scientific explanation for natural beauty.

[katar]

Can any one provide a scientific explanation...

Why do virtually all human beings consider sunsets, ocean horizons, the grand canyon, flowers, scenic vistas, etc. to be beautiful?

The old generic Darwinist responses don't work at all here. For example, it is absurd to contend that an australopithecus who thought the sunset looked nice had a reproductive advantage over the australopithecus who thought it looked ugly. So you'll have to try harder.

The point that beauty is subjective is better, but does not address the challenge directly. Beauty may well be subjective, but that does not explain the consensus regarding natural beauty.

Finally, the scientific minds may object that there is no consensus or that I can't prove it. Of course I can't prove it. But I would be shocked if those scientific minds don't honestly consider a sunset with irridescent hues saturating the sky to be appealing to the senses. Or the freshness of a spring misty rain to smell pleasant.

So the question stands: why do virtually all human beings consider sunsets, ocean horizons, the grand canyon, flowers, scenic vistas, etc. to be beautiful?

[Brighteyes]

there is no science to an opinion..

[katar]

could you clarify your statement? i'm not sure what to make of it.

perceiving natural beauty is not an opinion like whether you like mustard or mayonaise on your ham sandwich.

virtually everyone senses great beauty in nature. it's hardly debatable that sunsets have a visually appealing display of hue and/or texture. i don't think you could argue the proposition that sunsets, waterfalls, etc are repulsive, for example.

if subjective relativism is your argument, go for it. but please clarify.

[Pooeypants]

If we're talking about beauty of the human face and body, then it follows the Golden ratio, 1:1.618
It is by this standard that we all judge faces by because we have evolved to see symmetry and that particular ratio as a sign of "fitness".

[Gorgo]

Interesting question. I'll have to ponder that. Could be that enjoyment is something necessary for survival, and enjoyment, whether it be something that is learned or not, would be something that keeps us going.

Would there be a non-scientific explanation for it?

[harami]

Good question katar.

Sometimes I wonder if those who are hard pressed to scratch out a living on this planet see these beautiful things as we do. But I think so, because of cave art, ancient jewely and art, and the appreciation of various mysticisms in the past.

One could ask: does joe sixpack or do urban gang members find the same refreshment from the beauty of nature? Can I apprecieate the beauty of multiflora rose only because I have my AC and day job and don't have to cut it out of my pasture daily? Can I appreciate the astounding beauty of a hurricane photographed from outer space only because my house will survive the beating it will give it?

Somehow, I think that all of us have this connection with natural beauty one way or another. Maybe not all in the same way. The only survival benefit I can see (for you evolutionists) is that there is a Prime Mover who has designed all of this for us to appreciate. But that gets into theological suppositions, God forbid.

[katar]

Nature also follows the Golden Ratio. Consider a nautilus shell for example, in which an inner spiral is 61.8% the diameter of the next outer spiral. There are thousands of compelling examples like this. BTW, the John Cleese special with Liz Hurley about the Golden Ratio in human beauty is fascinating.

Where I'm going with this is as follows:
Humans and nature are unified. The things that the strict laws of nature dictate are pleasant to human beings in some way. We can sense that the beauty we see is in accord with nature, with the laws of physics and etc...

This seemingly innocent conclusion is the mother of startling subsidiary conclusions. For one, it means that 'beauty' in a theoretical sense is an objective concept. A piece of art is 'beautiful' to the extent that it corresponds to laws of nature.

An example is necessary to reify this nebulous statement. I offer the scientific experiment in which fish swam in rhythm with an orchestral piece by Beethoven. Unfortunately, there was no control group of fish listening to Britney Spears. However, my argument is that the work of Beethoven more closely follows the rules of nature! I submit that something in the Beethoven piece resonated with the fish, based on physics of sound, consonance, richness of harmony, etc. Science, nature, and art are, in my opinion, unified under common "RULES". This conclusion leads to the observation that "RULES" are intrinsically ABSOLUTES.

