Christopher,

I will try to elaborate more my reasoning behind my appreciation on the matter. When we analyze a complex behavior, lets say the locomotion of the cheetah,we can construct a model of its actions. Such model is driven by the choice of factors that we choose to analyze and they quickly become very complex. On analyzing such complexity one can arrive at the conclusion that it is too complex and try to eliminate some variables that are not as relevant as others. Once this choice is made then our model is simpler and easier to understand, yet it also lacks the variables we left behind(which lead to complexity). This abstraction leads to generalization but at the same time a separation from the reality it was meant to describe.

The model can be chosen to describe different aspect of the locomotion of the cheetah,such as: the muscle movement, the speed relative to the environment, etc. Such choices are driven by scientific curiosity but also by our interests and biases. This last point is what led me to the appreciation of the previous post. The selection of what we find relevant is also driven by our interest and biases. Some of those biases in science is a minimalist and unified explanation, which can be equated to simplicity and beauty. This is where my view of aesthetic's role in science comes in.

My two cents

Neuroaesthetics,what a deliciously interesting question. Do you think that the fluidity of motion that we would admire in a cheetah is fuelled by our love of animals, and not necessarily the motion itself?. What would someone who really dislikes animals think of its movement?

When I think about the appreciation of beauty I think of art. Art manages to surpass the basic template of hip to waist ratio and symmetry (look at Picasso) yet we are in acceptance of its beauty.The artists ability to create beauty that is universally accepted yet defies laws of physics has to be considered. I know that there have been studies on lesions where subjects with frontotemporal dementia have improved in their artistic ability; in other words their perception of art has improved, along with their ability to produce it. Artists share similarities with musicians and writers; the artists are considered mad, or extremely eccentric, and ( as I am an author of fiction and am also afflicted) we suffer compulsive obsessions to create until its finished! Is this a specific architecture of neural structures? And within this architecture, it is somehow transient as the obsession is not continuous, but takes hold of ones very being. So is there a structure that is like the alignment of stars, when it is in perfect alignment then the creative processes commence.

Naturally in order to "appreciate" beauty, we must make choices, and I believe those choices are mainly influenced by the social , cultural and environmental context. (I hope this all makes sense )

I am in Milton Keynes (British) :) I write under the pseudonymn Courtney J Webb, not an academic work of art, but more a work of supreme toilet humour :) Yes its late, goodnight x

Morning Holly,

Yes, I do love animals, however, I think I can distinguish my sentiments from my aesthetic appreciation.

You are quite right about art:-

Charlies Ives - a modernist American composer - along with his siblings, was made to sing in one key whilst his father played in another. Charles Ives went on to compose wild clashing and dissonant music.

It is difficult to accommodate this kind of idiosyncratic genius within some simple theory of aesthetics. However, we can see in the case of Charles Ives that there are unpredictable components in peoples individual experiences that make the particular problem for which the art functions as catharsis unique.

Also, there is a lot of stuff that calls itself art - and, quite frankly, I wonder! Perhaps its time for the field to be split. Perhaps there should be a branch of the art termed - aesthetic art. and another termed - social impact art.

There are many examples of objects becoming cultural icons for no other good reason than they are presented to the public gaze on a regular basis. Just because an object becomes recognizable does not make it art - in my opinion.

Its a sticky area and I don't pretend to be able to steer a clear and unambiguous course. Nevertheless, I believe that there is still evidence that there is a fundamental principle at work in our sense of the beautiful.

Good comment

Chris

Holly,

Let us suppose that we take two large sets of ceramic artifacts from two different ancient cultures. If we familiarize ourselves with these artifacts over some considerable period of time, then, it would not surprise me if, when presented with a group of artifacts that we had not encountered before, we could correctly identify from which of the two cultures each of the artifacts originated - with some degree of success.

Our success would, in some part, be consequent upon our having identified (intuitively/) and being able to distinguish the two cultural aesthetics that were implicit in the two sets of artifacts.

