Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

[Belinda]

Nothing is beautiful unless it's also true and good.

[Veganman]

I largely agree with you Belinda. Simplicity has a certain natural beauty about it that more complex imagery often fails to capture. I tend to think that we are born with some sort of innate concept of beauty: a beautiful sunset for example, a nature scene, the human form, the sky at night. Various scenes of beauty that could easily be already hard wired into our brains. Therefore, simplistic art is often appealing in this aesthetic sense as it's akin to the simplicity of the natural world. The work of Van Gogh would be a good example as the artist captures the simplicity of beauty.

I often wonder if non-human animals have the same, or similar, concepts of beauty as humans, or is theirs something entirely different? Obviously, they can't appreciate art, as far as we know. But do they appreciate the natural world in a way that we do?

[Belinda]

I largely agree with you Belinda. Simplicity has a certain natural beauty about it that more complex imagery often fails to capture. I tend to think that we are born with some sort of innate concept of beauty: a beautiful sunset for example, a nature scene, the human form, the sky at night. Various scenes of beauty that could easily be already hard wired into our brains. Therefore, simplistic art is often appealing in this aesthetic sense as it's akin to the simplicity of the natural world. The work of Van Gogh would be a good example as the artist captures the simplicity of beauty.

I often wonder if non-human animals have the same, or similar, concepts of beauty as humans, or is theirs something entirely different? Obviously, they can't appreciate art, as far as we know. But do they appreciate the natural world in a way that we do?

Yes, and I think the word 'elegant' in its second meaning(below) describes the sort of beauty you refer to.
1.
graceful and stylish in appearance or manner.
"she will look elegant in black"


2.
(of a scientific theory or solution to a problem) pleasingly ingenious and simple.
"the grand unified theory is compact and elegant in mathematical terms"

[trokanmariel]

Trok, just wear sunscreen and put some sunglasses on. The sun isn't going anywhere for hundreds of millions of years, so you're not gonna get rid of the daylight bro.

Also, consider moving to Alaska. They've got the shortest daytimes on erf.

Here man listen to this. It'll make you feel better.




I wuz kidding man! Take it easy! Sheesh.

I appreciate the good humour. To clarify (and simplify) my position, my concern is with the obviousness of the logic of glamour ruling the universe as a "clash" with history

[Age]

Beautiful art/music is said to be subjective. I disagree on that, because an individual's subjective opinion is based on the mind, which is part of the body, which is nature and hence must adhere to natural principles.

What is the 'mind' EXACTLY, and, How EXACTLY is the 'mind' a part of the 'body'?

So what are these natural principles?

Will you name just one 'thing' that is NOT 'nature' and thus DOES NOT adhere to 'natural principles'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I'm not talking about evolution, but something far more fundamental:
Simplicity.

So, if 'you' like classical music and "another" does NOT, then this is because of 'simplicity', right?

Light travels the shortest curved path past a gravitational object, water flows the shortest possible path down the river, and air molecules follow simple rules too.

In essence, you could say nature favours simplicity.

'Nature', Itself, is SIMPLE.

And, 'Nature' does NOT favor ANY 'thing' other than what fits in with Itself, PERFECTLY.

Another common feature of nature is symmetry, whatever shape it takes. Be it fractals, the Mandelbroth set, or counterparts in particle physics (neutrino, positron etc.)

Also, nature tends to keep a flow. Like a checkerboard. It is repetition.

Nature is just in continual flux, ALWAYS.

If you look at beautiful art, be it abstract or traditional, if you look close enough you'll see these three fundamental principles applied to a good piece of art, that is well done:

But what IS 'beautiful art', EXACTLY?

And, are you aware that what is 'beautiful' is NOT necessarily 'beautiful' to ANY other 'thing' or 'being'?

Simplicity, symmetry & repetition.

Everything in nature seems to adhere to these principles.

Did you answer above my CLARIFYING question to you about; Is there ANY thing that is NOT a part of Nature, Itself, and does NOT adhere to natural principles?

If no, then WHY NOT?

