Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
"Bubblefish will no longer rationally engage magical arguments"
Respectfully,
The Management
I repeat, that's because your assertions are devoid of meaning. You can demand all you like but no arguments are required. You can declare all you like and that will be equally devoid of meaning. Bubblefish declares... gosh!
As I have written several times now, and what you are singularly incapable of grasping, is that everything you have asserted has been unsupported by evidence. It's a safe bet that you understand almost nothing of substance regarding all the quotes and stuff you've dredged up from the Internet. Your OS0102 or whatever you wish to call it is nonsense. And your "defence" of it has been a demonstration of monumental ignorance along with an insatiable appetite for plagiarism and prevarication. Underpinning your lengthy,verbose diatribes is... nothing at all - a vacuum. All of this is evidenced by practically every page of this thread and, thankfully, the world can read it.
Btw, trawling Wikepedia is no substitute for a real education and real understanding.
Grow up!
Bubblefish said:
Another of today's Bubblefish words of wisdom.
Balanced = symmetrical. Profound!
One ton of Angeline Jolies on one side and one ton of Osama Bin Ladens on the other. Perfectly symmetrical, obviously.
A perfect sphere. Not perfectly symmetrical, obviously.
Bubblefish. Not meat head, obviously.
And "0" balances perfectly with what exactly? Do tell!
Mojo
Mostly harmless
It would also be perfectly symmetrical left/right, and indeed across any plane which went through its centre. Certainly more symmetrical than AJ's head. And you still can't spell "asymmetrical".
By the way, AJ's head is also asymmetrical relative to her neck and shoulders.
Sorry, was that you repeating the "argument", and therefore contradicting yourself yet again? It's kind of difficult to tell whether you're using an "argument", because your "arguments", like what you posted here, tend to be nothing beyond unsupported assertions.
You have claimed that AJ is beautiful. You have claimed that Beauty is perfect symmetry. You have claimed that beauty is objective. You now seem to be trying to introduce a new definition of "symmetry" designed to be subjective, rather than the planar definition of symmetry that was used in the earlier discussions about whether symmetry is a property of faces that are considered beautiful.
You can't chop definitions about like this without contradicting yourself. If we're talking about planar symmetry or radial symmetry, we can at least arrive at objective assessments as to which of two objects is more symmetrical. How do you think your new definition of "symmetry", which suddenly seems to involve metaphysics, can be objectively assessed?
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Oh dear, has he given up, and therefore (according to his own definition) lost?
"Bubblefish will no longer rationally engage magical arguments"
Respectfully,
The Management
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Your Imperial Highness, I really think you should get a new tailor.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Is that a "yes", then?
"Bubblefish will no longer rationally engage magical arguments"
Respectfully,
The Management
"Bubblefish will no longer rationally engage magical arguments"
Respectfully,
The Management
Bubblefish, stop spamming the thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Patricio Elicer
Last edited by a moderator:
Symmetry stems from the natural center line of the body. Many people can niether feel, nor see, the natural center line. Beautiful bodies and faces naturally flow from and around, the center line, and all forms, curves are radial, planar, or bi-lateral (geometric) from the center line out.
If you 'put' the center line somewhere in your mind where it doesnt go, then you wont find the symmetry.
Beautiful and fit women's curves slink around the center line, and also represent objective 'eros' as well.
http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Dancer-poster.jpg
The human body's beauty is NOT static, it's symmetry is defined in the space around it, and when our movement is balanced and center, it naturally produces beautiful movement.
Is this not beautiful?
http://www.dancer.com/images/ZJ-Bend-for-Cover.jpg
I have stated that beauty is BOTH objective, and subjective.
If you cant find the center line, then you cant find the beauty. Attractive bodies and faces make it easier to find the center line, as all lines are balanced and symmetrical around it.
There is another symmetry expressed in the body, the symmetry of the symmetrical and the asymetrical. Any asymetrical feature has a natural balance within a higher symmetry.
http://www.glyphs.com/art/fractals/images/hypnos.jpg
Metaphysical symmetry is our thinking and feeling. The closer to inner harmony between thinking and feeling, the closer to inner beauty and inspiration we experience.
Ichneumonwasp,
I hope you dont mind the bounce over here, but you provided some very intelligent commentary that was refreshing for me to read, and I thought our discussion could happen here where this discussion originally began.
Objective is external reality
Subjective is internal reality
agreed. There is a common misperception regarding objective/subjective. However, this discussion has been about objective/subjective, and I introduced beauty to accentuate these distinctions.
I disagree, I think that some people do mean purely subjective, and they mean purely subjective because their philosophy necessitates it.
