This issue spiked my interest after I (recently) had a discussion with an atheist here. It seems as if no atheist is capable of successfully formulating a scientific definition of the phenomenon, that is labeled as 'beauty'.
Beauty (from dictionary) =
"The qualities (what are they?) that give pleasure (what is it?) to the senses (where exactly in the 'senses'?)".
Let's think about it this way: Can a ROBOT, ever, create anything 'beautiful'?
And more importantly: Is the universe filled with beauty?
[image © Eric Susoeff]
"Let's think about it this way: Can a ROBOT, ever, create anything 'beautiful'?"
The future is, of course, unknowable, but I would guess that yes, a robot could create something beautiful. We do, after all,consider landscape paintings to be beautiful and a robot could be constructed to "paint" (perhaps using a printer?) what it "sees" (photographs?).
Custom written. "Take this photo. Send the resulting digital image to this printer, with a *print* command". Not difficult to write - I could probably do it myself given a few hours of study (It's been decades since I did any programming).
You asked if a robot might one day create beauty. Not the philosophical ramifications of a silicon "person" showing creativity or even if it could be termed creativity.
And the answer was "probably". If you are now heading for "proof" that all beauty comes from a god that made man that made a robot that made beauty, you're on a losing track.
Thank you for this contribution of yours.
By the way: what is creativity? And what is it (creativity) made of?
the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work.
what are these made of?
2. original ideas
3. artistic work
Electron flow along neurons? Patterns of flow and/or neural interconnections? ("Artistic work" you can infer from the definition of creativity, already given.)
Where exactly in an electron - do imagination, original ideas and artistic impulses - reside?
[Pardon me; but it seems as if you are not (fully) aware of the difference between 'art' and 'creativity'. Creativity is a principle which is common amongst many varied disciplines: a person can be creative in art, as well as in science. Art and creativity are not synonymous. Just as science and creativity are not synonymous.]
Where in the data stream that brings the internet into our homes does Hubpages reside?
“The joy of writing.
The power of preserving.
Revenge of a mortal hand.”
~ Wisława Szymborska
The question is: Exactly what is it [what is 'it' made of?] that is performing the 'preservation'?
And yet, another irrelevant, childish question with another copy/paste.
I'm glad to find you over here, on this forum thread, asking that question.
Seriously, you start a thread with the title, "A PRODIO Thread" with your userid in caps followed with some subtitle in brackets with small letters as if the focus shouldn't actually be on any content, but instead on YOU.
Your smiley faces are contributing much on this thread.
They don't, nor did I insinuate they did. Did you read the answer, or just grab portions that when taken out of context or spun become meaningless?
I gave you a definition of "creative" and it does not equate the two, no. Why would you say I think it does?
""Artistic work" you can infer from the definition of creativity, already given."
~ I replied to you based on this statement of yours, which is not fully correct. Yes, we can get a general idea of what art is - from a common definition of the phenomenon, that is'creativity' - given the fact that performing (most) artistic works requires creativity as a foundational principle.
But that's a general idea of what art is. You haven't provided a 'scientific' definition of the phenomenon - which we label as 'art'.
Not at all, there are plenty of performing artists who haven't a shred of creativity in them.
Just so you know, science doesn't define words, science explains how things work. fyi
Probably because "art" is outside the scope of science. Should you wish to give a solid definition, usable under all circumstances, science might answer your question.
Until then, though, there will be no scientific answer.
Thank you for your reply.
But art is a 'real' (i.e. it exists in our reality) phenomenon. Just as imagination, original ideas and beauty - are 'real' phenomena.
Perhaps (and perhaps not, too). But the definition of "art" varies person to person; without a firm definition, science cannot investigate or study the phenomenon as there is nothing to study.
Example; to some, an elephant wielding a paint brush is "art". So is throwing buckets of paint at a canvas. So is the "cubist" grouping of art. Ditto for rap sounds and a sculpture of nothing but trash in a pile. None are "art" by any definition I would give. So what will science look at? You want it to study "art" but cannot tell it what that is - the result is that you cannot tell science what to study to fill your request.
How would - then - 'science' study the phenomenon that we call beauty?
You said yourself, somewhere, that you perceive beauty when you see it.
["Because I see them (beauty). How do YOU know when something, anything, is beautiful?"]
