jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (73 posts)

A PRODIO Thread [an atheist's definition of 'beauty']

  1. Prodio profile image60
    Prodioposted 2 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9077176_f520.jpg

    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]

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "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?).

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What software would it (the robot) be using?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          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).

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Where would the ROBOT be - without you?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you for this contribution of yours.


                By the way: what is creativity? And what is it (creativity) made of?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  cre·a·tiv·i·ty
                  ˌkrē-āˈtivitē/Submit
                  noun
                  the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work.

                  1. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you.




                    what are these made of?


                    1imagination

                    2original ideas

                    3artistic work

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So what? Let's hear the religious successfully formulate a definition for 'beauty'?

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Prodio profile image60
      Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose if you consider a material reality a phenomenon, then to you it is. But, how is a million euro beautiful? What does that have to do with your question? Because, I don't consider money to be beautiful.

  3. Prodio profile image60
    Prodioposted 2 years ago

    Money itself is not 'beautiful' - but money generates an immediate reaction in our consciousness - just as beauty does.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You can define the snake. No one disputes that. But, you were looking for a scientific definition of the phenomenon you label beauty. What does that have to do with it? You appear to be going off on a tangent, or I'm not following you.

  4. Prodio profile image60
    Prodioposted 2 years ago

    This is the contention:  'Beauty' is a material reality.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Oh. I'd certainly have to disagree with that.

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I'm glad to know that.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How can you claim that it is a material reality when no one defines beauty quite the same as another?

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Have you ever painted a picture/drawing?

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    How do you know that the painting is 'real'?

  5. Prodio profile image60
    Prodioposted 2 years ago

    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?"



    http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2604026

    http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2604429

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    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?
    Math.
    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.

    1. Prodio profile image60
      Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      An excellent reply.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you!
        I thought so, too.
        -was beginning to wonder…

        What valley is shown in the photo?

        1. Prodio profile image60
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          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

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Cool. Do you ski/snowboard?

            1. Prodio profile image60
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No. I rather sit at the edge of the valley and write poetry!

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I have skied once.

                1. Prodio profile image60
                  Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  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).


                  http://murau.steiermark.at/

 
working