Is Beauty Inherent or Subjective?

[quantumcarl]

Royce:

"Beauty is one of its intrinsic properties just as weight, size, composition etc."

Carl:

If beauty is an intrinsic property just as gravity, relativity and complexity then whatever is perceived by a human to be "stupid" must be intrinsically "stupid" or... whatever is deemed "ugly" by a human or wombat is then intrinsically "ugly".

If what Royce says is true then when Jim-Bob perceives "ugly" in the Mona Lisa, the Mona Lisa is intrinsically "ugly" and when Bob sees "beauty" in the Mona Lisa, it is intrinsically "beautiful".

Whereas, if what the old addage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" states is true... then the beholder is the one carrying the idea and the condition of "beauty" around with them... and the condition of "stupid" and or "ugly". This in turn is projected into all those states and conditions perceived to be external to the beholder.

EDIT: Therefore my secondary conclusion to this discussion is this:

All states, events, conditions and "things" intrinsically hold the POTENTIAL to be perceived as "beautiful", "ugly", "stupid", "benign" by any given observer.

Whether or not they hold this potential in the absence of an observer is up for debate.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
I have been thinking about this for the last couple of days since you brought it up. This is what I have come up with so far. There are two different aspects of color physically. one is the color of light itself determined by the frequence or wave length of the light which is determined by the energy level of the photon wave particles. We percieve the various frequencies that we can see as different colors
We may say, think, feel that one color is particularly beautiful to us because of its purity and hue. That of course is sujective; however it is that purity and frequency that is the physical properies of that light that make it, for us, beautiful. Those properities do not change and are inherent and intrinsic to that light that we call beautiful. It is the physical properties that determine the beauty of the light. We see the light and recognize and appreciate its beauty.

The other aspect of color is reflected or refracted color by an object such as humming birds or wings of a butterfly. It is the property of the structure of the wings or feathers that determine the color that is reflected or refracted that we see and call beautiful; thus, it is again the physical intrinsic propery of the reflecting surface that determine what we see, perceive, It is what we call beautiful.

Color is determined by physical properties of objects emitting, filtering as in colored glass, reflecting as in a rose or refracting as in the featers of a bird or scales of a butterfly's wing. We see and perceive these colors and may call them beautiful. That which makes one color beautiful and the other not is usually due to the purity and frequency of the color which is determined by the physical properties of the medium from which that color originates. It is the light or color that is beautiful. It is the properties of the origin tha determine the color of the light. Thos properties are intrinsic and thus the beauty is intrinsic.

How did I do so far?

Beauty has physical components, just like color does, of course. But to say that beauty is those physical properties, you have explain why beauty is not a specific kind of reaction to those properties by the brain. The former is what we call objective, the latter subjective.

Take color, for example. The wavelength of a ray of light is an inherent, objective property of that light. This property does not depend on what the brain does; it exists in its own right. Once this light strikes the retina, however, it produces the visual awareness of color, and this awareness is entirely a function of what the brain does with the sensory information produced in the eye. In a normal person, this wavelength of light will evoke, say, the subjective color red; operate on this person's brain in the suitable way, however, and that same wavelength of light will evoke what he used to call the subjective color blue.

Take this, then, to be the deciding factor of whether something is objective or subjective: if the phenomenon in question can be changed by changing the manner in which the brain functions, then it is subjective. Otherwise it is objective.

Applying this criterion to beauty, I find it difficult to conceive of how beauty could be an intrinsic property of an object. I smell a rose, and the smell is pleasant indeed; wire my brain up differently, however, and the same rose may smell vile and disgusting. What this indicates is that the odorous 'beauty' of the rose is not a property of the molecules themselves which carry the odor, but rather is a particular subjective percept that my brain generates upon being stimulated by these molecules. Thus, we may say that the subjective smell that is evoked in the average normally functioning person upon smelling a rose is beautiful, but not that the molecules of the rose themselves are the carriers of this odorous beauty.

Visual beauty is perhaps more subtle than the example above, but the same principles hold. I look upon the rose and see beauty; wire me up differently, and I may see the same conglomeration of shapes and colors as frightfully ugly.