Otherwise, I agree, there is a subjective component to beauty. There is also a objective component to beauty.
I define objective in this regard as that which is mutually viewable, in potential or in the actual.
I give the computer as an example of their being objectifiable information which relates to beauty. Symmetry is mutually viewable potentially. However, to view a symmetry, one has to have a framework with which to perceive it, so therefore, beauty as symmetry is potentially viewable. Beauty can be discovered in things, no?
Our ability to perceive outer symmetry, I suggest, is relational to our inner symmetry, our subjectivity, which metaphysically is thinking and feeling.
Therefore, there is an interdependent relationship with the thinking/feeling metaphysical symmetry and an external symmetry.
Yes, but consider, it can be potentially viewable. There are many scientists and mathematicians, and a few philosophers, who suggest that string theory is very beautiful, it's symmetries the highest of elegance. Yet, who can view that other than those trained in rigorous studies? So we can say that string theory has potential beauty if one was a mathematician and physicist.
There are repeating characteristics relative to each culture. Perhaps a tribe in Tora Bora cannot perceive Angelina Jolie's beauty simply because they have no cultural framework at all to even see it, perhaps beauty became symmetrical with some other harmony relative to them. What all of them share in common, however, is an expression of form that is a expression of some potential that IS exalted in physical forms.
Well, the computer can analyze beautiful faces because beauty in the face is easier to define. I'm not saying that the computer can analyze beauty fully, it can't, it has no internal subjective harmony to experience along with the external.
I can see how it could appear that way at first glance, but I don’t think so, rather, I think it is the 'winning' idea here philosophically, and can argue my position quite rationally without producing contradiction in my actual meaning.
Hmmm, I have to assume that you have a higher philosophical argument here, I don’t see how you can say that objective/subjective beauty is subjective.
We are mutually hard wired to value it, yes.
Hmm, yes, there is a higher philosophical argument here. Can you define how you are using 'absolute'?
It may amount to subjectivity in the sense that human reality is a construction of our nervous systems and brains, yes, so our idea of objective reality is relative to what we all can agree on in principle, and then what is subjective is what is unique.
I can't think of any other way to apply subjectivity here in the grander sense other than that. Was that what you meant?
If you define framework as shared human nervous system, then I would say no, that is not what anyone is arguing for on this thread, most especially Zaay.
Looking forward to your response. Thank you for the well thought through reply.
Bubblefish
I hope you dont mind the bounce over here, but you provided some very intelligent commentary that was refreshing for me to read, and I thought our discussion could happen here where this discussion originally began.
Objective is external reality
Subjective is internal reality
agreed. There is a common misperception regarding objective/subjective. However, this discussion has been about objective/subjective, and I introduced beauty to accentuate these distinctions.
I disagree, I think that some people do mean purely subjective, and they mean purely subjective because their philosophy necessitates it.
Otherwise, I agree, there is a subjective component to beauty. There is also a objective component to beauty.
I define objective in this regard as that which is mutually viewable, in potential or in the actual.
I give the computer as an example of their being objectifiable information which relates to beauty. Symmetry is mutually viewable potentially. However, to view a symmetry, one has to have a framework with which to perceive it, so therefore, beauty as symmetry is potentially viewable. Beauty can be discovered in things, no?
Our ability to perceive outer symmetry, I suggest, is relational to our inner symmetry, our subjectivity, which metaphysically is thinking and feeling.
Therefore, there is an interdependent relationship with the thinking/feeling metaphysical symmetry and an external symmetry.
Yes, but consider, it can be potentially viewable. There are many scientists and mathematicians, and a few philosophers, who suggest that string theory is very beautiful, it's symmetries the highest of elegance. Yet, who can view that other than those trained in rigorous studies? So we can say that string theory has potential beauty if one was a mathematician and physicist.
There are repeating characteristics relative to each culture. Perhaps a tribe in Tora Bora cannot perceive Angelina Jolie's beauty simply because they have no cultural framework at all to even see it, perhaps beauty became symmetrical with some other harmony relative to them. What all of them share in common, however, is an expression of form that is a expression of some potential that IS exalted in physical forms.
Well, the computer can analyze beautiful faces because beauty in the face is easier to define. I'm not saying that the computer can analyze beauty fully, it can't, it has no internal subjective harmony to experience along with the external.
I can see how it could appear that way at first glance, but I don’t think so, rather, I think it is the 'winning' idea here philosophically, and can argue my position quite rationally without producing contradiction in my actual meaning.
Hmmm, I have to assume that you have a higher philosophical argument here, I don’t see how you can say that objective/subjective beauty is subjective.
We are mutually hard wired to value it, yes.