From this we might speculate that aesthetics serves cognition in some way - this idea being based upon the observation that there is a deep connection between beauty and "perceptibility". So, what would seem to follow is the idea that the aesthetic sensibility of the ancient craftsmen and craftswomen were, in some part at least, determined (or inspired) by the the cultural artifacts around them when they were growing up. It would seem that aesthetics may well be a self-perpetuating and normalizing process.

If this supposition is true, then we would expect aesthetics to pop up in practically every aspect of social behavior - and it does. All languages have aesthetics that can be most easily heard from people outside of the language. Even fields of scientific study have their unique nomenclatures with recognizable aesthetics.

Surely, there is something very fundamental going on here.

Christopher,

I would have to say that aesthetics drives our scientific reality. I am always amazed by physicist and its quest for unification, if it is not minimalist then it is not pleasing to them (at least the ones that I personally know). This drives their formalism even though their are alternative explanations. In this same vein we can say that this minimalist view leads to a more ordered system which we find aesthetically pleasing.

I would also extend this line of thinking towards brain theories.

Very nice question

Regards,

Ouch

Christopher,

I will try to elaborate more my reasoning behind my appreciation on the matter. When we analyze a complex behavior, lets say the locomotion of the cheetah,we can construct a model of its actions. Such model is driven by the choice of factors that we choose to analyze and they quickly become very complex. On analyzing such complexity one can arrive at the conclusion that it is too complex and try to eliminate some variables that are not as relevant as others. Once this choice is made then our model is simpler and easier to understand, yet it also lacks the variables we left behind(which lead to complexity). This abstraction leads to generalization but at the same time a separation from the reality it was meant to describe.

The model can be chosen to describe different aspect of the locomotion of the cheetah,such as: the muscle movement, the speed relative to the environment, etc. Such choices are driven by scientific curiosity but also by our interests and biases. This last point is what led me to the appreciation of the previous post. The selection of what we find relevant is also driven by our interest and biases. Some of those biases in science is a minimalist and unified explanation, which can be equated to simplicity and beauty. This is where my view of aesthetic's role in science comes in.

My two cents

Christopher, thank you for your last explanation, i couldn't have put it better myself (thats because I couldnt have put it better :) )

I agree completely and you have made me think :)

H

Really?,

Or is it just an Emaculate Deception?

Ye writer of the picaresque!

Hello all,

Thank you for your question and your other entries in relation to this question... In the literature, there is an indication of the importance of aesthetics in business and leadership, Adler (2006) puts it... given the dramatic changes taking place in society, the economy, and technology, 21st-century organizations need to engage in new, more spontaneous, and more innovative ways of managing. I investigate why an increasing number of companies are including artists and artistic processes in their approaches to strategic and day-to-day management and leadership. I guess, at the time of Adler's article the Global Financial Crisis was not there as yet... with the changes after ... more consideration needed to be taken into account.

Well, aesthetics seems to be important to enhance 'ethical behaviour', I have included aesthetics in my research on ethical mindsets - and it seems that what might be considered as components of aesthetics (in the literature), came to be taken as part of the 'spirituality' recognised in Australia - which brought me to the concept 'aesthetic spirituality'... which was somehow different... but interesting I believe... In brief, the results of my research provide evidence of the existence of ethical mindsets and suggest that spirituality and aesthetics are major elements in those mindsets. Six components emerged from the analysis: aesthetic spirituality, religious spirituality, optimism, contentment, making a difference, and interconnectedness (2010).

So, the brain of the sample of the research in Australia ( we cannot generalise), thinks of the artistic matters related to aesthetics as part of enhancing their spiritual and ethical ways of thinking. Indeed, the analysis of my quantitative and qualitative data suggests that the presence of aesthetic spirituality and religious spirituality, along with the factors of optimism, contentment, making a difference and interconnectedness, are significantly associated with ethical practice in the workplace (2011).

Happy to follow the discussion...

Hello Larry,

Well, aesthetics might be always referred to art, but in some aspects of my research, it seems what might be considered spiritual in the US would be considered to having a relationship with aesthetics in Australia - thus, came composed this new concept 'aesthetic spirituality'... Art as in art has different dimensions - and cannot just link it as easily as this!? I believe!