 

[Royce]

I reiterate my position. Beauty is an intrinsic property. The ability to recognize and/or appreciate beauty is dependent on individual perception and is subjective.
Jim-bob's perceptions and his reaction to his perceptions are subjective and unigue to Jim-bob. His perception in no why changes the characteristic properties of that being perceived. Nor is there any way in which we as observers can know what it is that Jim-Bob perceives. I have no way of knowing that what I perceive as blue when I 'see' a certain wavelength of light is the same blue that you perceive when seeing the same wavelength. The frequency of the light does not change from person to person but the color perceived not only may change but most likely does change from person to person.
Yet we by convention call light of a certain frequence/wavelength blue. It is a characteristic property of light at that given wavelength that we define as blue. There are those who are color blind and cannot see blue at all or cannot distinguish it from green. This does not change the color of the light nor does it change it's charateristic propery of blue.
I maintain tha the word "beauty" can be substituted for the word "blue" above and the statements would retain there valitity and meaning. Beauty is a characteristic intrinsic propety, the perception of which is subjective and varied just as in color or anyother subjective perception of an intrinsic characteristic property.

Gold was valued for its beauty long before it had any economic value as were gem stones. While many gems have uses other than adornment they are coveted and valued mainly for their beauty. Some have no use at all other than as adornment because of their almost universally recognized and appreciated beauty. There is no obvious way that I can think of that this has any survival or procreational benefits at all. It is strictly because of their beauty that they are coveted and valued.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
The frequency of the light does not change from person to person but the color perceived not only may change but most likely does change from person to person.
Yet we by convention call light of a certain frequence/wavelength blue. It is a characteristic property of light at that given wavelength that we define as blue. There are those who are color blind and cannot see blue at all or cannot distinguish it from green. This does not change the color of the light nor does it change it's charateristic propery of blue.

Of course it changes the color of the light. The color of the light exists only in the minds of the perceivers. There is no such thing as 'the characteristic property of blue' in the wavelength of light itself. The reason for this is that there is nothing more fundamental or correct about seeing in color than in seeing with colorblind vision. Both are in some sense arbitrary creations of the mind that are not inherent in the wavelength of light itself, but rather arise as separate functions of that wavelength, as encoded by the brain. So it is for beauty as well, until an argument comes along that can differentiate the ontology of beauty from the ontology of color.

 

[quantumcarl]

Actually, Royce, Gold was valued for its maliability and the fact that it does not corrode... the fact that its shiney and heavy was a plus... so is pyrite, silver, brass etc... but they tarnish whereas gold does not.

Potential is intrinsic... how that potential is interpreted or actualized is up to the individual.

I see a potential thread on potential raizing its ugly/beutiful/smelly/fragrant/stupid/intellegent/ridiculous/redundant head.

 

[Royce]

I have stated my position and stated why I hold that position. I have nothing more to say on it. You have stated your positions a why you hold those positions. It is as it should be and I think all has been said that can be said unless someone can come up with a different line of thought. We disagree on particulars but agree on many aspects of beauty. I have enjoyed it and I thank you. You have both made me think and come up with new lines of reasoning. This has help clarify my thinking. What's next? I for one am ready to go on to a new subject.

 

[quantumcarl]

I agree, Royce. I'm starting a thread on potential now.

Its another monsterous topic when you look into it.

There are electrical potentials, gravitational, energy, kinetic etc etc etc... potentials...

But, what I will focus on, since the thread will be in Philosophy and under the heading of VALUE THEORY... I'd like to focus what is a potential and what is not a potential.

 

[jammieg]

Interesting ideas, it seems so arbitrary, I mean if we want to think of beauty as an indescribable feeling or appreciation of intrisic goodness then that has it's own effects, or if we choose to look at it as some sort of mathematical function with a multitude of variables and dynamic relationships then that too has certain effects on how we deal with the concept, and so one may be intended for procreation and fast thinking and such and the other for control and deliberation and yet does holding to one mean I must give up the other when it better suits the situation?
Should the function translate into a feeling and that a feeling was a group of logical reasonings at one time and engrained by emotions and use and lost to direct awareness over time?

