scientific explanation for natural beauty.

[katar]

Parasitism is a means of surviving.
A lion tearing open a wildebeest isn't what i'd call 'beautiful' either.

These are modes of survival which are more functional than aesthetic. In other words, these behaviors can be objectively explained with cold science. Even deformity leads to genetic variation and genetic diversity which has unquestionable survival value. People with sickle cell anemia (?) are remarkably resistant to malaria. (i forget the example, but it's something like that-- genes combine in unique ways we don't yet comprehend. anyway, the example is not that important to my argument.)

In this thread, I am attempting only to discuss the non-pragmatic elements that we find beautiful. Pragmatic, functional survival modes are non-aesthetic, or at least not exclusively aesthetic.

There is a survival benefit in parasites taking over their host. (Well, until the host dies anyway) There is no survival benefit, for example, in a sunset being beautiful, etc. An ugly sunset could still accomplish the same function of rotating the planet. An ugly waterfall would still get the water from A to B. Yet we do find these natural processes to have an aesthetic charm beyond scientific functionality. We find them to be inspiring on an artistic or intimate level. Why is that? The million-dollar question. There are 3 answers to consider.

The apparent "goodness" in all things is either a) an entirely human construct or b) indication of a "God" of some kind or c) coincidence from random chaos and evolution.

After considering these 3 possibilities separately and thoughtfully, i tend to favor (B). I think © is the weakest, and (a) is tenable but not exactly compelling. If this thread has any following at all, i will further ramble about what i consider to be the best arg's on each side.

[Down]

I'm not out to establish what the absolutes are just yet--- at this point, i just want to suggest that they do exist, so we can be on the lookout for them if they become obvious.

I happen to feel the same way, and I consider myself to be a relativist. I do/can/will not deny that absolutes exist, but I will happily deny that anyone knows what those absolutes are (or arent).

In the case of this discussion, I think that certain things can be seen as absolute, while that may not actually be the case. From our given perspective, they are. Something as globally beautiful as a sunset is probably going to be considered beautiful to all humans, sure. But what happens if another semi intelligent animal such as an ape does not find a sunset beautiful in the same way that humans do?

Basically, my argument is that there are things that can be seen as absolute (The Beauty of Nature, Morals), but there is no way of knowing until we have examined literally everything in existence, which simply isnt going to happen.

Absolutes probably do exist, but in my mind, they are going to be relative until proven absolute.

[katar]

how about this absolute:

It is wrong to body slam your baby son on concrete for no other reason than because you think it's fun.

can we safely adopt that as an absolute? or must we investigate further?


Second: if you think absolutes do exist, then i don't think you are a relativist-- by the very definition of that term.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by katar,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (katar,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>how about this absolute: It is wrong to body slam your baby son on concrete for no other reason than because you think it's fun. can we safely adopt that as an absolute? or must we investigate further?[/b]

Morality is a human concept. Though it can also be looked at logically, killing your offspring is never a good idea, however to establish that it is an absolute we must transverse a majority of the Universe and seek out possible Alien civilisations and see what they think. It can't be an absolute if our neighbours think completely different can it?

<!--QuoteBegin-Katar

Second: if you think absolutes do exist, then i don't think you are a relativist-- by the very definition of that term.[/quote]
We know that Space time is relative, but the charge on an electron is absolute, so does that make us?

[Technosoul]

Okay I have some ideas to add to this questioning.

Is abstract thinking humanistic only or common to other types of animals? I doubt if most animals sit and watch a sunset and find it wonderful or beautiful? However we can find simular connections in nature that might be relative.

For example some insects are attracted to certain colors because they are looking for flowers which for them is a food source. So they avoid green, brown, or grey and seek out the colors that used to be common mainly only to flowers. But because humans paint things with colors they might land on your bright yellow shirt or other objects painted with flowering colors. Attraction would be the key word. As you know birds and perhaps lizards use colors for mating purposes and a male peacock or rooster will have lots of colored feathers to "flash" the female with, where-as the female bird would have colors that match the surrounding grass for security in nesting the eggs.
So color is used by a number of animals for communication purposes and attraction to certain colors does play role in mating rituals of those creatures.

Perhaps we have genes (whatever?) that we still have from those older stages of human evolution that we no longer need in our more evolved order of reaction, but that still causes the reaction? Why would a girl use make up with colors (in so called primitive cultures people would paint their bodies with colors as part of their tribal mating rituals... why?) And so forth.
As well women would wear flowers in their hair to be more attractive looking to male interests. So a sunset might remind us of colored flowers that remind us of plants that are soft and that smell pretty and that would remind us of women and their beauty, if beauty is another word for "attraction".
Colors soothing and comforting to our evolved memory tracks.

Someone did an experiment which I guess could be called science. They played background music in a barn that milking cows could hear. The music we think of as soothing and beautiful, classical or easy listening romanitc music caused the cows to give more milk, but harsh and agressive music like punk rock made the nervious and so they gave less milk. That might have to with a sense of security because nature has it's own music with crickets, frogs, and birds singing that create a background reporting system that all is okay, but when they become silent or if the tempo of the sounds become loud with tones of panic then that indicates a preditor is on the near at hand.

So beautiful music means security and it works like a seditive and fast music works like a stemulant making us excited and even more agressive. A sunset then effects our mind like a seditive drug - which duplicates perhaps certian harmones that calm us down and make us feel secure and at peace with our surrondings.

By the same reasoning many people feel depressed on a overcast day or when all the freshness of the colors are made dull due to smog, fog, etc. In a purely logical and intellectual mind frame we know that weather and how our environment is lighted should not make us feel happy or depressed but it still happens for some individuals.

Most evolutionists think that survival has mostly to do with the male aspects of being stronger or healthy looking because that would give the males a better chance at winning fights or running faster to catch food or to avoid becoming food. We think then that the female is attracted to the strongest male which she mates with, and that survival of the species depends on that factor. But attraction is also based on beauty which has nothing to do with how physically strong the mating object looks but rather how it is as decorated in colors, scents, freshness (newness), smoothness and the designs of curves relative to the circle design, and of course motion or movements (dancing), and sounds made. All of which play a role in communication which exchange is sometimes conducted via harmones which are activated by all of our senses that report to the brain which then produces the relative harmone.

Am I getting close or just blabbering?

whatcha think, Technosoul.

[Comrade]

http://denbeste.nu/essays/beautiful.shtml

Good essay.

[katar]

Pooeypants, I appreciate your post, but I think you're off the mark.

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Morality is a human concept. Though it can also be looked at logically, killing your offspring is never a good idea,[/b]

Ok, then what about killing a cheerleader so your daughter can get on the cheer squad. That seems "logical" doesn't it? Things get messy if we start mixing logic and morality, so it's best if we don't even go there and stick with only morality.

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>however to establish that it is an absolute we must transverse a majority of the Universe and seek out possible Alien civilisations and see what they think.[/b]

Why do we have to "see what they think"? We're not putting this issue up for referendum. Finding the truth is not a popularity contest. This is an incredibly weak argument, honestly. <!--QuoteBegin-Pooeypants,@
It can't be an absolute if our neighbours think completely different can it?[/quote] Ummmm, for one, this is the logical fallacy known as begging the question. (Restating the question in a conclusory manner so that it answers itself.)
Second, it assumes far too much-- that intelligent aliens exist and that they have theories on morality.
Third, the answer is YES. Disagreement has no bearing on the TRUTH. If my neighbor thinks the sun revolves around earth, that has no bearing on the ABSOLUTE truth that earth revolves around the sun. Truth is established with propositions, logic, reason, and argument. Not opinions from aliens or whomever. What if the alien civilization says:: "Killing human babies is moral and awesome!! Because we like to see the brains explode!" That is nothing more than an assertion with zero persuasive value. This debate is still not getting off the ground.

<!--QuoteBegin-Pooeypants

We know that Space time is relative, but the charge on an electron is absolute, so does that make us?[/quote]
This is a misleading use of terms. Space-time is governed by absolute rules of physics.

[katar]

Techno,

That was a creative post, but i don't think it addresses the issue. For one, it doesn't address the fact that sunsets use those colors in the first place. We only get those hues because the atmosphere has certain levels of water vapor to split the light waves into certain colors which then hit water droplets in clouds at different angles. This is a fancy orchestration of science being conducted for no apparent evolutionary function. I'm sure it's scientifically possible to have ugly sunsets. But we don't. Any time you see beauty in nature, ask why it's constructed in a beautiful way instead of an equally-functional ugly way.

Anyway, beauty in nature is not just about colors. It can be geometry-- like a snowflake. Or structural-- like the Grand Canyon.

[Ross]

Originally posted by Pooeypants Though it can also be looked at logically, killing your offspring is never a good idea,

Hmm. When a male lion takes over a pride, the first thing he does is kill all the cubs. This secures his position from future rebellion, puts the females in heat for him to impregnate and keeps the mothers from raising bastard cubs.

Sorry to go off-topic, had to point out a fact. :)

[katar]

Ross,

Thanks for the science lesson- reminds me of Discover channel.

Did you notice that the quote refers to killing one's own offspring? ie, "killing *your* offspring is never a good idea"?

Did you also notice that the first reply to the post you quoted offered another example where it may be logical to kill someone else's offspring?

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by katar, Techno, That was a creative post, but i don't think it addresses the issue. For one, it doesn't address the fact that sunsets use those colors in the first place. We only get those hues because the atmosphere has certain levels of water vapor to split the light waves into certain colors which then hit water droplets in clouds at different angles. This is a fancy orchestration of science being conducted for no apparent evolutionary function. I'm sure it's scientifically possible to have ugly sunsets. But we don't. Any time you see beauty in nature, ask why it's constructed in a beautiful way instead of an equally-functional ugly way. Anyway, beauty in nature is not just about colors. It can be geometry-- like a snowflake. Or structural-- like the Grand Canyon.

That is a good point because it is all done with lights and mirrors like a magic trick. A rainbow over a waterfall has the same effect perhaps as the sunset, and has the same cause and effects in play that you mentioned.

A sunset really has no more purpose then white puffy clouds, or dark gloomy rain clouds, other then to provide us with some fairly clean water.

It seems that we sometimes go into a state of awe when we see what we feel is the beauty of nature (and I explored colors of a sunset only because someone used a sunset as an example in one of the opening posts (instead of the Grand Canyon or the snowflake). We see certain things a majestic, as pretty, and so beautiful, instead of taking everything for granted (not stopping to smell the flowers) for some reason, we would reason. But why?

Logically we should look at a sunset and think "bunch of water reflecting the light of the sun behind it" instead of imagining that it is poetry in motion.

And on the over side, if we see a city that was man made and funtionable, but trashed out and run down after years of useage - we think "ugly". We might think that some old lady is ugly compared to a sweet sixteen year old. Oh look at those smoke stacks on that factory at sunset... how ugly! Why?

I wonder if it has something to do with spiritually worshiping life as something loved. Or the reason might be due to some spiritual part of our nature that see's god in all his greatness and awe? And so the sunset would remind us of the creator (in all his glory) who makes wonderful things for us to enjoy in life? So that we can know that such a spirit is real, or something to that effect?
The purpose of those feelings we have about a sunset or some other grand site might be to stemulate our own creative abilties which gives us a possible survival advantage - for we are more likely to survive if we love life and the wonderfullness of nature then if we saw it as depressive and ugly.

Whatcha think?
Technosoul.

[katar]

I guess my whole argument boils down to this:


1. Either things were created by some kind of "God" figure, or they resulted from sheer randomness and chaos.

2. Obviously, things would have to be functional, whether they resulted from God or from random chaos.

3. One expects the creation of a God to have an inherent "goodness"-- an intrinsic "beauty" with no extra functional value.
One expects the product of random chaos to be purely functional, without purely aesthetic value.

4. Nature tends to have intrinsic beauty or goodness that serves no apparent function.

5. Therefore, I believe in a "good" and intelligent architect of nature. One who designed natural laws in such a way that they would result in beauty/goodness. At that point I start looking at religions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Come on folks, there are tons of "intellectuals" out there who ridicule believers in God. Can anyone step up with arguments?

[SlySpy]

Originally posted by katar, I argue that a sunset would still be beautiful if no one saw it. I'm only talking about beauty as a characteristic, not perception.

Everyone has a different perception of what beauty is so claiming that beauty is an objective quality is quite spurious. I, myself, don't care much for sunsets.
Your argument about intrinsic beauty leading to the conclusion of a god-like entity is an argument from ignorance.
Oh, and not every attribute in the evolutionary process needs to be functional otherwise we wouldn't have wisdom teeth or tonsils. Sometimes superfluous or uneeded attributes that proliferate through generations are just anomalies of other successful adaptations. Perhaps the beauty we see in nature is no more than a symptom of the ability to find the opposite sex attractive, for we find attraction to perfect curves, organic shapes, and colors helps us with choosing the perfect mate.
I also find this a little funny because some theists use the functionality of living organisms as proof of god, but now you go and say that the non-functionality in orgainsms is proof of god. It seems anything is proof of god if you twist it right.