Hmm, yes, there is a higher philosophical argument here. Can you define how you are using 'absolute'?
It may amount to subjectivity in the sense that human reality is a construction of our nervous systems and brains, yes, so our idea of objective reality is relative to what we all can agree on in principle, and then what is subjective is what is unique.
I can't think of any other way to apply subjectivity here in the grander sense other than that. Was that what you meant?
If you define framework as shared human nervous system, then I would say no, that is not what anyone is arguing for on this thread, most especially Zaay.
Looking forward to your response. Thank you for the well thought through reply.
Bubblefish
Last edited:
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s53207.htm
- this does not support your position:
...And just like in animals, symmetry in humans seems to be a large part of what we think is beautiful. There are other factors involved, but symmetry seems to be one of the big ones.
So it seems...
...But all the studies so far involved small numbers of people - usually less than 150, and mostly, around 30.
And most of these studies have not yet been repeated by other scientists, to check their accuracy.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s53207.htm
So that one contains many subjective assertions.
http://www.mirrorofbeauty.com/science.html
From what I can tell, this is self contradictory, or at least ignores the evidence it presents in its own introduction. Ancient statues that show changing ideals of beauty through history are presented, abut then a pov is offered that contracts that evidence. Hard for me to take this site seriously. Are they selling something? I can't tell what that site is all about.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/1995/Mar/hour2_030395.html
- there is nothing here except that a radio show took place. This has not made a point.
http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Prettiest-Science-Nancy-Etcoff/dp/0385479425
Many book reviews, some good some bad.
"This is a fun read for the layman, but it is not very scientific, furthermore, it is does not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny-don't think too hard if you want to enjoy this one!
For example, the idea that women are Darwinistically selected for their beauty is a hard buy. In all species except humans, males compete for the right to mate with females, but females can ALWAYS reproduce and pass on their genes; females do not need to force males to mate with them. Can you imagine a human society where a female cannot have sex and pass on her genes because her cheekbones are not high enough? It is purely laughable, if anyone is selected, it is us males.
Also, recent scientific evidence (see human genome project) suggests that sperm competition resulted because of the high levels of promiscuity of human females. This throws into question one of the most popular theories
of evolutionary psychology, which posits that men roam and spread their seed while women stay home and take care of the kids. On the surface, evolutionary psychology tries to make sense of us, but in reality, it is
like thinking the earth is flat. Let's leave science to the scientists."
Reviewer: EvoBioM "Dug" (New York CIty)"
So that one is unconvincing too.
That's probably the best link of the bunch, interesting article! But nobody is really arguing against the case it makes: that a machine could make average decisions like the average of a group of people. Some aspects of what we consider a pretty face have some objectivity - but not universally. And the research paper makes no such claim.
And it does not really touch the basic question of beauty does it? Only that a computer could learn to decide like most people do. If the people's viewpoint changed, the program would then become more errant wouldn't it? it would have to be reprogrammed. So, this does not seem to address the core question of beauty itself.
No need to be testy.
I considered, and yes they are all wrong to some degree, but true to a degree too. So does that get us any closer? Is anyone arguing that there are not some objective aspects to beauty? If beauty were completely 'in the eye of the beholder' there could be no art museums, since no one could agree on what a pretty painting was. But that is not the case.
I did find a study worth mentioning though:
How do you explain this result if symmetry = objective beauty?
I did not want to be too long with this one, so I will address some of your responses to my earlier post.
I do not expect you to agree with me, but I did show that each of your examples was false, and you do not really have the right to take a condescending attitude toward our inability to agree with your as yet unsupported assertions.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
You are welcome. There may be some summarizations around, Stanford University is a good source. Without critiquing your comments on Popper, the idea he promotes for examining questions that make 'true or false' assertions is by applying the concept of falsification to them. He offers an excellent example: that of a climber who is attempting to scale a peak, but it is lost in fog. Since he cannot 'know' he has reached the top, he attempts to ascertain it by other means, means that would show he had NOT reached the peak. Popper proposes that all science is like that - we don't ever absolutely KNOW something, but one way to proceed in scientific knowledge is to propose a theory and then attempt to refute it, or at least parts of it. The new 'falsified' theory becomes the basis for a newer theory, with new questions to ask. This forms what you mentioned earlier as a 'dialectic triad' (Kant I think). Theory - falsification - new theory - etc. And so our knowledge progresses.
This is where your position of Jolie seemed to confuse me. If I began a dialectic triad with the 'theory' that 'Jolie was beautiful', I am quickly forced to argue that there is something that exists that is not beautiful. Beauty is simply not a falsifiable idea. There is no way to 'approach' the truth of the matter, no matter how many pages we (or at least I) type. Tarski might be a little more harsh and call it a nonsense idea.