 

[Holodeckie]

beauty

Originally posted by hypnagogue
It is worth noting here that you could make the exact same argument for colors existing in nature, although it is widely accepted in philosophy that colors do not exist in objective reality but rather are mental representational modes (subjective qualities) for perceiving that reality. The same could easily go for beauty-- in fact I think it makes more sense to think of it this way.

This of course does not devalue beauty in any way, to say it is mental and not objectively existent. But I get the impression that your argument itself arises from just such an aesthetic sensibility of yours that leads you to think that objective beauty would be in some sense more meaningful or valid or beautiful than mentally created beauty. To me it's irrelevant-- beauty is still beauty in all its glorious beautifulness, and it doesn't really matter where it comes from. After all, when you're actually experiencing it, you don't have to stop to wonder where it's coming from to really enjoy it.

Your comments made me think of synesthetes -- people who experience a sound from color or a color from a smell, etc. Some even talk about signal-to-noise ratio and I would think that would have physics applications. Even reading one such account, the synesthete comments those things which she experiences in this way have greater meaning for her, spellbinding, I suppose.

Still, though, I don't know if something unique and amazing is going on with this added depth of perceiving things or if it is still learned association. You'd have to study very young synesthetes to determine that.

I think the anamolies are the key. If 100 people say something is beautiful and 5 say no way -- find out what those 5 are hearing, feeling and reacting to. Don't assume 100 people must be right or that the visual is the only thing being reacted to.

 

[ThOrNe]

Why does value theory still have it's own sub-section[?]

 

[Another God]

Probably because us mentors haven't been doing our mentorific duty, and placing all of the ethics/aesthetic posts in here...

We will make amends...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sort of like Britain populating Australia by sending her criminals? :=)

 

[Twinbee]

Throughout this discussion, I largely agree with Royce on the subject of whether there can be a so-called 'universal aesthetic'. There are numerous reasons, many of which are self-evident (such as how Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is obviously better than what you'd hear if you loaded a Windows exe program into a sample editor - i.e. harsh noise), but also scientific.

For example, tests on monkeys have shown that they tend to remember melodies based on the diatonic scale, as opposed to randomly chosen notes. There's just so much wonderful structure in music, from the hierarchy of chord structures, to the harmonic spectrum that makes timbre - (all humans (and probably animals) would agree on what notes harmonics should be pitched at - integer numbers).

From http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/neuro/journal/v6/n7/full/nn1084.html

First, the monkeys recognized transpositions of children's songs like "Old McDonald Had a Farm" and other diatonic melodies, but they did not recognize transpositions of non-diatonic melodies. Infants and adults have similar limitations, as reflected in their tendency to confuse transpositions of non-diatonic melodies with renditions that preserve the pitch contour but not the intervals of the original.

(Hmmm... I would have probably have put 'limitations' in quotes).

So why do people disagree on music? Simple. They have worse/better taste in music for whatever reasons. This is not elitist, it is simply fact :) There will be other issues which complicate the matter - such as if they're bored of listening to a particular tune over and over, but in the end every piece of music or art can be given a value rating (or number of ratings) I believe.

It's also interesting how science or mathematics can never describe things like emotion, colour (red, green and blue) and music (12 notes). About the best one can do is give a wavelength frequency to say... the colour of "green", but of course, that doesn't 'describe' the 'feel' of the actual colour.

 

[p-brane]

Asked like a true math nerd.

It doesn't have to be about an equation. There are other aesthetic problems that overlap with technical disciplines as well. For instance, Civil Engineering and Architecture. The new apartment complex you built may be solid as a rock, but if it's butt ugly no one is going to want to live in it.

Here's some fuel for discussion:

Aesthetic Judgement

Ethics, the other half of Value Theory, has obvious relevance to engineering and science.

Cool.

Actually, an equation will spring out of anything to do with ethics. Asthetics might be a little different but, I'm pretty sure it will also remains dependent on the famous and the univeral law of energy conservation.

At this stage, this universe seems to be governed by the laws of energy conservation. Any event that contradicts that law undergoes dramatic and deconstructive change. This applies to pretty well any event or existing phenomenon, as far as I can see.