[katar]

This is a valid objection, and one that I considered when I posted the quoted language. You are right that whether beauty can be a characteristic instead of perception is a huge debate that I had avoided.

However, I think it's only a semantic (ergo, moot) objection-- similar to the point that a falling tree doesn't make a "sound" if no one hears it. Whether we call it "sound" or another name, the tree still causes air molecules to vibrate in the same way. Likewise, if no one sees a sunset, it still consists of the same hues and shades as it would if someone sees it. In essence, my point is not dependent upon human perception-- just upon the fact that sunsets (and etc) appear the way they do, when it seems that if laws of physics originated from chaos, those arbitrary laws would cause sunsets (and etc) to appear in an equally arbitrary form, though functional of course.

I also take issue with your point that beauty is subjective. Surely you cannot maintain that sunsets are ugly; and secondly, there are broad universal standards of beauty that transcend convention and culture.

You should go here: http://goldennumber.net/color.htm
and poke around at that website. I just found it today, and it mirrors my own logic. Look at the beauty and theology/bible sections of the site too.

Also look here: http://solargeometry.com/DistCalc.htm
I just found that one today too.

View these with the same open mind that you expect of others. Also remember that belief in God is not "stupid" or "ignorant". Many brilliant & rational minds have believed in God, and so it's quite arrogant to dismiss it so curtly. It deserves consideration.

This last website is less relevant, but I was impressed by it enough to include it here.
http://www.snapshotsofgod.com/

[Down]

I dont have time right now to adress most of your arguments, but I would like to say one thing.

I am sure that you have been exposed to the giant argument of nature vs nuture before. It seems perfectly reasonable that many aspects of the perception of beauty could easily be nutured by the greater human society. I could very well be that something as seeminly obvious as "beautiful" is naturally relative, but is nutured to be similar to everyone elses perception of beautiful.

[SlySpy]

Originally posted by katar, This is a valid objection, and one that I considered when I posted the quoted language.  You are right that whether beauty can be a characteristic instead of perception is a huge debate that I had avoided. However, I think it's only a semantic (ergo, moot) objection-- similar to the point that a falling tree doesn't make a "sound" if no one hears it.  Whether we call it "sound" or another name, the tree still causes air molecules to vibrate in the same way.  Likewise, if no one sees a sunset, it still consists of the same hues and shades as it would if someone sees it.  In essence, my point is not dependent upon human perception-- just upon the fact that sunsets (and etc) appear the way they do, when it seems that if laws of physics originated from chaos, those arbitrary laws would cause sunsets (and etc) to appear in an equally arbitrary form, though functional of course. I also take issue with your point that beauty is subjective. Surely you cannot maintain that sunsets are ugly; and secondly, there are broad universal standards of beauty that transcend convention and culture. You should go here: http://goldennumber.net/color.htm and poke around at that website.  I just found it today, and it mirrors my own logic. Look at the beauty and theology/bible sections of the site too. Also look here: http://solargeometry.com/DistCalc.htm I just found that one today too.  View these with the same open mind that you expect of others. Also remember that belief in God is not "stupid" or "ignorant".  Many brilliant & rational minds have believed in God, and so it's quite arrogant to dismiss it so curtly. It deserves consideration. This last website is less relevant, but I was impressed by it enough to include it here. http://www.snapshotsofgod.com/

How you percieve beauty as an objective quality is beyond me. Even if one person found a sunset ugly then your point would be moot. And it need not be a person either, there could be a distant race of nocturnal aliens who absolutely abhor sunsets. Please show me how beauty is independent of thought.
Also, I never stated that belief in God is "stupid" or "ignorant." You are entitled to your own belief, however you cannot state that it is fact without the proper criteria, one of which is evidence. Not to mention the mere concept of a god existing would be completely contradictory (I will save this one for another thread.) I have visited the websites you sent me, looked around and have read some articles, but it is the same tired approaches, hunting for patterns and the like. It also doesn't matter to me whether great minds have believed in God since this, on its own, is an appeal to authority.

[katar]

Hey, this was never intended as a proof. I never stated that this is fact. I just think that the balance leans in favor of God's existence.

Yes, that was an appeal to authority. But the only purpose was to suggest that this issue is not an open-and-shut case to be easily dismissed.