I hope I answered this with the example above.
The problem is that there is no way to approach the truth of it one way or another. I could simply assert, even from a philosophical pov, that there is a sense that all things have beauty. Can you give me an example of a thing that is not beautiful, or is ugly in every sense?
The artist part of me would say that beauty lies in imperfections as well as in 'symmetry'. I draw human faces, and this seems an inescapable truth. To define perfect beauty as complete symmetry succeeds only if it denies an important truth about beauty.
Philosophy of Logic is harsh on statements that claim to objective while being both 'true' and 'false' at the same time.
Beauty is an idea we judge by, like morality. Creatures on a different planet might have different views of both. To our limited perspective they can both appear objective, and even seem useful that way. They are subjective in the larger perspective though, regardless of our desire for them to be otherwise.
Truth may exist as an absolute, but we only know it by an imperfect painting of what it is not. Falsification seems like a very artistic sort of idea to me, considering Popper was a scientist I think it is a fine philosophical insight.
I demonstrated how in a scientific dialectic your position on beauty meets these conditions of sophistry.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
So now, having introduced, for example, radial symmetry (but without explaining this type of symmetry applies to a face) to your definition of beauty, and stated that "a human face that is symmetrical is symmetrical within [radial, geometrical, and planar symmetry]", you are now back to left/right reflectional symmetry along the body's centre line. Still, a perfect sphere would be at least as symmetrical in this way as any face.
So you have contradicted yourself: you have stated that beauty is independent of viewpoint (objective) and not independent of viewpoint (subjective).
How do you objectively assess the "natural balance" of an asymmetrical feature? And what do you mean by "a higher symmetry"?
How would you objectively assess how close a face is to this "inner harmony between thinking and feeling"?
Last edited:
I fail to see how it does not support my position. My position is that beauty is both objective and subjective. Objective beauty is symmetry, subjective beauty is symmetry of thinking/feeling. Thinking/feeling is going to have inter-subjective qualities relative to culture.
Philosophicaly, these studies make sense. I will leave it's scientific debate up to other scientists, I'm sure some scientists will find support, and others errors until the test is repeated.
I'm not a student of those sites, I merely posted them because they contained refrences to objective beauty. I will probably find more links as time goes on, there are plenty of them outthere.
Erf, my goof, just checked that link, sorry.
I am curious about that book, have not yet read it.
I hardly find this to be a valid critique of darwin's theory and beauty. The idea of beautiful women in mating competition is not hard to find, it's simple! The more beautiful woman, the more mates she has to choose from. Those mates have to compete for her attention, and the mate with the strongest features, physical strength, have to fight, either physically or politically, for her attention. The ones who win her attention tend to carry traits that are more beneficial and dominant, greater strength, greater speed, greater intelligence, etc etc.
I dont see how this refutes anything.
I think the convincing one is the computer that can identify universally beautiful features in the face.
right? I thought so too.
The paper opens with the statement: 'The results clearly show that facial beauty is a universal concet that a machine can learn"
You cant expect the computer to be philosophical! It merely suggests that facial beauty can be quantified into an objective language. Philosophicaly, this simply suggests that there is an objective component. The objective component is not the full picture, it's just a piece of the picture, the objective piece.
This argument here is based on an assumption of change. The only viewpoint that could change would be a lean towards more objective standards with the advent of technology, media, culture advance.
"Hot" is a universally evolving phenomenon, and has a tendency to favor symmetry objectively.
It gets us closer to seeing that beauty is both objective and subjective.
Yes. Zaay to begin with. And then some of his followers here. I believe their exact words are 'beauty is subjective'.
Agreed, beauty is both in the eye of the beholder, AND the eye of the beholder if she is Angelina Jolie;-)
hmmm, an objective study of something subjectively we have all known for sometime! Indeed, inebriation brings out the best in people;-)
Dont follow your train of thought. Beauty is both objective/subjective. Beauty is a coupling, a harmony, of objective/subjective. Harmony can also be inferred from symmetry visually, it seduces pleasantness. When we are high on something, the subjective qualities of experience loosen up, and perhaps enable us to view symmetries easier, or be sloppy about the ones that exist!
hmmm, i dont think you showed that, I think you said that. You also said they were also a bit true. I linked them to provide others with some more arguments to read if they so wish. The only one that backs my argument on objective beauty, to me, is the computer one.
If condensention was read from my words, I apologize, it was not my intention, and please keep in mind, I have been discussing with some of these yahoos for over 3 months, and we tend to get a little loose with each other.
BF
Last edited: