The Science of Aesthetics

[Tank]

My use of symbolic in this context would be that when we use the word Cat, written or spoken, it is simply a linguistic representation of a real object. The object referred to as a Cat could equally be referred to as kočka if one were Czech. So we have at least two different linguistic symbols for one particular type of object.

That's all fine and dandy to me.

Now a Cat can have existance, I could be referring to a singular real Cat, it could be a beautiful cat. Now while the object has an existance the concept of beauty does not have a physical existance. One can't have a bottle of beauty, it is an intangible concept, it is also abstract. The beauty of the cat it a refined quality, an 'abstraction' of one aspect of the cat.

By saying the "concept of beauty" aren't you implicitly assuming your result?  Concepts are by most definitions mind-dependent abstract objects.  What you need to show is that the referent of "beauty" is only a concept.

It might be helpful to run in tandem the same argument you make for beauty being a concept but replacing "beauty" with "quantity".  Quantity cannot be "bottled" - should we therefore conclude that quantity is a concept, and why?

Dumb question time. If beauty were not a concept what would/could it be?

[Logikos]

Dumb question time. If beauty were not a concept what would/could it be?

A property (characteristic, attribute) of objects seems a worthy candidate.

[Tank]

Dumb question time. If beauty were not a concept what would/could it be?

A property (characteristic, attribute) of objects seems a worthy candidate.

Playing around with this. A property could be objectively measurable, in the sense of mass, which would be analogous the timing a sprinter. An ice dance could be measured for the property of 'artistic interpretation' which is a much more (totally?) subjective measure.

So I'm still feeling that beauty is a subjective measure and as such exists only in the mind of the observer.

How about this. Could an item be considered beautiful before it has been observed? I don't think it could. Putting aside the idea that all roses are beautiful therefore an unobserved rose is still beautiful. I think that an object could not be deemed beautiful if nobody has seen it and classified it as such. I would contend any definition of beauty has to be an external judgement (of the object) made by a sentient creature with an aesthetic sense (whatever that is).

[hismikeness]

I think those who use the beauty in nature as an argument for god are willfully ignoring all the ugliness of nature...the disease, the hunger, the killing, the disasters...things like this:



I present to you the Naked Mole Rat as proof that there are ugly things in nature.

On another forum, related to Oregon State Sports, my handle is NakedMoleRat. I got the nickname when I had my had shaved. A guy that my parents tailgate with said my head looked like a NakeMoleRat and it stuck.

Ha!

Hismikeness

[Logikos]

Playing around with this. A property could be objectively measurable, in the sense of mass, which would be analogous [to] timing a sprinter. An ice dance could be measured for the property of 'artistic interpretation' which is a much more (totally?) subjective measure.

Is objectivity somehow connected to measurability?  I can't see any reason to think so.  I also can't see any reason why beauty couldn't have a objective measure, and there doesn't seem any reason to think that all measures have to be one-dimensional like mass or time either (eg. the property of being a complex number, where we can consider real and imaginary components).  So measurability seems a bit of a red herring to me (as does equating the beauty of an ice dance with artistry).

So I'm still feeling that beauty is a subjective measure and as such exists only in the mind of the observer.

I feel that the government owe me a golden toothbrush for my stellar oral hygiene, but, alas, I fear that said toothbrush is not forthcoming.

How about this. Could an item be considered beautiful before it has been observed? I don't think it could. Putting aside the idea that all roses are beautiful therefore an unobserved rose is still beautiful. I think that an object could not be deemed beautiful if nobody has seen it and classified it as such. I would contend any definition of beauty has to be an external judgement (of the object) made by a sentient creature with an aesthetic sense (whatever that is).

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

[Tank]

Playing around with this. A property could be objectively measurable, in the sense of mass, which would be analogous [to] timing a sprinter. An ice dance could be measured for the property of 'artistic interpretation' which is a much more (totally?) subjective measure.

Is objectivity somehow connected to measurability?  I can't see any reason to think so.  

Objectivity is very much connected to measurability. A pair of scales has no mind and therefore while doing what is designed to do it is behaving in an objective manner.

I also can't see any reason why beauty couldn't have a objective measure,

Fair enough. Explain the unit of measure (the Bute?) and how the instrumentality you would use to do the measurement would carry out the measurement.

and there doesn't seem any reason to think that all measures have to be one-dimensional like mass or time either (eg. the property of being a complex number, where we can consider real and imaginary components).

Quite right. So please explain the multi dimensional metric you would use to objectively measure the aforementioned Bute.

 

So measurability seems a bit of a red herring to me (as does equating the beauty of an ice dance with artistry).

Measurability is rather important as if you can't objectively measure something it does not exist as a physical entity or force. Love is a feeling, it is has no existance outside a mind. If measurement is subjective (as in the ice dance) then what is being measured only exists in the mind of the observer.

So I'm still feeling that beauty is a subjective measure and as such exists only in the mind of the observer.

I feel that the government owe me a golden toothbrush for my stellar oral hygiene, but, alas, I fear that said toothbrush is not forthcoming.

That didn't really address my point.

How about this. Could an item be considered beautiful before it has been observed? I don't think it could. Putting aside the idea that all roses are beautiful therefore an unobserved rose is still beautiful. I think that an object could not be deemed beautiful if nobody has seen it and classified it as such. I would contend any definition of beauty has to be an external judgement (of the object) made by a sentient creature with an aesthetic sense (whatever that is).

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Yes. The tree falling would still make the pressure waves that we interpret as sound. A microphone would detect the preasure waves. The physical effect would still be there. But as beauty can not be measured objectivly, only observed and subjectivly interpreted. A beautiful object that has never been observed would not be beautiful as it would not have effected the mind of an observer. The object has no intrisic beauty while a falling tree does have intrinsic energy (kinetic energy) transformed into preassure variations as it falls and hits the ground.

