Argument from beauty

[arthwollipot]

You must think so, since you find the temples the pagan Gods were worshipped in and the art and poetry created for them beautiful."

No, this is a non-sequitur. I find Handel's Hallelujah Chorus beautiful, but that doesn't mean that I believe in the divinity of Christ. I contend that something can be beautiful even when divorced from its original context.

 

[HansMustermann]

Good to ingest? Would you eat that mold without any problems?

Very much so, I'm affraid. In fact, it _is_ supposed to be eaten with the mold and all.

Keep in mind that "injecting penicillin" wasn't exactly in the minds of our ancestors.

Oh, I'm very much aware that they didn't know what bacteria or antibiotics were. On the other hand, they did notice that some things are good for you and others aren't. Or that things fermented in certain ways don't go bad in a way that will kill you, while others do.

A lot of the things we traditionally eat or ate, are pretty much bacterial or fungal cultures. Yoghurt, beer, etc. Or for more disgusting examples, see gravlax or surströmming.

Heck, sausage/salami is nothing more than meat fermented with a certain kind of benign (for humans) bacteria, so the dangerous bacteria will no longer find a good environment there. And again, certain kinds of salami used to be covered with penicillinum mold too, because they noticed that it helps it stay edible longer.

This is the case with cheese too. They didn't use that mold as a way to give _you_ penicillin, they just noticed that that kind of cheese is less likely to go bad.

Sometimes it has even did have effects on the ones who ate it, but probably very unintentionally.

E.g., I was reading at some point that it seems that the particular yeast the ancient Egyptians used for their beer produced a lot of tetracycline. And a lot of mummies seem to be stuffed with it. Did Egyptians know about the antibiotic? Nope. But seeing that 4 litres of beer a day was codified even in their sacred scrolls as part of an adult's diet, they must have noticed some benefit there.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Good to ingest? Would you eat that mold without any problems?

?? Have you never eaten/heard of blue cheese???

I am reminded of a girl who worked in a restaurant with my husband. He was using some stilton in a recipe and she shrieked "Ergh, You can't use that, its gone all mouldy!!!"

ETA - thinking of food and disgust, casu marzu^WP springs to mind...

 

[Lonewulf]

I think people missed the point of what I was trying to say. The forest for the trees and all that rot.

Yes, there's exceptions. But that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't exist. There's a reason some things look attractive to us, and some things don't. It may not always make sense, because our evolution didn't favor a technologically-capable race; we developed technology with the bodies and minds of a species built for surviving on the Savannah. I'm pretty sure dairy production wasn't meant for us. We hunt the animal, milking it only came after we developed domestication.

 

[Aitch]

No, this is a non-sequitur. I find Handel's Hallelujah Chorus beautiful, but that doesn't mean that I believe in the divinity of Christ. I contend that something can be beautiful even when divorced from its original context.

Heck, yeah! I have a CD of Hildegard von Bingen's music, which is extremely beautiful (IMHO ), and that was written by an abbess who heard voices! Don't mean I believe any more than Arthwollipot does! Or that the voices she heard were anything other than some form of illnes.

 

[porch]

?? Have you never eaten/heard of blue cheese???

I am reminded of a girl who worked in a restaurant with my husband. He was using some stilton in a recipe and she shrieked "Ergh, You can't use that, its gone all mouldy!!!"

ETA - thinking of food and disgust, casu marzu^WP springs to mind...

We have the advantage of history, which gives us the luxury to develop tastes in foods that we would naturally find challenging. In earlier times, a human foraging for food might come across a plant they had never seen before. If they taste it, and it's extremely bitter, or burns their lips, they would probably be best served to forgo it for another food source - if there is one. If safe foods were scarce, one might be willing to give another nibble on that plant and see what happens rather than starve. Or, hungry enough, that mould growing over there that you once found repulsive is almost starting to smell good . . .

These days we have vast information resources on how to eat food without poisoning ourselves, and we have the general trust that when our grocer brings in produce that we haven't seen before that it's already known to be edible.

eta: casu marzu - gross! Intriguing, but I don't think I could do it.

 

[HansMustermann]

I think people missed the point of what I was trying to say. The forest for the trees and all that rot.

Yes, there's exceptions. But that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't exist. There's a reason some things look attractive to us, and some things don't. It may not always make sense, because our evolution didn't favor a technologically-capable race; we developed technology with the bodies and minds of a species built for surviving on the Savannah. I'm pretty sure dairy production wasn't meant for us. We hunt the animal, milking it only came after we developed domestication.

Point taken, but beauty and eating still was a hit and miss affair even before that, so I'm still not particularly convinced of that connection.

E.g., a Kiwi fruit or a peach look all fuzzy, just like a mouldy thing does, but it's in fact good to eat. E.g., we find a ladybug cute but it's not good to eat at all (in fact, the bright coloration is exactly an "I'm not good to eat" warning.) A mushroom that's all spotted like a ladybug, is probably an even worse idea to eat, but you probably wouldn't find it repulsive in any way.

 

[Lonewulf]

Point taken, but beauty and eating still was a hit and miss affair even before that, so I'm still not particularly convinced of that connection.

E.g., a Kiwi fruit or a peach look all fuzzy, just like a mouldy thing does, but it's in fact good to eat. E.g., we find a ladybug cute but it's not good to eat at all (in fact, the bright coloration is exactly an "I'm not good to eat" warning.) A mushroom that's all spotted like a ladybug, is probably an even worse idea to eat, but you probably wouldn't find it repulsive in any way.

