- #1
newton1
- 152
- 0
what is "beautiful"?
i think beautiful is very subjiective
had beautiful have any rule or reason??
i think beautiful is very subjiective
had beautiful have any rule or reason??
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Newton1
what is "beautiful"?
i think beautiful is very subjiective
had beautiful have any rule or reason??
Exactly. 'Beauty' is unpredictable. But the 'concept of beauty' itself is universally-understood (via individual experience of the concept).Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I think that people have come to agree on the feeling of beauty more than what is beautiful. When someone says "That is beautiful", you have a basic idea of how they feel, but you may very much disagree with that person's appraisal of beautiful.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Yet the same 'external data' enters our ears (which all work upon the same principle), via the same physical-processes (when listening to that same tune).
So; if physical-processes are consistent, how can we attribute the individual-experience of 'beauty' to physical processes alone? [/B]
Well; everyone has a different mass of brain. But the composition of that brain is fundamentally singular, because our brains have the same cells and the same regions-of-cells, all doing a similar job via similar physical-processes. In effect, the differences in mass amongst our human-brains is no more significant to the quality of human-thought, than is having a factory - built upon twice the scale of another factory, to build a product that is twice as large. The quality of the product is not affected if both factories use the same materials. Only the volume of the product can be affected by a larger system which does the same job as an identical system. Only the volume of thoughts can be affected. But the quality of thoughts has no bearing on the mass, as such.Originally posted by Tom
That's an easy one: Everyone's brain is different.
Yes. I've had that assertion drummed into me on numerous occaisions. But not once has it ever been proved - by philosophy or science - that this is in fact the case.Your genes and your environment are responsible for the way your head is "wired up" (surely you've read that many times in the 18 months you've been here).
Am I correct in believing that 2 men - with identical DNA codes - would not have identical beliefs? If so, then DNA has got nothing to do with individual belief. Can you acknowledge that?Nobody has your genes, and nobody has experienced the exact same stimuli as you.
Originally posted by Newton1
what is "beautiful"?
i think beautiful is very subjiective
had beautiful have any rule or reason??
I would say it's what we've been conditioned to believe that determines what we believe is beautiful, even if that means having conditioned ourselves to believe that it's so (as our tastes vary from time to time).Originally posted by Newton1
what is "beautiful"?
i think beautiful is very subjiective
had beautiful have any rule or reason??
Originally posted by heusdens
I saw some time ago a scientific documentary on how people judge people's faces, and what they call beautifull.
It showed up that all faces that were judged "beautifull" follow certain patterns (relative position of nose, mouth, eyes and shape of the face). The simularity in judgements people have, even from diffferent cultures and ethnic backgrounds was striking.
Something like "beauty" which seems to us at first instance something completely subjective, was shown in this case to follow some mathematical regularities that are too convincing to be just called coincidental. It seems the way we judge the beauty of a human face has been programmed in (genetically).
If this is the case, then why is there such a vast difference between the races and the way everybody looks in general?Originally posted by heusdens
I saw some time ago a scientific documentary on how people judge people's faces, and what they call beautifull.
It showed up that all faces that were judged "beautifull" follow certain patterns (relative position of nose, mouth, eyes and shape of the face). The simularity in judgements people have, even from diffferent cultures and ethnic backgrounds was striking.
Something like "beauty" which seems to us at first instance something completely subjective, was shown in this case to follow some mathematical regularities that are too convincing to be just called coincidental. It seems the way we judge the beauty of a human face has been programmed in (genetically).
Originally posted by Newton1
what is "beautiful"?
i think beautiful is very subjiective
had beautiful have any rule or reason??
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If this is the case, then why is there such a vast difference between the races and the way everybody looks in general?
Originally posted by heusdens
Yeah. Why isn't everyone beautifull then?
Maybe because God didn't create us, so we are inperfect beings?