Ethics is the human interpretation of that law of energy conservation. The intellegence that comes with the well developed cerebral cortex tends to recognize a good system when it sees one. Even when mimicing the system(s) comes subconciously.

Aesthetics is mutable and a relative affair. So far, the big disc in the lip that, at one time, turned-on the Makaw Native American in Washington State has not made a come-back with today's aesthetically astute masses, thank god. And Tongain full gestural farting after a meal seems to have fallen to the wayside in this progressive society of ours.

I'll look for some of the mathematical equations that have to do with Value Theory. It would be interesting to find some that come with english translations.

 

[p-brane]

Since I mentioned the Conservation of Energy and how it may be the source of inspiration for Ethics and Value theory I'll post this bit of Bernoulli's equations concerning Thermodynamics and Energy Conservation. This is from some friends at NASA.

Thermodynamics is the branch of science which describes the macro scale properties of a fluid. One of the principle results of the study of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy; within a system, energy is neither created nor destroyed but may be converted from one form to another. We shall derive Bernoulli's equation by starting with the conservation of energy equation. The most general form for the conservation of energy is given on the Navier-Stokes equation page. This formula includes the effects of unsteady flows and viscous interactions. Assuming a steady, inviscid flow we have a simplified conservation of energy equation in terms of the enthalpy of the fluid:

ht2 - ht1 = q - wsh

where ht is the total enthalpy of the fluid, q is the heat transfer into the fluid, and wsh is the useful work done by the fluid.

Assuming no heat transfer into the fluid, and no work doen by the fluid, we have:

ht2 = ht1

From the definition of total enthalpy:

e2 + (p * v)2 + (.5 * V^2)2 = e1 + (p * v)1 + (.5 * V^2)1

where e is the internal energy, p is the pressure, v is the specific volume, and V is the velocity of the fluid. From the first law of thermodynamics if there is no work and no heat transfer, the internal energy remains the same:

(p * v)2 + (.5 * V^2)2 = (p * v)1 + (.5 * V^2)1

The specific volume is the inverse of the fluid density r:

(p / r)2 + (.5 * V^2)2 = (p / r)1 + (.5 * V^2)1

Assuming that the flow is incompressible, the density is a constant. Multiplying the energy equation by the constant density:

(ps)2 + (.5 * r * V^2)2 = (ps)1 + (.5 * r * V^2)1 = a constant = pt

This is Bernoulli's equation. If we make different assumptions in the derivation, we can derive other forms of the equation.

Now, if anyone with an imagination can translate some of this into english with comparable analogies to Value Theory and or Ethical Behavior that would save me some time!

Ethics Equations:

The first equation found after a shallow search of the net yeilded this "British" attempt at an equation describing happiness:

Chasity Gunn
04-22-04
If you’re happy and don’t know it, there’s an equation that can show it.


So say two British researchers who last year developed a formula they say can be used to quantify happiness.

The equation: P+5E+3H.


P represents Personal Characteristics (outlook on life, adaptability and resilience); E stands for Existence (health, friendships and financial stability), and H is for Higher Order (self-esteem, expectations and ambitions).

 

[p-brane]

Where one uses the tenent of Ethical study and practice, "Follow The Path Of Least Resistance" one is echoing the princibles of how a high efficiency in energy conservation = beneficial results + better energy conservation.

And what is more analogous to human values and ethics than a statement like

"ht2 - ht1 = q - wsh

where ht is the total enthalpy of the fluid, q is the heat transfer into the fluid, and wsh is the useful work done by the fluid."

And the useful work done is ever more useful when done with little or no energy loss. Sounds like a basic requirement for a successful utopian society.

 

[p-brane]

I guess this quote is a good approximation to a set of equations describing Ethics. And it was right under my nose!

Wuli, I am interested in your alegory between ethics and harmony...

here is an equation that fits some of that metaphore, maybe!...

"It is clear that increasing the interest in problem of harmony and golden section in modern science has found its reflection in modern philosophy in form of new original philosophical concepts. The Byelorussian philosopher Eduard Soroko who advanced in the 80th the highly interesting concept of "structural harmony of systems" developed one of the similar concepts. This concept and the "Law of Structural Harmony of Systems" following from it rightfully can be considered as one of the greatest philosophical achievements of the 20th century.



