Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[payn]

 

[overgeeked]

But those aesthetics exist independently of their viewer. If I find something beautiful, the qualities that I think make it beautiful will continue to exist even without my viewing them. It's not so much an "evaluation" as it is a "recognition." Just because it's subjective doesn't mean its existence depends on the viewer.

That’s literally what it means. Without the viewer, there’s no one to think “That’s beautiful.” Otherwise it’s paint on canvas. It becomes art in the viewing. In the judgement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But those aesthetics exist independently of their viewer. If I find something beautiful, the qualities that I think make it beautiful will continue to exist even without my viewing them. It's not so much an "evaluation" as it is a "recognition." Just because it's subjective doesn't mean its existence depends on the viewer.

This assumes those qualities exist in some objective fashion, and that isn't a given even if multiple people can perceive them. At best, if trying to make those claims you can say things about the presence or lack of certain material usage.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

If my dog rips ass as he is wont to do and I am not home, does it smell like rotten meatloaf in the living room? Or does my presence create that reality.

I mean his brother does not seem horrified like I do…does my presence make it bad?

 

[Alzrius]

That’s literally what it means. Without the viewer, there’s no one to think “That’s beautiful.” Otherwise it’s paint on canvas. It becomes art in the viewing. In the judgement.

This assumes those qualities exist in some objective fashion, and that isn't a given even if multiple people can perceive them. At best, if trying to make those claims you can say things about the presence or lack of certain material usage.

If the viewer finds that certain qualities, which are themselves objective, are what makes something beautiful, then the state of being beautiful exists regardless of whether or not it's observed. They might be the ones making that judgment, but their judgment is that such qualities exist regardless of whether or not anyone observes them.

If you think that a sunset on a cloudy day, and which makes the clouds appear pink while the sky turns orange, is beautiful, then any such sunset-and-clouds combo that results in those colors is going to be considered beautiful even if there are no humans left on Earth to observe it. The sun will still set, there will still be clouds, and at least some of the time the result will be that combination of colors. All of those things will be true even if no one sees them.

While the definition of what's considered to be beautiful might be individualistic, that definition will (unless it's something truly unique and unable to ever be reproduced) be met in the wider world regardless of whether or not the individual in question is there to witness it.

 

[Deset Gled]

Don't get me started, we'll be here all night!

...
As an unintentional bonus, when I Googled to find this image, AI tried to answer the question.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

While the definition of what's considered to be beautiful might be individualistic, that definition will (unless it's something truly unique and unable to ever be reproduced) be met in the wider world regardless of whether or not the individual in question is there to witness it.

 

[CleverNickName]

I saw a t-shirt today that read, "ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE ISN'T."

I guess the implication is that if something is intelligent, it isn't artificial...and if it's artificial, it isn't intelligent. Or maybe they're suggesting that artificial intelligence isn't complete? Or something else?

Food for thought, either way.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I saw a t-shirt today that read, "ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE ISN'T."

I guess the implication is that if something is intelligent, it isn't artificial...and if it's artificial, it isn't intelligent. Or maybe they're suggesting that artificial intelligence isn't complete? Or something else?

Food for thought, either way.

I prefer the t-shirt that reads, "Y KANT UR AI REED GUD?"

 

[Mannahnin]

If the viewer finds that certain qualities, which are themselves objective, are what makes something beautiful, then the state of being beautiful exists regardless of whether or not it's observed. They might be the ones making that judgment, but their judgment is that such qualities exist regardless of whether or not anyone observes them.

If you think that a sunset on a cloudy day, and which makes the clouds appear pink while the sky turns orange, is beautiful, then any such sunset-and-clouds combo that results in those colors is going to be considered beautiful even if there are no humans left on Earth to observe it. The sun will still set, there will still be clouds, and at least some of the time the result will be that combination of colors. All of those things will be true even if no one sees them.

While the definition of what's considered to be beautiful might be individualistic, that definition will (unless it's something truly unique and unable to ever be reproduced) be met in the wider world regardless of whether or not the individual in question is there to witness it.

Beauty is literally in the eye of the beholder. Well, the mind.

"Beauty" as a concept is meaningless and nonexistent without a viewer to render that judgement.

The paint or the sunset or the cloud have objective reality, but whether they are beautiful or aesthetic or meaningful is entirely dependent on there being a mind capable of seeing them as such.