Harami knows where I want to go with this. For starters, I want to defeat the idea of moral relativism, which is so persuasive to college-age students for obvious reasons. (They get to make up their own rules and standards about how to live.)

[Pooeypants]

In order for us to establish moral absolutes we have to observe the entire universe and find that it correlates to our own views of morality. Until we can do that, morals will remain relative.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by harami, Somehow, I think that all of us have this connection with natural beauty one way or another. Maybe not all in the same way. The only survival benefit I can see (for you evolutionists) is that there is a Prime Mover who has designed all of this for us to appreciate. But that gets into theological suppositions, God forbid.

First of all, there are no Evolutionists. Evolution is science, as real Gravity and the Germ Theory.
Secondly, the survival benefit of beauty is simple, it is a mark of "fitness", of how good your set of genes are. We have no need for an invisible sky fairy, why do people persist on living in the middle ages?

[katar]

Originally posted by Pooeypants, In order for us to establish moral absolutes we have to observe the entire universe and find that it correlates to our own views of morality. Until we can do that, morals will remain relative.

(1) we don't need to formulate or advocate a particular set of moral absolutes to argue that they in fact exist. analogously, we don't need to invent A.I. before we can argue that it is possible. Plato didn't need to find his 'forms' to argue his theory of forms. Your argument does not foreclose the debate.

(2) quote: "morals will remain relative."
it's not clear to me why relativism merits the default position. the alternative seems equally valid: "morals will remain absolute, until shown to be relative." (indeed, modern society codifies a basic sort of absolute morality in the form of criminal justice).

it's more fair to say: morals will remain ambiguous until either side is compelling. that way, presumption favors neither and the debate is even.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by katar, (1) we don't need to formulate or advocate a particular set of moral absolutes to argue that they in fact exist. analogously, we don't need to invent A.I. before we can argue that it is possible. Plato didn't need to find his 'forms' to argue his theory of forms. Your argument does not foreclose the debate.

Inorder to establish an absolute, you must know that it is possible. With your analogy, we know that intelligence could be created artificially as it has been done in a primitive form. But that analogy is not relevant to my point.

(2) quote: "morals will remain relative." it's not clear to me why relativism merits the default position. the alternative seems equally valid: "morals will remain absolute, until shown to be relative." (indeed, modern society codifies a basic sort of absolute morality in the form of criminal justice). it's more fair to say: morals will remain ambiguous until either side is compelling. that way, presumption favors neither and the debate is even.

That's like saying Guilty until proven innocent.

[katar]

Originally posted by Pooeypants, the survival benefit of beauty is simple, it is a mark of "fitness", of how good your set of genes are. We have no need for an invisible sky fairy, why do people persist on living in the middle ages?

sure, we have a need to discern which hottie at the pub will bear the healthiest children.

but do we have a need for a "beautiful" sunset? this debate is about beauty in inanimate nature, not beauty in humans. it's not so 'simple.'

[Gorgo]

It of course does not follow that because we don't know why beauty exists, that therefore there must be a god.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by katar, sure, we have a need to discern which hottie at the pub will bear the healthiest children. but do we have a need for a "beautiful" sunset? this debate is about beauty in inanimate nature, not beauty in humans. it's not so 'simple.'

But is it the same beauty we're talking about or something different? An abstract construct of the human mind?

[katar]

First off, I want to re-focus my objective here. It's getting a bit off track. The goal is to establish whether it is possible or likely that an absolute aesthetic standard exists. I believe it does, and I think the (hardly debatable) beauty in nature is a good clue as to what the standard is. God is not part of the debate yet, or this will be a sprawling, vague discussion with no direction.

Now, Pooeypants astutely noted that we can't establish what those absolutes are-- partly because of our feeble human minds, and partly because we haven't observed the entire universe to confirm. However, 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. Certain ones are obvious: eg, "sunsets are beautiful." eg, "it's wrong to maliciously bash your child's skull with a sledgehammer."

Originally posted by Pooeypants, But is it the same beauty we're talking about or something different? An abstract construct of the human mind?

