Karma

[Jack Knave]

and I get ad consequentiam and begging the question in fallacy bingo

Have you been to the doctor about these as you seem to be prone to such ailments, and there doesn't seem to be a plausible cause for them? Could be psychosomatic....?

[Nearly Sane]

Have you been to the doctor about these as you seem to be prone to such ailments, and there doesn't seem to be a plausible cause for them? Could be psychosomatic....?

fallacies a bit hard for you?

[Jack Knave]

fallacies a bit hard for you?

I find them a bit too chewy for my false teeth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

As I said a dead and soulless world of dry inane facts. Where's the human and humane element in all your science and intellect?

As someone once said, a garden is no less beautiful for knowing about photosynthesis. You seem to think that it's a binary facts vs aesthetics choice, whereas I see no reason for the former to detract from the latter - quite the opposite in fact.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

As someone once said, a garden is no less beautiful for knowing about photosynthesis. You seem to think that it's a binary facts vs aesthetics choice, whereas I see no reason for the former to detract from the latter - quite the opposite in fact.

So how does science analyse what beauty is? Does it even have a definition and theory for it? Does beauty really exist as it can't be verified objectively? And can it be falsified?

[torridon]

So how does science analyse what beauty is? Does it even have a definition and theory for it? Does beauty really exist as it can't be verified objectively? And can it be falsified?

Well you know what they say about beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder, ie it is subjective, not objective. Likewise there is no objective evidence for god as god is all in the mind of the believer.

[Brownie]

I find them a bit too chewy for my false teeth.

You cheeky thing!  Despite the early hour, I get it.

Torridon, good morning to you, beauty is subjective and whilst I do not agree with you that God exists only in the mind, I see where you are coming from.
I'm going back to bed for a while, C U later.

[torridon]

ooh lucky you, I've got to go to work now and it's freezing and dark outside.  Think I'll come and snuggle in with you 

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

So how does science analyse what beauty is? Does it even have a definition and theory for it? Does beauty really exist as it can't be verified objectively? And can it be falsified?

Actually, to a significant degree "science" can do that - we know that the golden ratio is pleasing to people the world over, we can measure brain changes in MRI scanners when the subject is shown images they find appealing etc, but that's not the point. Beauty is one of a group of phenomena that are subjective - beliefs that are often deeply held, perhaps shared commonly (who doesn't like a sunset?) etc but subjective nonetheless. Along wth language and morality aesthetics is variously what we intuit and reason our way towards, but it provides no basis for objectivity. No-one can say, "this is objectively beautiful, and therefore must be beautiful for you too".

And that's the point. Sriram think that "karma" is objectively true, whereas in fact it's no more true for anyone else than his opinion on the Mona Lisa would be true for anyone else. 

[Alan Burns]

JK,

Actually, to a significant degree "science" can do that - we know that the golden ratio is pleasing to people the world over, we can measure brain changes in MRI scanners when the subject is shown images they find appealing etc, but that's not the point. Beauty is one of a group of phenomena that are subjective - beliefs that are often deeply held, perhaps shared commonly (who doesn't like a sunset?) etc but subjective nonetheless. Along wth language and morality aesthetics is variously what we intuit and reason our way towards, but it provides no basis for objectivity. No-one can say, "this is objectively beautiful, and therefore must be beautiful for you too".

And that's the point. Sriram think that "karma" is objectively true, whereas in fact it's no more true for anyone else than his opinion on the Mona Lisa would be true for anyone else.

But how does science define the difference between subjectivity and objectivity?  If everything is under the total control of the natural unguided laws of nature, what is the ultimate definition of a subjective chemical reaction and an objective chemical reaction?  Are they not both produced by the same scientific laws - the end result of cause and effect events beginning with the big bang?  Or is there something else involved which defines the subjective?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But how does science define the difference between subjectivity and objectivity?  If everything is under the total control of the natural unguided laws of nature, what is the ultimate definition of a subjective chemical reaction and an objective chemical reaction?  Are they not both produced by the same scientific laws, or is there something else involved which defines the subjective?

Yes they are defined by the same laws (and forces). “Objective” and “subjective” are just useful terms to describe the difference between phenomena we observe that are “out there”, and opinions and beliefs that are self-generated. Within the paradigm of the appearance of “free” will it’s a helpful distinction, and there’s no need for an “ultimate” therefore.

[wigginhall]

Subjectivity can be related to the first person, or point of view.  I can't see any reason in principle why these cannot be brain-generated concepts or frameworks.   I suppose some theists will judge them to be 'mysterious' and therefore God-generated.   However, that places them in the realm of the unknowable.

[torridon]

But how does science define the difference between subjectivity and objectivity?  If everything is under the total control of the natural unguided laws of nature, what is the ultimate definition of a subjective chemical reaction and an objective chemical reaction?  Are they not both produced by the same scientific laws - the end result of cause and effect events beginning with the big bang?  Or is there something else involved which defines the subjective?

I would say the difference is one of aspect, or perspective.  We live in a relative cosmos in which all matter and all coordinates stand in Euclidian relationship with the rest of the cosmos, but there is no ultimate objective reference frame and so true objectivity is unattainable.  When we say we are being objective, what we are really saying is that we are minimising subjectivity. All this becomes pertinent when trying to understand mind - a mind is essentially a focussed nexus of subjectivity that procures a refined unique viewpoint on the rest of the cosmos for just one unique point in spacetime. Thus a mind is by definition a unique and subjective thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

I would say the difference is one of aspect, or perspective.  We live in a relative cosmos in which all matter and all coordinates stand in Euclidian relationship with the rest of the cosmos, but there is no ultimate objective reference frame and so true objectivity is unattainable.  When we say we are being objective, what we are really saying is that we are minimising subjectivity. All this becomes pertinent when trying to understand mind - a mind is essentially a focussed nexus of subjectivity that procures a refined unique viewpoint on the rest of the cosmos for just one unique point in spacetime. Thus a mind is by definition a unique and subjective thing.