But... there is hope! If in the long run beautifull people will have more descendants as the ugly people, the human race will in the long run become more beautifull.
This is already showing off, because the primitive humans looked for sure less beautifull (in my mind, not in theirs, supposedly!) then the present day people.
Originally posted by Newton1
what is "beautiful"?
i think beautiful is very subjiective
had beautiful have any rule or reason??
Originally posted by steppenwolf
this is based on the assumption that beautiful people attract more sexual partners then ugly people, this has however been disproved, a recent study showed that people weren't more physically attracted to more beautiful people, but to people of their beauty 'level'. so ugly people will keep having babies with ugly people, beautiful people with other beautiful people and the inbetweens with other inbetweens.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Beauty is undefined. Everyone has a different impression of beauty, because there are so many different ways to look at something.
This would suggest that it's more a matter of conditioning then which, is pretty much what I believe. Or is it? ... I guess it's possible to believe someone else is beautiful but, if for some reason you don't match up to their criteria (all depends on how picky they are), then you will very likely have to settle for less.Originally posted by steppenwolf
this is based on the assumption that beautiful people attract more sexual partners then ugly people, this has however been disproved, a recent study showed that people weren't more physically attracted to more beautiful people, but to people of their beauty 'level'. so ugly people will keep having babies with ugly people, beautiful people with other beautiful people and the inbetweens with other inbetweens.
Originally posted by heusdens
A surprising result found in a research was that the way people judge the beauty of a face, can be described in objective terms!
Maybe you just "think" that your concept of "beauty" is subjective, while it shows up in research that you nevertheless have objective criteria for your judgement.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
At this point, I'd like to ask how physical-processes alone can account for such a diversity of experience concerning a universally-understood concept.
So; if physical-processes are consistent, how can we attribute the individual-experience of 'beauty' to physical processes alone? [/B]
Well; everyone has a different mass of brain. But the composition of that brain is fundamentally singular, because our brains have the same cells and the same regions-of-cells, all doing a similar job via similar physical-processes.
In effect, the differences in mass amongst our human-brains is no more significant to the quality of human-thought, than is having a factory - built upon twice the scale of another factory, to build a product that is twice as large. The quality of the product is not affected if both factories use the same materials. Only the volume of the product can be affected by a larger system which does the same job as an identical system. Only the volume of thoughts can be affected. But the quality of thoughts has no bearing on the mass, as such.
My point becomes clearer when comparing human bodies:- Each of us is a unique size. But open-up those bodies and they're all built upon a singular blueprint and work upon the same principles. So, other than the size of our bodies, there's nothing significantly-different between any healthy human of the same gender. Our bodies are fundamentally singular, both in their design, and how they work.Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The basic structure of a reptilian brain is much different from a human brain, and so are their thoughts. I don't know what you mean by "fundamentally singular".
I think you're confusing quality of computing with quantity of computing. All computers are designed to do the same things. From my understanding of computers, making an upgrade only allows you to increase the capacity of your computer, and its speed.Despire my general disdain for analogies, I have one that I find apt. What you said is like saying that because all computers have basically the same kinds of parts and basic, overall, general structure that they have the same quality of computing.
The road-network of the UK is different to the road-network of the USA. They are structurally different. But both networks are designed to do the same job: they take you from one region to the next, allowing different regions of the country to interact with one another.The false nature of this analogy is why I like to stay away from analogies. These are not analagous scenarios. A larger brain is not structurally identical to a smaller one.
What's that got to do with the idea of 'beauty'? Each individual has a different idea of what is 'beautiful'. Most would say that a statue has the same beauty, no matter what size it is. Others would prefer the 'delicateness' of the smaller statue. And some would be blown away by the magnitude of an extremely-large statue. But if we take 'volume' out of the equation, the product is basically the same.And, the larger item in your factory would have qualitative differences (but qualiative is quantitative, but that's another issue) because the larger one would be weaker, given that it has the same proportions.
