it's a very personal process. Objectivity suggests that there is some sort of right/wrongness to what you see at the core of your mind, and I don't think it is so.

[QUOTE]...but you must also realize it is just as fallible as any human creation which has come before.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is fallible, but it is the best we have in terms of understanding the world around us. One can meditate and metacognate for eternity, but they will never understand what enables them to physically see (in the most literal sense). And if they cannot do that, how could they fix impaired vision? Yes, a scientist's understanding of the eyes/brain has the possibility of being erroneous, but they will have the greater power over someone who shuns science.

[QUOTE]In essence how is what science does necessarily any different, other than that it is the use of reason, the use of rationality, and the ability to withhold things until they are revealed to us via our senses.[/QUOTE]
It is different because there is not a pantheon directing natural occurrences. We strive to ask [i]why?[/i] rather than label it [i]I am that am[/i].

[QUOTE]However, are not these all merely human creations? All [i]creations of the human faculties[/i] even as much as you may presume science is somehow above them? It is above them, as I said, and it's for this reason--[i]it revises its finds, as our appartus grows or we augment it with the aid of technology[/i].[/QUOTE]
The fundamental difference is that our knowledge of the universe via science can be amended. Scientists do not see something and label it "God," a scientist sees something and further investigates. Yes, it is flawed as are all human creations, but it is also superior to it in that it is closer to the true nature of the universe. It's understanding is greater, if only marginally.

[QUOTE]Newton laid down so-called absolute laws. . .yet these have been quite destroyed by Einstein's theories, and now physics is at a point where it is [i]mostly theoretical[/i] and trying to consider what could actually be scientifically. . .a law of physics.[/QUOTE]
No, Newton's Laws haven't been destroyed by Einstein's theories. If so, you wouldn't be able to walk. However, they have been amended in that they are no longer absolute. Our knowledge has expanded, but do not think this was through vague positing by Einstein -- the man did an impressive amount of mathematics to back his claims. It resulted in nuclear technology. Even theoretics must be backed by logic.

[QUOTE]I'm saying for you to loosen your relationship with it and realize its problems.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually not all that wed to science explaining everything. Debate, especially passionate ones, are naturally polarizing and so I have taken an extreme position. I am generally conceptual, but when we're talking about bodily facility (brain/mind/beauty) I don't bend much.

[QUOTE]As far as means, science is, like [i]anything which is of value[/i], a means of progression and a means of understanding. But so, too, is philosophy.[/QUOTE]
I could not agree more.

[QUOTE]As is religion. Religion is of the blood of philosophy too, but it is not as reasoned as science is. Faith is by what it is the very subvertion of the meanings of reason itself, a casting-aside of it which is as ignorant as it is beautiful.[/QUOTE]
I will not deny that religion is heavily linked with philosophy, but to say it is the blood of it is insulting.

[QUOTE]Currently the theory of mind is mostly a functionalist one. This is the way you are viewing beauty; you are saying the man is a machine and it has a processor, which allows its hardware of mind to run, and this is where beauty comes to be.[/QUOTE]
Contrary to my preaching, I think there is something beyond my mind. I'm still searching for it, and until it is found, there is only my humanity. But perhaps that is enough.

It's been fun, Mitch. See you in another philosophical debate. Hopefully I can say more interesting things than I already have.[/size]

[Guest Copycatalyst]

All of life is like a great science experiment to me. You're wrong to doubt the abilities of the mind to find what is within to be just as startling and revolutionary as science. I know this firsthand, but it's not exactly something I can just make you understand. That's right--you must endlessly search for self-knowledge, which is all that ever really matters in this world. In the end we are all bound to ourselves, but others are a direct extension of us, as is all that is around us. You can change yourself endlessly; but you cannot change others so easily, and thus you must change yourself, when no one else would. You must take away the sheen this society has given you, and imprinted into your mind. You must become free and no longer bound to any system whatever. I think in general we are in agreement of things, it's just that I am at a differing level (I do not say this egotistically at all)than you are, and I hope you reach it too in your own way. If all men attempted to reach the highest understanding they could, they would not be in disagreement at all except upon the most minute aspects of things--I mean, if you read what truly brilliant men have written, you end up realizing that it doesn't matter what they're saying; what matters is how they are saying, and how it shows how their minds are working, and how usually--aside from minute differences to be accounted for from imprintations of experience not anyone can run from, even men like that--they are saying the same thing. Even if it is done in a differing style or character or tone. It's been fun on my end too; I hope you learned something. I'm always learning something, anyway.

As far as Einstein. . .of course I know what he's done. However you're wrong; there are still barebones aspects of Newtonian physics which remain in physics, even today. Also another interesting thing is what they did with what Einstein concreted; and how right now there's enough nuclear energy waiting to be harnessed merely for destructive means that is more than the entirety of the energies the human race has expounded in its existence. If we are the Gods of anything, we are the God of atoms, and the God of Adam is at this point and time needing to be cast out. But that is for another discussion.

[Malkav]

science be damned. Beauty is variable.

[Guest Copycatalyst]

Malkav, beauty is not subjective, even if you experience it subjectively. It is variable to you because you cannot look past your own mind's barriers.