[SSY]

Is objectivity somehow connected to measurability?  I can't see any reason to think so.

Can you think of a single objective property that cannot be measured, objectively, even in principle?

[Logikos]

Objectivity is very much connected to measurability. A pair of scales has no mind and therefore while doing what is designed to do it is behaving in an objective manner.

Sure, measurability implies objectivity.  Is the converse true?  That seems dubious to me.  I am also doubtful whether "objective measurement" is possible at all - all measurement requires human input and interpretation of data.

Fair enough. Explain the unit of measure (the Bute?) and how the instrumentality you would use to do the measurement would carry out the measurement.

Saying that "I don't see why it's not possible" does not mean "I can demonstrate that it is possible".  You asserted that it is not objectively measurable, and I doubted your assertion.

Measurability is rather important as if you can't objectively measure something it does not exist as a physical entity or force. Love is a feeling, it is has no existance outside a mind. If measurement is subjective (as in the ice dance) then what is being measured only exists in the mind of the observer.

Seems like more assertions to me.  I see no reason to believe that objectivity implies objective measurability.

So I'm still feeling that beauty is a subjective measure and as such exists only in the mind of the observer.

I feel that the government owe me a golden toothbrush for my stellar oral hygiene, but, alas, I fear that said toothbrush is not forthcoming.

That didn't really address my point.

My point was that you seemed to be basing your argument on a "feeling" that beauty is subjective.

Yes. The tree falling would still make the pressure waves that we interpret as sound. A microphone would detect the preasure waves. The physical effect would still be there. But as beauty can not be measured objectivly, only observed and subjectivly interpreted. A beautiful object that has never been observed would not be beautiful as it would not have effected the mind of an observer. The object has no intrisic beauty while a falling tree does have intrinsic energy (kinetic energy) transformed into preassure variations as it falls and hits the ground.

OK: Tree makes sound - microphone records sound - human being listens to recording.
Why is that any different from: Flower is beautiful - camera captures beauty of flower - human being sees beauty of flower in photograph?
[I'm not being facetious (honest!) - I'd really like to know what it is about using the microphone that makes the measurement objective - it seems to me that it still depends on human interpretation of the data.]

[Logikos]

Can you think of a single objective property that cannot be measured, objectively, even in principle?

The average accuracy of the set of all pieces of measuring equipment.

(EDIT: To be honest, I'm more interested in how you would go about working this out than whether this is a valid counterexample or not!)

[Davin]

OK: Tree makes sound - microphone records sound - human being listens to recording.
Why is that any different from: Flower is beautiful - camera captures beauty of flower - human being sees beauty of flower in photograph?
[I'm not being facetious (honest!) - I'd really like to know what it is about using the microphone that makes the measurement objective - it seems to me that it still depends on human interpretation of the data.]

I think you're making a false comparison here.

We can say that sound is waves of energy, with which we can measure how loud a sound is, record sounds and the sound sounds the same to everyone with healthy ears when played back. What we can't measure is how enjoyable the sound would be to anyone.

What is beauty? How do we measure beauty? Is beauty the same for everyone with healthy eyes? What we can measure is how bright the image is, how much contrast it has, the focus and the amount of different colors.

Can you think of a single objective property that cannot be measured, objectively, even in principle?

The average accuracy of the set of all pieces of measuring equipment.

(EDIT: To be honest, I'm more interested in how you would go about working this out than whether this is a valid counterexample or not!)

All pieces of the measuring equipment or just those pieces that can affect the accuracy of the measurement?

[Logikos]

I think you're making a false comparison here.

We can say that sound is waves of energy, with which we can measure how loud a sound is, record sounds and the sound sounds the same to everyone with healthy ears when played back. What we can't measure is how enjoyable the sound would be to anyone.

What is beauty? How do we measure beauty? Is beauty the same for everyone with healthy eyes? What we can measure is how bright the image is, how much contrast it has, the focus and the amount of different colors.

Why can't we say that if someone doesn't recognise the beauty of a flower (eg. the cherry blossom below) that they have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?

All pieces of the measuring equipment or just those pieces that can affect the accuracy of the measurement?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the question?  

[pinkocommie]

So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

[elliebean]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4583&p=60705&hilit=if+a+tree+falls#p60705

[Davin]

I think you're making a false comparison here.

We can say that sound is waves of energy, with which we can measure how loud a sound is, record sounds and the sound sounds the same to everyone with healthy ears when played back. What we can't measure is how enjoyable the sound would be to anyone.

What is beauty? How do we measure beauty? Is beauty the same for everyone with healthy eyes? What we can measure is how bright the image is, how much contrast it has, the focus and the amount of different colors.

Why can't we say that if someone doesn't recognise the beauty of a flower (eg. the cherry blossom below) that they have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?

[Some lame picture.]

How do you determine that someone has a poorly functioning sense of beauty? We can determine that some one has good or bad hearing when they can't hear in a certain range of decibels and frequencies. We can tell people have good or bad vision by testing it. We don't ask do you like the bottom row of 'E's? We see if they can tell which way the 'E's are facing. There are standards. What is are the standards for beauty?

Also, I really want these questions answered: What is beauty? How do we measure beauty? Is beauty the same for everyone with healthy eyes?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the question?

Can you think of a single objective property that cannot be measured, objectively, even in principle?

The average accuracy of the set of all pieces of measuring equipment.

(EDIT: To be honest, I'm more interested in how you would go about working this out than whether this is a valid counterexample or not!)

All pieces of the measuring equipment or just those pieces that can affect the accuracy of the measurement?

Maybe that will help.

[Logikos]

So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

I think we would have to have a deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful before I could go as far as to say that.  ]