We aren't talking about 'intelligence'. Intelligence is a measure of what the mind knows, and of its capacity to know. Clearly, the size of the brain is important in such matters.And intelligence is a matter of quantity. You have different quantities of different quantities moving around.
This is wrong. Each person has an unique genetic blueprint, created by random mixing on conception, as well as an unique mental blueprint, created on-the-fly from experiences and an environmental blueprint, shaped by the surroundings it grew in. The principles on the workings of our bodies can vary greatly, such as the changes in the mind of autistic people, antigen development in different blood groups and perception in colour-blind people. These are greatly significant differences - natural variation is a genetic principle. The size itself is not divisible as a significant change, as part of that too is contained as part of the "blueprint". There exists an average, but the existence of the concept of health is evidence of such great changes. Quantity is a quality, just another property of the body. The 1 extra proton between hydrogen a helium is tiny, but that has a significant effect on the function and properties of the atoms.My point becomes clearer when comparing human bodies:- Each of us is a unique size. But open-up those bodies and they're all built upon a singular blueprint and work upon the same principles. So, other than the size of our bodies, there's nothing significantly-different between any healthy human of the same gender. Our bodies are fundamentally singular, both in their design, and how they work.
Nope, you missed the point. Small changes in systems can have a significant impact on how they operate. Computers exist as multifunctional tools, like the brain, and display quality according to how you judge it. The quality of graphics on a Gforce 4 is better than an onboard chip. That's quality. Quality is subjective judgement, and irrelevant without a set of critera which you judge on. So size is a quality - if you find it a relavent factor. And software, which is analogous to the experiences stored in the brain, also has a wide difference.I think you're confusing quality of computing with quantity of computing. All computers are designed to do the same things. From my understanding of computers, making an upgrade only allows you to increase the capacity of your computer, and its speed.
That is an incorrect analogy. What you are saying here is instead that the road network in the UK takes you to the same places as the road network in the USA. Which is blatantly false. While the neurones in the brain do the same function of creating pathways for electrical impulses, their layout is different, and so they lead to different places/actions.The road-network of the UK is different to the road-network of the USA. They are structurally different. But both networks are designed to do the same job: they take you from one region to the next, allowing different regions of the country to interact with one another.
It's obvious that the atoms/molecules in each brain are not structurally identical. But the job they do, is. And how they do this job, is.
You are groping near the answer. Why does different people consider a statue of different sizes as of different quality? Because we each make different judgement calls. Impulses arrive from different parts of the brain along different roads, bringing different desires. Quantity is a factor in quality, that varies in influence. The qualitative difference that quantity makes is dependent on the observer. You can't justify ignoring volume, as you can't justify ignoring colour, texture, shape and all the other perceptual inputs we have.What's that got to do with the idea of 'beauty'? Each individual has a different idea of what is 'beautiful'. Most would say that a statue has the same beauty, no matter what size it is. Others would prefer the 'delicateness' of the smaller statue. And some would be blown away by the magnitude of an extremely-large statue. But if we take 'volume' out of the equation, the product is basically the same.
Says who? Approaching from another direction, you can see that the individual atoms do not just expand, but there are more atoms. Hence, the structure of the brain must necessary be changed by increasing it's size. Is a single carbon atom the same as a diamond?But when it comes to deciding what is and what isn't 'beautiful', the size of the brain is irrelevant.
But at the end of the day, we all have brains which have the same regions and manners-of-networks, which all 'work' upon the same principles.Originally posted by FZ+
This is wrong. Each person has an unique genetic blueprint, created by random mixing on conception, as well as an unique mental blueprint, created on-the-fly from experiences and an environmental blueprint, shaped by the surroundings it grew in.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
so then its relative, then?
My criteria for beauty includes abstract qualities (hence, I like picasso), impressionistic qualities, and depth (in the sense that the artist depicted an obvious emotion in great detail).