Soroko's main idea is to consider real systems since "dialectical point of view". As is well known any natural object can be presented as the dialectical unity of the two opposite sides A and B. This dialectical connection may be expressed in the following form:

A + B = U (universum). (1)

The equality of (1) is the most general expression of the so-called conservation law.

Here A and B are distinctions inside of the unity, logically non-crossing classes or substratum states of any whole. There exists the only condition that A and B should be measured with the same measure and be by members of the ratio underlying inside the unity.

The examples of (1) may be probability and improbability of events, mass and energy, nucleus of atom and its envelope, substance and field, anode and cathode, animals and plants, spirit and material origin in the value system, profit and cost price, etc.

The expression of (1) may be reduced to the following normalized form:

`A +`B = 1, (2)

where `A and `B are the relative "weights" of the parts A and B forming some unity.

The partial case of (1) is the "law of information conservation":

I + H = log N, (3)

where I is the information quantity and H is the entropy of the system having N states.

The normalized form of law (3) is the following:

R +`H = 1, (4)

where is the relative redundancy, is the relative entropy.

Let's consider the process of system self-organization. This one is reduced to the passage of the system into some "harmonious" state called the state of the thermodynamic equilibrium. There exists some correlation or proportion between the sides A and B of the dialectical contradiction of (1) in the state of the thermodynamic equilibrium. This correlation has a strictly regular character and is a cause of the system stability. Soroko turns to the principle of multiple relations to find a character of connection between A and B in the state of the thermodynamic equilibrium. This principle is well known in chemistry as "Dalton's law" and in crystallography as the "law of rational parameters".

Soroko advances the hypothesis that the principle of multiple relations is the general principle of the Universe. That is why there exists in accordance with this principle the following correlation between the components R and R è`H in the equality of (4):

log R = (s + 1) log`H (5)

or

log`H = (s + 1) log R. (6)

The expressions of (5), (6) may be represented in the exponential form:

R = (`H )s+1; (7)
`H = Rs+1, (8)

where the number s is called the range of multiplicity and takes the following values: 0, 1, 2, 3, ... .

Inserting the expressions of (7), (8) into the equality of (4) we get the following algebraic equations respectively:

(`H )s+1 +`H - 1 = 0; (9)
Rs+1 - R - 1 = 0. (10)

Marking in y the variables `H and R in the equations of (9), (10) we get the following algebraic equation:

ys+1 + y - 1 = 0. (11)

Let's introduce the new variable for the equation of (11). Inserting the expression of into (11) we get the following algebraic equation:

xs+1 - xs - 1 = 0. (12)

We can see that the latter equation coincides with the algebraic equation of the golden p-proprtion. The real root of the equation of (11) is inverse value to the golden p-proportion, i.e.

(13)

where ts is the root of the equation of (12).

In accordance with Soroko's concept, the roots of the equation of (11), which is equivalent to the equation of (13), expresses the law of the structural harmony of systems.

Summing up Soroko had formulated the following "Law of Structural Harmony of Systems":

"Generalized golden sections are invariants, which allow natural systems in process of their self-organization to find harmonious structure, stationary regime of their existence, structural and functional stability".

What peculiarity has "Soroko's Law"? Starting since Phyphagor the scientists were connected the concept of a Harmony with the only golden proportion "Soroko's Law" claimed that the harmonies state corresponding to the classical golden proportion is no only for the same system. "Soroko's Law" allows an infinite number of the "harmonies" states corresponding to the numbers ts or the inverse numbers (s = 1, 2, 3, ...), which are the real roots of the general algebraic equations of (11), (12)."

 

[ibgib]

Dialectal application?

So, could this concept of dialectal POV's be applied to the arguments about the definition of value theory? In other words, could each argument for or against any other arguments be considered itself to be a natural object? Especially, if the object is composed in terms of information?

 

[p-brane]

So, could this concept of dialectal POV's be applied to the arguments about the definition of value theory? In other words, could each argument for or against any other arguments be considered itself to be a natural object? Especially, if the object is composed in terms of information?

You probably have an answer to your question by now.