Okay, you make a valid point...

 

[Erigena]

I was just re-reading Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and reached the section on the "argument from beauty". Although I find most of "The God Delusion" to be well argued, I find the aforementioned section too short and ultimately unsatisfying.

Dawkins presents the argument from beauty as a "how" question rather than a "why" question - which, I think, is a little more difficult to answer.

Dawkins argues that Mozart's symphonies and Michelangelo's paintings, for example, would be beautiful with or without a god, which attempts to answer the question "How do you explain beauty?" I find the question Dawkins should have tried to answer is "Why do we appreciate beauty?"

Of course, I wouldn't invoke a god to explain beauty, because it's yet another example of filling a gap in knowledge with a supernatural being, but why do we appreciate beauty?

So, why do we find a string of musical notes beautiful? Why do we find certain arrangements of paint beautiful? Why do we find the design of a building beautiful?

Yes and no. You are correct in asking/stating that beauty is defined differently in different regions of the world therefore that would indicate that it appreciating beauty is a learned behavior.

That said, there have been studies that suggest beauty is based in symmetry and this quality is universally recognized by everyone from the time we are able to distinguish an object's features. The studies noted that the more symmetric a person is, the more children and people in general will gravitate to them. I can't account for the validity of those studies as they were reported via televised media and often those statistics are skewed, even when taken from the Discovery Channel and NPR.

Music is an excellent example as it relates to beauty. Alternative rock is my favorite genre of music, but is it beautiful? That depends on the eye or rather the ear of the beholder.

 

[Beerina]

I was just re-reading Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and reached the section on the "argument from beauty". Although I find most of "The God Delusion" to be well argued, I find the aforementioned section too short and ultimately unsatisfying.

Dawkins presents the argument from beauty as a "how" question rather than a "why" question - which, I think, is a little more difficult to answer.

Dawkins argues that Mozart's symphonies and Michelangelo's paintings, for example, would be beautiful with or without a god, which attempts to answer the question "How do you explain beauty?" I find the question Dawkins should have tried to answer is "Why do we appreciate beauty?"

Already known. Learning and predicting give people a little psychological pleasure stroke. The makers of Teletubbies know this very well, which is why they repeat things like their little live-action child videos, twice on each show. (Which makes kids want to watch it more than other shows, this the show succeeds more, and thus their multi-billion dollar toy side-business continues to flourish. Which aids them on their mission to educate children.)


Music is just a more adult version of this, with various tones repeated with subtle or no variation, said tones being selected for, and played at timing rates, that happen to coincide with the pleasure feedback mechanism in the human brain.

The better ones are very pleasurable, and the music industry calls such structures the "hook". Like when they get to the "everybody plays the fool...sometimes. No exception to the rule" part of the song.



I'm sure there's been papers written about this. If there aren't, someone should. You may add me as a co-author. This constitutes a timestamped public statement of such an observation.

Of course, I wouldn't invoke a god to explain beauty, because it's yet another example of filling a gap in knowledge with a supernatural being, but why do we appreciate beauty?

So, why do we find a string of musical notes beautiful? Why do we find certain arrangements of paint beautiful? Why do we find the design of a building beautiful?

If a god exists, it is transparently aware of the feedback mechanism I described above. In any case, there's no mystery about it even with an existing god.

 

[porch]

So 2,4,6,8,10,12 is just as beautiful as

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/VanGoghES_700x533.jpg
?

Do not hotlink.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

I wonder what's hanging above your mantel?

There are things we find aesthetically pleasing and beautiful, but it's not a good argument for God. It could be explained as an evolutionary by-product of finding a mate beautiful and pleasing: once you reach a certain cognitive level, you go from just evaluating potential mates to appreciating the beauty in everything. It's not a survival issue, it's just something sufficiently advanced minds do.

I don't agree with Third Eye Open completely. Malerin, if you're trying to show that he's wrong, I think you have it quite backwards, because to me it seems like you're helping him make his case.

What an example to choose! When those who speak the artspeak speak of Van Gogh, it's extremely common to use words like "rythm", "motion" and "direction". His paintings are mostly made up of lines, and he repeats the shapes of his lines. It's a defining feature of his style. It all has to do with pattern. It's much more complex than the mathematical series in question, and generally, I'd say, people like it more.

Here's where I part with 3rdEO: Yes, people do appreciate complexity in pattern, but I think it's more complex than that. There's also an appreciation for simplicity. DJ Coolkid can take some very simple 4/4 beats, and make them, not more complex, just really loud, and fill a dancefloor. Although, there does have to be more complexity than a metronome with bass boost; There's still lots of building of expectations, and then thwarting, prolonging, or satisfying them. So I can't say that the more simple a pattern is, the more satisfying it is. I also think that we reach a point in complexity that it's no longer satisfying. Or at least (thinking here of "contemporary classical" music which dispenses with key signatures and set tempos) a lot fewer people have patience for it.

People seem to get off on combinations of simplicity and complexity. Simpler, overarching patterns that contain complex patterns within them (most music), is one example. Then there's elegance, when we find simplicity within complexity (in chess, typography) appealing.

Pattern recognition is useful for finding a mate, but it's useful for so many things (we wouldn't have language without it) that I'm hesitant to reduce our finding pleasure and significance in pattern to sexual selection alone.