[I can study what I call beauty. The science field cannot as I cannot define what to study for them. This should not be difficult to understand; a group of people cannot satisfy a request to study something when the requester will not tell them what to study.
Scientists are human beings, like us. And they, too, perceive beauty.
Is it your claim then that everyone will agree with my judgement on what is beautiful and what is not? That everyone will use the same definition?
'Cause I hate modern art and most of what is being passed off as music today.
Are you saying that beauty does not exist as a material reality?
Are you saying that the phenomenon that we label as 'beauty' - is only in our perception [what is 'perception'?] - and that 'it' ('beauty') doesn't exist in the material universe?
If (what we call) 'beauty' is a physical property of any given 'beautiful' physical object - then everyone would equally perceive it.
[You hate 'modern art' - but you are still saying that it is art.
Someone might not like 'modern art'; but they can tell that a human being painted it.
Someone might not like 'most of what is being passed off as music today'; but they can still detect that it is a 'human composition' (i.e. one or more human beings were behind 'its' production).]
Why should science study that? How is that going to help us understand how anything works?
As we all do.
Scientists have studied beauty. They take measurements of things, and compare them to what people say they perceive as beautiful.
So what? Let's hear the religious successfully formulate a definition for 'beauty'?
I'm not an atheist, but I don't consider beauty to be a phenomenon.
Beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder. What you consider to be beautiful is not what I might consider to be beautiful. We may agree that something is beautiful, yet we won't necessarily agree as to why it is beautiful. Which makes it next to impossible to formulate a scientific equation which will ensure that all agree on the label of beautiful.
Our need to see beauty will directly influence how much beauty we see. So, to me, that makes the more interesting question....why do we need to label? What is, is. Why do we then need to qualify? For every positive label we attribute to something, we have to create an opposing negative label. To help better describe the positive label.
But, to answer you question. Yes. A robot could create something that someone might consider beautiful.
Beauty is a real phenomenon.
Here is an analogy: A person may win 1 million euro in a lottery. If he/she is already a billionaire - then this sum (1 million euro) that they have just won - would not affect them as much as it would affect a trash collector.
In both the cases: the sum is 1 million. But the reactions that it generates in those two 'different' recipients, vary dramatically.
'€ 1 million' is a real phenomenon, nonetheless. It's a material reality.
Money itself is not 'beautiful' - but money generates an immediate reaction in our consciousness - just as beauty does.
Lots of things create an immediate reaction in our consciousness. The reaction is not the same to each thing, or the same for each person. Which, again, makes it impossible to create the scientific definition you seek.
Those things, nonetheless, exist in the material universe.
A snake might frighten (and create feelings of 'hatred') in a teenager. But that same snake might generate feelings of extreme curiosity - say - in a cellular microbiologist.
But the 'snake' itself exist, nonetheless. And we can, so to speak, 'scientifically' define it on the material level of the universe.
Oh. I'd certainly have to disagree with that.
How can you claim that it is a material reality when no one defines beauty quite the same as another?
Because they don't define many other things 'quite the same as another'. And because those things still have their 'scientific' definitions.
We know what they are made of - we can 'manipulate' them - and we can even reproduce (some of) those things.
But, beauty is not universally agreed upon. We choose to label things beautiful. Choosing to label them otherwise doesn't change the nature of the thing. The thing exists, no matter what label we assign to it. Beautiful is an adjective. It modifies a noun. It is not a noun.
Yes. Which makes the painting real. It does not make it beautiful. One might perceive it as such, or not. However it might be perceived does not make it real. The act of perceiving it verifies that it is real, the act of judging it is a choice.
Seriously? You claim beauty is real but are going to ask how one knows something concrete exists? The canvas is real. The paint brush is real. The paints are real.
The only question would be does putting them all together constitute a painting. We could simply call it a mess, but it still exists. We can both see it and touch it.
No. We can both see and touch something we may agree to label beautiful. We can also both see and touch something we agree is ugly. We can also touch something we disagree as to the correct manner in which to modify the noun. Any given item could be seen by each of us in varying ways.
Anyway, if you and I agree that an object is beautiful; it does not make it beautiful. It simply means we agree to perceive it as such.
How do you know when you see a painting - that it is indeed a painting?
As previously stated. We would have to agree to describe it as a painting. We could agree to describe it a mess; or we could disagree as to what it really was.