Ok, let me operatively define "beauty". Beauty is a set of general characteristics that virtually all humans would find aesthetically pleasing. A lot of these characteristics are detailed in art textbooks that teach how to paint 'beautiful' pictures-- music textbooks that teach how to compose 'beautiful' music-- etc etc. The fact that nature has objective beauty is (IMO) proven by the fact so many human representations of beauty--- art, perfumes, music, etc-- purposely try to mimic the aspects of nature. Anyway, this objection really seems like nit-picking to me; it seems to me a little disingenuous to maintain that there is not overwhelming beauty in nature.

I just drove the pacific coastline from Astoria to L.A., so I may be biased, having fresh memories of such magnificent vistas.

At the end of the day, it's fine if we disagree. Obviously there is no air-tight argument either way. But at least you've considered the idea.

[SlySpy]

Originally posted by katar,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (katar,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hey, this was never intended as a proof. I never stated that this is fact. I just think that the balance leans in favor of God's existence. [/b]

That's all dandy, but when are you going to show me that this is so?

Originally posted by katar,@ Yes, that was an appeal to authority. But the only purpose was to suggest that this issue is not an open-and-shut case to be easily dismissed.

By using a fallacy? The greatest mind in the world could ponder the existence of a unicorn, but does that make it true? No.

<!--QuoteBegin-katar,

Ok, let me operatively define "beauty". Beauty is a set of general characteristics that virtually all humans would find aesthetically pleasing. A lot of these characteristics are detailed in art textbooks that teach how to paint 'beautiful' pictures-- music textbooks that teach how to compose 'beautiful' music-- etc etc. The fact that nature has objective beauty is (IMO) proven by the fact so many human representations of beauty--- art, perfumes, music, etc-- purposely try to mimic the aspects of nature. Anyway, this objection really seems like nit-picking to me; it seems to me a little disingenuous to maintain that there is not overwhelming beauty in nature.

I just drove the pacific coastline from Astoria to L.A., so I may be biased, having fresh memories of such magnificent vistas.

At the end of the day, it's fine if we disagree. Obviously there is no air-tight argument either way. But at least you've considered the idea.[/quote]

Ahhh, so once again, you claim that everyone has the same perception of what beauty is. Once again, please tell me how beauty is independent of thought.

[katar]

Originally posted by SlySpy,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SlySpy,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by katar,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (katar,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hey, this was never intended as a proof. I never stated that this is fact. I just think that the balance leans in favor of God's existence. [/b] That's all dandy, but when are you going to show me that this is so?[/b]

I have offered descriptions and arguments in my attempt to support my position. There is no utility in demanding proof. If there were such proof then any sort of debate and philosophy itself would be obsolete. Your objections are valid without proof; so are my arguments.

Originally posted by SlySpy, Originally posted by katar, Yes, that was an appeal to authority. But the only purpose was to suggest that this issue is not an open-and-shut case to be easily dismissed. By using a fallacy? The greatest mind in the world could ponder the existence of a unicorn, but does that make it true? No.

It's only a fallacy if I rely on it to establish the truth of a proposition or conclusion. I am not doing that, so there is no fallacy. I'm only relying on it to suggest that this is a complex/unsettled issue. I rely on my arguments to support the proposition.

<!--QuoteBegin-SlySpy,@
<!--QuoteBegin-katar,

Ok, let me operatively define "beauty". Beauty is a set of general characteristics that virtually all humans would find aesthetically pleasing. A lot of these characteristics are detailed in art textbooks that teach how to paint 'beautiful' pictures-- music textbooks that teach how to compose 'beautiful' music-- etc etc. The fact that nature has objective beauty is (IMO) proven by the fact so many human representations of beauty--- art, perfumes, music, etc-- purposely try to mimic the aspects of nature. Anyway, this objection really seems like nit-picking to me; it seems to me a little disingenuous to maintain that there is not overwhelming beauty in nature.

I just drove the pacific coastline from Astoria to L.A., so I may be biased, having fresh memories of such magnificent vistas.

At the end of the day, it's fine if we disagree. Obviously there is no air-tight argument either way. But at least you've considered the idea.[/quote]

Ahhh, so once again, you claim that everyone has the same perception of what beauty is. Once again, please tell me how beauty is independent of thought.[/quote]Once again, the quoted post addressed this already. It would be helpful if you were more specific in your attacks.