I believe an argument composed of opposing views exists as much as does gravity, x-rays and Aunt Bea's cookies.

In my case, I'd say that value is our measurment of whatever benefits a system (ie: makes a system more efficent according to the laws of energy conservation).

For some reason the existence of this universe is reliant on balance and the maintanence of that balance. Value is our measurment of how well that benefitial balance is being maintained. Quite possibly.

The loopholes in my argument are numerous: including the fact that there must be imbalance in order to distiquish a balanced state from an other one. However, that dicotomy, in itself, creates a certain balance as well as a conservation of energy in understanding various states.

 

[francis-webhits]

I reiterate my position. Beauty is an intrinsic property. The ability to recognize and/or appreciate beauty is dependent on individual perception and is subjective.

So "beautiful" could be considered a property inherent in the object.

the perception of (beauty) is subjective and varied just as in color or anyother subjective perception of an intrinsic characteristic property.

"Beauty" would in that case be a relationship between observer and observed object.

I have no way of knowing that what I perceive as blue when I 'see' a certain wavelength of light is the same blue that you perceive when seeing the same wavelength. The frequency of the light does not change from person to person but the color perceived not only may change but most likely does change from person to person.
Yet we by convention call light of a certain frequence/wavelength blue.

The implication of this is surely that it is socially useful to maintain a shared concept of "blue"-ness. A colourblind person could maintain for their entire life that an object is blue even if no-one who isn't colourblind would agree with them. In that colourblind person's head, that object might be blue, but in nobody else's. Would the object then be blue or not? No doubt, you would say not. If the rest of the world's population were to die, and that person were to remain alive to maintain that the object (its colour unaltered) was blue, would it then be blue? It would be strange to maintain that it was not, since there would be only one observer and they claimed it was blue. Yet the only thing that would have changed would have been the removal of the other points of view, to the extent that if the survivor were to find some way of reanimating one of the dead, the object would once again no longer be definitively blue. The existence of the observations remains crucial.

I have no way of knowing that what I perceive as blue when I 'see' a certain wavelength of light is the same blue that you perceive when seeing the same wavelength.

You could always ask. Since "blue" is just an arbitrary label, there would be little advantage in agreeing that one single object is "blue". But with enough examples we could no doubt reach some common ground. It might not mean that we would share exactly the same concept of "blue"-ness, of course. But it would be enough to enable us to communicate about it.

Beauty is a characteristic intrinsic property, the perception of which is subjective and varied just as in color or any other subjective perception of an intrinsic characteristic property.

But given that you consider certain things beautiful, and I consider certain things beautiful, and no doubt we would only agree to a limited extent about what is or isn't in that category, how can we hold a shared concept of, to paraphrase George Bush Sr., "the beauty thing"?

Beauty remains after the beholder leaves.

No (with reservations). Beauty in an object must depend on each observation, because, I am willing to contend, it is meaningless to state that an object is beautiful before it has been observed, and equally meaningless to state that it is beautiful when there is no longer any possibility that it can ever be observed again and is no longer known to any potential observer. And the next beholder might be a delinquent philistine and therefore might not see beauty in the object. That wouldn't have changed your own belief that the object IS beautiful, but it would only be so when beheld in your own memory.

P.S. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that "beautiful" (or indeed "blue" or any other adjective) is a property not of the object itself but of the instance of observation of the object? Which, of course, leaves unanswered the question of what a beautiful instance of observation is (there is the romantic concept of "our song", but most judgements about beauty will be made independently of the opinions of others).

The question remains is the rose beautiful in and of itself or is it beautiful only because we say so. The latter is arrogance beyond belief IMO. The former is more natural and going with the flow. Allowing the universe to be beautiful and contain beauty and appreciating it and life that much more because of it.

No-one has ever accused humanity of not being arrogant, I'm afraid. But on the other hand, I've never heard anyone describe a rose as ugly. I suspect this could still be a case of universally shared terms of reference. Why, I don't know, except to say that we all seem to like roses. And agreement on that point has been the basis of countless beautiful friendships. That shared opinion can't be coincidence.

P.S. On a more cynical note, I've no idea how beautiful a rose is to any other species. Although I suspect a bee would like it.