Even an 'attempted painting' shows that someone wanted to create a painting with it. That's something very different from a 'mess'.
That would depend on perspective. Yours would be a kind way of viewing a lack of talent. Others might not be so kind.
A combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, esp. the sight.
Beauty is subjective, an abstract.
The following are the specific posts that spiked my interest about the subject of 'an atheist's capacity for perceiving beauty - and his/her capacity for defining it:
1. "Of course. That's the wonder - how and why did those giant stalactites form? How could the Hawaiian islands, or the Galapagos, evolve from molten lava to the paradise it is today? What are the details of the formation of black holes, or even stars? What is it like deep within the sun?
Why do Hydrogen and Oxygen combine so often to make that substance we need so badly? What really makes the giant fuzzy ball sometimes seen on a jet at low altitude and how/why is it there? The mechanics of making the grand canyon certainly make us shake our heads in wonder. That the deepest canyon in NA (Hells Canyon) was mostly cut in just a few days is fascinating.
We wonder about everything around us and the more we know and understand the more we wonder. A fascinating place, our universe."
2. "Chemical and physical made the formations "necessary", or perhaps "inevitable". No god necessary, just the normal chemical/physical reactions seen everyday. What makes it so wondrous and fascinating is the time necessary and the beauty produced - not that a god somewhere made "art" for their pets."
3. "Because I see them (beauty). How do YOU know when something, anything, is beautiful?"
Nature is beautiful. It just is.
Take the painting. The closer the painter gets to revealing nature the more beautiful the painting. If you want to make an appealing painting replicate the beautiful aspects of nature through your rendering and brushwork.
Furthermore, for a painting to be beautiful, whether abstract or realistic, it must consist of elements of what is perfect based on the matrix itself. In one word: Math (i.e. the golden mean, fibonacci series, etc.)
Why is beauty an objective reality rather than a subjective opinion?
Nature reveals perfection through the logic of mathematics, based on fractals, the fibonacci series, etc..
The perfection of what we observe or contemplate contributes to what we define as beautiful. Perfection is awe-striking!
To behold its manifestation is COMMONLY recognized as beautiful! Lets say a man is sitting on his porch as the earth turns away from the sun. He observes the effects of the sunset with its orange, yellow, and golden hues. Aqua blue and magenta, royal blue and violet…. the colors moving, never still as the earth rotates according to invisible forces he rarely acknowledges on a conscious level…He sees the perfect silhouettes of trees against the colors of the dimming sky. He notices black crows resting upon telephone lines. Are they beholding the vast colorful sky, as well? Sounds of the crickets conducting their nightly symphony commence. He reflects the rhythms of life based on the ever-turning earth.
We can't help but marvel at the manifestation of all natural phenomenon and the perfection behind it all. The manifestations of nature are beautiful to the human mind.
Are they ugly? Maybe to a creepy mutant, but certainly not to any of us, (theists and and atheists alike! )
A Mon Avis.
I thought so, too.
-was beginning to wonder…
What valley is shown in the photo?
It's a picture of Telluride Valley. Here is a high def one of the same valley - at 'wikemedia commons':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tellu … ondola.jpg
No. I rather sit at the edge of the valley and write poetry!
Murau [Austria] is another (fascinatingly) beautiful place. It's a lot like Telluride.
This world is filled with these (beautiful) places. Even in such 'underdeveloped' places, such as - Nepal, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia etc - we shall find breathtaking beauty. If we can successfully penetrate through the man-made nastiness (the cities in those countries) - beauty, real beauty - would flood out our eyes.
Ours is a beautiful planet (in a beautiful universe).
by the essayist21 months ago
Read from top to bottom, then bottom to top. I always believed God existed. I don't recall a time when I didn't believe that. I know growing up in a religious family motivated this. I remember...
by marinealways246 years ago
Alright, so this is a generalization, but I do have a basis. I have noticed that many atheist's in the forums follow the same line of thinking as atheist idols such as Darwin and Dawkins in a religious following rather...
by Anichol6 years ago
Maybe the title should have been the other way round.Tacitus was a Roman historian born c.55[In 113, Tacitus was governor of Asia (which he had once called "a rich province, easy to extort"; Agricola,...
by marinealways246 years ago
Why do some Atheist's think creation is impossible? Aren't Atheist's created by their parents like everyone else? Are Atheist's mad at their parents for creating them?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.