Hi Larry,

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

Actually, my research suggests that although certain structures that perform similar functions in biology may appear different, close examination reveals very similar principles at heart.

I have found a great deal of evidence that biological processes are organised fractally in terms of process and that the 'seed' process is catalysis.

Yes, I agree, from a functional perspective we may get different answers if we ask what is the function of this biological structure and how does it work. However, if we instead ask 'How is this structure maintaining its integrity in its own complex environment, the answer always seems to be the same - it maintains its structure as a consequence of how it mediates transitions in its environment - as a catalyst.

You gave the example of different forms of locomotion. Again, different methods of locomotion may seem very different, but, on closer examination it turns out that the locomotion of animals as different as fish and centipedes actually have the same type of wave at heart - a soliton (Petoukhov, 1999). Solitons are also implicated at the level of the enzyme!

I believe that the evolution of life is the evolution of catalysis - and yes, it is the most simple and elegant solution to the question of how life integrates metabolism and function

Davia, C.J (June 2006), "Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Metabolism and Cognition", in Tuszynski, J.A, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (The Frontiers Collection), Springer, pp. 255–292, ISBN 978-3540238904

Petoukhov, S. (1999) Biosolitons - One Secret of Living Matter-The Bases of Solitonic Biology. Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Malii Haritonievskii pereulok, Moscow, Centre, 101830, Russia.

Thanks Larry, well, my thesis is available online under URL

http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=131986&local_base=GEN01-ERA02

Regards

Larry,

You have hit the nail on the head.

I was an avid watcher of B movie science fiction when I was young. These films with wonderful monster creations thrilled me, and yet, at the same time, as I grew older I was left with a growing sense of unease. It seemed that I could never quite believe that these weird creations would actually be viable - they simply were not beautiful - or 'right' enough!

It seemed to me that there might be a theme to living processes and that there might be similar species to ourselves 'out there'! This was not idle speculation - I have devoted much of my life to answering the question - 'What is life?'

The conclusion that I have arrived at is this - the evolution of life is the evolution of catalysis. All complex living process are organised fractally and the seed process is catalysis - thus, the brain is a catalyst and consciousness correlates with the transition state of a macroscopic process of catalysis. Within the context of the model, we look to fundamental physical quantities to be maximized or minimized as a consequence of brain development - and physical evolution.

For me - every creature on the planet is an aesthetic - (except ducks!.). And that is true of every species in the universe (again - except ducks).

Davia, C.J (June 2006), "Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Metabolism and Cognition", in Tuszynski, J.A, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (The Frontiers Collection), Springer, pp. 255–292, ISBN 978-3540238904

Vimal, R.L.P., Davia, C.J., 2008. How Long is a Piece of Time? - Phenomenal Time and Quantum Coherence - Toward a Solution. Quantum Biosystems, 2, 102–151.

In view of your last comment, I think that you will enjoy my work.

Let me suggest that you start with the website at CMU

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~davia/mbc/

It is very straightforward.

I think that the teleological problem may be resolved if it can be shown that life is a fundamental physical process - catalysis. No physicist would argue that a ball will roll downhill. I think that the increase in complexity of living organisms can be shown to be the result of evolution 'going downhill'.

Azlan,

I heard that Go compared with chess, has proved very difficult with respect to the development of computer algorithms. We have chess programs that can beat Grand Masters - I don't think that is true of Go - I wonder why?

Azian,

It seems that Go requires being able 'see' the whole board.

I wonder if face recognition software could be applied to the problem of Go?

Azian,

Regarding your comment about the brain not being regarded as an aesthetic object:-

Let us suppose that we could see the waves of neural activity associated with the graceful motion of the Cheetah. I suspect that they would appear to us as aesthetically pleasing as the motion of the cheetah itself!

The brain may not be an aesthetic object but it may support aesthetic processes associated with consciousness.

Azian,

Very interesting.

About the brain - actually, my own research gives me an advantage when speculation about what we may see if we could observe the neural correlate of consciousness.

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~davia/mbc/