Most people don't share these creteria, so therefore beauty is subjective.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Well; everyone has a different mass of brain. But the composition of that brain is fundamentally singular, because our brains have the same cells and the same regions-of-cells, all doing a similar job via similar physical-processes.
In effect, the differences in mass amongst our human-brains is no more significant to the quality of human-thought, than is having a factory - built upon twice the scale of another factory, to build a product that is twice as large. The quality of the product is not affected if both factories use the same materials. Only the volume of the product can be affected by a larger system which does the same job as an identical system. Only the volume of thoughts can be affected. But the quality of thoughts has no bearing on the mass, as such.
Tom: Your genes and your environment are responsible for the way your head is "wired up" (surely you've read that many times in the 18 months you've been here).
LG: Yes. I've had that assertion drummed into me on numerous occaisions. But not once has it ever been proved - by philosophy or science - that this is in fact the case.
Am I correct in believing that 2 men - with identical DNA codes - would not have identical beliefs?
If so, then DNA has got nothing to do with individual belief. Can you acknowledge that?
And if the brain is looking at light which has produced an image which we shall acknowledge as 'the Moon', for example, then how can you say that I have received ~different~ stimulae to you?
We have to acknowledge that our brains all have a similar idea of what they are looking at. Therefore, our brains have experienced a singular stimulae.
The same general regions, but the details are very different. Like the USA, the UK has cities and factories. But these cities are not the same, and the country as a whole, while still a country, is very different. Hence, though we can say that they still split into x regions, they still differ in the complex matrix of neurones, and even more in terms of the transient stored memories that lie in them. The fact that they work on the principles is drowned out by the big environmental differences they experienced. And it is hard to quantify how great the behaviour differences between people really are, without a real scale. Humans are much more similar to each other, disregarding environmental influences, than you think.Originally posted by Lifegazer
But at the end of the day, we all have brains which have the same regions and manners-of-networks, which all 'work' upon the same principles.
Having a different genetic-blueprint does not alter the above fact. Whatever our blueprint is, our brains can be mapped - exactly like a machine - to reveal a singular 'mechanism'.
For example, no 2 cars of the same-make are exactly the same because all cars have parts that obviously have a different mass and arrangement of their atoms. But such cars produce similar yields. You don't find, for example, that one Fiat-Brava moves across tarmacked-road at velocities within a specific range, whilst another car of the same design doesn't traverse across roads, but does fly through the air.
In reference to the concept of 'beauty', this is significant. I.e., all brains should cross roads, rather than fly. Or in other words, all people should attribute the concept (property) of 'beauty' to similar things.
I read all my responses. But I've had too many to remember all individual posts. But at the time, I would not have ignored his comments. I consider everything people say to me. Just because I disagree does not mean that I 'ignore'.Originally posted by Tom
Dead wrong. Plenty of scientific work has been done to show this. I personally have never taken a course in it, but I have seen a PBS documentary on it, and there is plenty of evidence that environmental factors influence brain development. DT Strain gave an excellent account of this subject in your thread The Origins of Reason in PF v2.0, which you evidently ignored.
Then I was correct. I was infering that individuals with the same genes would have different beliefs.No, you are not correct in believing that. I just told you that we are a product of both our genes and environment.
At the end-of-the-day, we all understand 'language' and we all share the same physical-laws. We do sense the same things, fundamentally.This is so obvious that I can't believe you have to ask it. I can say that you have experienced different stimuli than I have because of, among other things, the difference in physical orientation of our sensory organs. Your sensory organs--and no one else's--follow the path in spacetime that they do. Thus, the inputs are different for everyone.
But I completely understood everything you have just said. Which means that we share the same reality, but have a unique perspective.Dead wrong, and this too is blatantly obvious. You did not grow up in my house. My parents did not touch and talk to you as an infant. You did not play with my toys, read my books, watch my TV shows, or listen to my records. You did not date my girlfriends, hang out with my buddies, or go to my schools.