Hey, this is a relevant, valid point that advances the discussion. :)
Is it the same beauty? well, yes and no. The Golden Ratio provides at least one universal standard of beauty in both. However, you can't have sex with a sunset, niagara falls, etc. These things bear no resemblance at all to a human mating candidate. So I think the argument (that we perceive natural beauty b/c we have a need to perceive human beauty) is not satisfactory.

Is it an abstract concept of the human mind? Not exclusively. If humans did not exist, would a sunset still be "beautiful"? Then we get into messy definitions of what beauty is-- if we define it as a characteristic quality possessed by the oject instead of a perception of the subject-- then, 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.

[Pooeypants]

But this sort of beauty we see, how could we characterise it? Can it really be defined?

[harami]

Pooeypants: please elaborate on what you mean by beauty. I get the idea that you and katar are talking about very different things.

An interesting psycological experiment would be to show many peoples of many cultures the same set of (many) pictures from pub hotties to sunsets and things between. Just like the tests they did to validate the golden ratio and recently to establish what "beautiful faces" were. Then perhaps we could begin to discern the innate from the culturally dictated sense of beauty.

The notion I have of "appreciation of beauty", artistic and natural, does not relate to procreation or lust, which puts me in katar's camp. Sexual beauty is transient, as many of us know. Today the object of your affection is unparalleled in beauty, but let her/him cross you and tomorrow, you will no longer see beauty. Often the same thing happens after a one night stand. So, I posit that real beauty is not glandular in origin, but is appreciated in a different part of the brain. People chase ideals and abstracts all the time, even the moral relativists. For some the search is worth it. Because not everyone has the taste for the pursuit does not mean it is invalid. Not everyone understands e=mc^2 but the relation is valid nonetheless.

[Plegmund]

I think one potential criterion of beauty is cogency or salience of form. Things that are well-designed for a purpose tend to look good even though their form may have been dictated by entirely practical factors. That helps explain the beauty of both man-made objects like cars or planes and of plants and animals, possibly including the pub hotties, but it hardly seems to do for sunsets. Perhaps in that case it is a matter of the overwhelming scale and intensity of the phenomenon. Back in the nineteenth century, I believe there was as much debate about what was 'sublime' as about what was 'beautiful': perhaps for sunsets we need to invoke something like that.

[katar]

Ok. Well, that's a fair point.

But the 'beauty' of nature exists in tiny things too, like leaves and flowers. In fact, I am hard-pressed to think of a natural thing that is ugly. A few ugly animals, some wasteland areas, but these seem to be the overwhelming minority. And sunsets are like sex; even when they're not great, they're still pretty good.

I have pondered along these lines for many hours. Inevitably, the conclusion I arrive at is something like this:
Scientifically, an ugly or nonspectacular ______ (sunset) would do the trick. Nonspectacular flowers with nonspectacular fragrances could have worked too. But humans aren't ambivalent to these natural phenomena at all. Rather, we capture the images for posters and postcards and romantic evenings, we emulate the fragrances for perfumes. We definitely sense an intense aesthetic beauty in these things, a beauty that does not seem to enhance any survival/evolutionary function whatsoever.

To me, this indicates an intrinsic "goodness" in all things. Things in nature tend to be "good"-- even though "bad" or "neutral" would have done the trick (accomplished the same function).

Ultimately, this is one of the stronger reasons why I favor theism. IE, *some kind* of God, not necessarily Christianity, although that certainly is a candidate.

I have run this line of thought by a few of the more brilliant atheists whom I know, and they haven't really offered a satisfactory answer. It is noteworthy that my atheist friends were brilliant only in their specialty fields of math and science instead of liberal arts, which they viewed with condescension.

[Plegmund]

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure I agree, for two reasons. Although natural forms do tend to be beautiful, one tends to think of ideal ones, whereas parasitism, deformity and disease, also natural, provide perhaps the supreme examples of ugliness.

Assuming, nevertheless, that the world is indeed full of goodness, I don't see why that points to any divine entity. Logically, it could just be that the world is good in itself, couldn't it?