Nicely put. Just by way of a coda, even if there was such a thing as ultimate objective truth the problem with finding it wouldn't so much be an engineering one (ie, building a complex enough machine to find it) as a philosophical one (ie, how would we know that it is ultimate?).

This strikes me as another contradiction with the "god of the omnis" idea by the way: how would an omniscient god know that he is omniscient, that there isn't another reality (or another god for that matter) he's not equipped to know about?

 

[Jack Knave]

Well you know what they say about beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder, ie it is subjective, not objective. Likewise there is no objective evidence for god as god is all in the mind of the believer.

But you said that you could see beauty in things so you must believe it's true or real. If that is the case you need to investigate what it means to you and how and why you, your human nature, creates or needs to do this. Nothing comes out of a vacuum.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

Actually, to a significant degree "science" can do that - we know that the golden ratio is pleasing to people the world over, we can measure brain changes in MRI scanners when the subject is shown images they find appealing etc, but that's not the point. Beauty is one of a group of phenomena that are subjective - beliefs that are often deeply held, perhaps shared commonly (who doesn't like a sunset?) etc but subjective nonetheless. Along wth language and morality aesthetics is variously what we intuit and reason our way towards, but it provides no basis for objectivity. No-one can say, "this is objectively beautiful, and therefore must be beautiful for you too".

And that's the point. Sriram think that "karma" is objectively true, whereas in fact it's no more true for anyone else than his opinion on the Mona Lisa would be true for anyone else.

Seeing something in a scan says nothing about beauty, just as seeing the wind blow my curtains about says nothing about the weather and its causes. All you can say is that this particular stimulus causes this type of response in the brain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

Seeing something in a scan says nothing about beauty, just as seeing the wind blow my curtains about says nothing about the weather and its causes. All you can say is that this particular stimulus causes this type of response in the brain.

Yes, and that particular "response in the brain" we call "beauty". Why is this a problem for you? You seem to be implying some sort of mystical "something" outwith the material that has a special status of beauty. Why?

I note by the way that you've just ignored the main point, namely that subjective opinions (about beauty or anything else) are just that - subjective - and so provide no basis to assert the objectively true.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Guessing is fine.  There is a famous Feynman film where he talks about guessing in science, but of course, the guesses here are tested.

string theory,multiverse?

[Jack Knave]

JK,

Yes, and that particular "response in the brain" we call "beauty". Why is this a problem for you? You seem to be implying some sort of mystical "something" outwith the material that has a special status of beauty. Why?

I note by the way that you've just ignored the main point, namely that subjective opinions (about beauty or anything else) are just that - subjective - and so provide no basis to assert the objectively true.   

Something or someone has to make the value judgement that this sight is beautiful. All you are seeing on that scan are electric chemical signals. These don't say that, as you get these signals throughout the brain, they are ubiquitous and so meaningless. As I explained with the curtains blowing in the wind. It is like pondering a painting by looking at the individual drops of paint.

As for your second paragraph, this is pretty much besides the point. But, however, how does the brain take a subjective viewpoint? All it is is a mass of electrical chemical reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

Something or someone has to make the value judgement that this sight is beautiful.

Actually lots of “someones” – which in part at least is why we see such diversity of opinions on the matter. There also though seems to be a common intuitive sense of the beautiful – hence pretty much everyone liking the way sunsets look.

All you are seeing on that scan are electric chemical signals. These don't say that, as you get these signals throughout the brain, they are ubiquitous and so meaningless. As I explained with the curtains blowing in the wind. It is like pondering a painting by looking at the individual drops of paint.

But those “signals” tell us what happens in brains when someone experiences “beautiful”. Your analogy fails because, well, it’s not analogous. The full experience of “beauty” can be mapped (at least in principle), and presumably can be created artificially too given the right stimuli. So what? 

As for your second paragraph, this is pretty much besides the point. But, however, how does the brain take a subjective viewpoint? All it is is a mass of electrical chemical reactions.

No, it is the point. And you’re attempting an argument from incredulity here but, nonetheless, what make you think that this “mass” of electro-chemical signals is insufficient to create a subjective experience?

You seem to be edging toward a Cartesian mind/body separation here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it is the point. And you’re attempting an argument from incredulity here but, nonetheless, what make you think that this “mass” of electro-chemical signals is insufficient to create a subjective experience?

The trouble is though that a mass of electrochemical signals is not a subjective thing is it. Neither is anything it generates.

[Nearly Sane]

The trouble is though that a mass of electrochemical signals is not a subjective thing is it. Neither is anything it generates.

So there is an objective idea of beautiful? On you go, tell me about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So there is an objective idea of beautiful? On you go, tell me about it.

Non sequitur.

[Sebastian Toe]

Non sequitur.

Go on. You know that you want to.

[torridon]

The trouble is though that a mass of electrochemical signals is not a subjective thing is it. Neither is anything it generates.

Not to a neuroscientist studying the 'mass of electrochemical signals' in a person's brain, I agree.  But for the person who is that mass of electrochemical signals, that is subjective experience.  The only way to experience something subjectively is to be it; subjectivity arises out of being.  Cue solipsism.