It's obvious that we haven't experienced the exact same photons-of-light. But that's not the point. We all share the same reality, and we all share the same concepts and laws of that reality. This must be true, or no 2 beings would ever be able to converse about existence. That's what I mean when I say we experience the same stimulae.Therefore, you and I have not experienced the same stimuli at all.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I read all my responses. But I've had too many to remember all individual posts. But at the time, I would not have ignored his comments. I consider everything people say to me. Just because I disagree does not mean that I 'ignore'.
But the bottom-line Tom, is that nobody can fully-explain - using physical-processes as the basis of that explanation - how the brain, with attributes such as sensation; emotion; reasoning; imagination; will; desire; etc., is created from "slave processes".
I.e., how such a brain can acquire attributes which don't exist within the matter itself. Where does the mind get its unique traits from? Where's the scientific reason to address this question? At what point does matter become aware? At what point can matter have sensation? At what point can matter start feeling emotions?
These questions are not addressed via mathematics Tom. For the question begs the acknowledgment that mind-ful experience is not the same as 'mathematics'. These questions require reasoned- linguistic-address.
Then I was correct. I was infering that individuals with the same genes would have different beliefs.
You want to attribute the differences in an individual's beliefs to his upbringing alone. I'm not sure I can buy that. I have a strong feeling that I'd be believing what I now believe, wherever I was raised.
At the end-of-the-day, we all understand 'language' and we all share the same physical-laws. We do sense the same things, fundamentally.
At a sports-event, for example, you'll have a unique opinion of that event. Your emotions will be present within your account of that event (not to mention your position in the stadium). But we'll have experienced that event in a mutually-consistent and universally-understood context. We see the same reality from a unique perspective.
But I completely understood everything you have just said. Which means that we share the same reality, but have a unique perspective.
It's obvious that we haven't experienced the exact same photons-of-light. But that's not the point.
We all share the same reality, and we all share the same concepts and laws of that reality. This must be true, or no 2 beings would ever be able to converse about existence. That's what I mean when I say we experience the same stimulae.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I read all my responses. But I've had too many to remember all individual posts. But at the time, I would not have ignored his comments. I consider everything people say to me. Just because I disagree does not mean that I 'ignore'.
But the bottom-line Tom, is that nobody can fully-explain - using physical-processes as the basis of that explanation - how the brain, with attributes such as sensation; emotion; reasoning; imagination; will; desire; etc., is created from "slave processes". I.e., how such a brain can acquire attributes which don't exist within the matter itself. Where does the mind get its unique traits from? Where's the scientific reason to address this question? At what point does matter become aware? At what point can matter have sensation? At what point can matter start feeling emotions?
Alexander, don't be uni-dimensional in your vision. Maths are important but are only a mean , only one of the Paths. Assymetry has also beauty. By the way: life is inherent assymetric.Originally posted by Alexander
Beauty = mathematical symmetry (invariance or unchange under some transformation).
There are plenty of various symmetries in math.
Originally posted by Newton1
what is "beautiful"?
i think beautiful is very subjiective
had beautiful have any rule or reason??
When something is subjective, it means that it is based on personal opinions, feelings, and beliefs rather than facts or evidence.
Beauty is considered subjective because it is based on personal preferences and perceptions. What one person finds beautiful may not be the same for another person.
No, beauty cannot be measured objectively as it is based on personal opinions and cannot be quantified. However, there are certain characteristics that are commonly associated with beauty, such as symmetry and proportion, which can be measured objectively.
Recognizing that beauty is subjective helps us understand and respect individual differences in preferences and perceptions. It also allows us to appreciate the diversity and uniqueness of beauty in different cultures and individuals.
No, there is no universal standard for determining if something is objectively beautiful. However, there are certain qualities and characteristics that are commonly associated with beauty, such as balance, harmony, and proportion, which can help us understand and appreciate beauty in a more objective way.