So perhaps our brains are hardwired to be pleased at looking at something simple, symmetrical and repetitive.

But the very Wrong and ABUSE that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do is VERY simple, symmetrical, AND VERY repetitive but OBSERVING 'you' continually doing Wrong and ABUSING is NOT 'pleasing' AT ALL to LOOK AT. In fact it is PURE UGLINESS, well to me anyway.

Maybe our brains are using more energy when looking at "ugly art", because it struggles to find patterns. Our brains are hardwired into looking after patterns, this was a very useful ability when you needed to recognize dangerous animals from fellow humans.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of how the human brain, back in the "OLD" days when this was being written, would make up just about ANY thing, which the human being would express, but which does NOT ACTUALLY back up and support the CLAIM that they are making.

My (dare I say "theory"? - I mean 'idea') is that the more energy we spend on trying to find patterns the more uncomfortable we feel, and when we finally do find the patterns our brains release endorphines or dopamine, which gives a comfortable feeling.

Could this explain the reason WHY so many of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, were STILL feeling SO UNCOMFORTABLE.

'you' ALL, after all, had NOT YET FOUND and SAW the 'pattern', and SIMPLICITY, of 'Life, Itself,

However, a complex pattern that was not easily recognizeable, will not neccessarily result in increased well-being, because of the discomfort resulting from the struggle trying to figure it out.
The two situations cancel out each other.

Random strains of paint thrown on the canvas just won't look beautiful or pleasing to the eye, unless you're lucky they landed in a perfect pattern.

What do you think?

But, to some, some 'random strains of paint thrown on a canvas' does look 'beautiful' and 'pleasing' to the eye. No matter in what way the painted landed.

[Age]

Congratulations with your first "Original Post" or "Thread"

Interesting questions indeed!

I see some issues with symmetry in the human mind.

What is this 'human mind' thing, EXACTLY, which you speak of here?

If you read a book, and the author repeats the same adjectives, it seems annoying or even amateurish. Same goes for song lyrics. Rimes are good, but repetition is bad.
The human body cut in half from the head to the groin, is a mirror reflection of itself, but there are small inconsistencies. If those inconsistencies were not there, we would see the person as fake or artificial. So inconsistencies and variation is vital for something to look and sound good. To appear natural.

IMO beauty is in imperfection.

[Age]

Congratulations with your first "Original Post" or "Thread"

Interesting questions indeed!

I see some issues with symmetry in the human mind. If you read a book, and the author repeats the same adjectives, it seems annoying or even amateurish. Same goes for song lyrics. Rimes are good, but repetition is bad.
The human body cut in half from the head to the groin, is a mirror reflection of itself, but there are small inconsistencies. If those inconsistencies were not there, we would see the person as fake or artificial. So inconsistencies and variation is vital for something to look and sound good. To appear natural.

IMO beauty is in imperfection.

There is no requirement of repetition to only repeat a part of itself. A fractal, for instance, repeats the entire sequence, hence creating the illusion of something bigger, or even variation (but there is no variation at all).

Think of a spiral. It repeats itself, but it doesn't follow a linear path.

The variations we see in nature are due to the fact we only see small or medium scales. Looking at the universe as a whole, I'm sure it will look more like a repeating pattern similar to a checkerboard or other pattern.

For instance, I'm sure there is a you and me "out there" too, either in this universe or in a multiverse. This "you" or "me" has the exact same lives as we have and the exact same "inconsistencies". I also believe there is a mirror-reflection of us somewhere else, that is mirrored again on another axis all the way until we reach our ends.

However this is only an idea/theory and it is not even my own. Some scientists claim this theory.

WHY would one be 'sure' of some 'thing', just because someone "else" has said 'it', and especially when there is absolutely NO proof at all for 'it'?

What EXACTLY would ANY one even think that what you said here was even possible, let alone BELIEVE what you have here is true?

[Age]

"Beauty and seduction are nature's tools for survival, because we protect what we fall in love with." - Louie Schwartzberg

But 'you', adult human beings, actual ABUSE, and NOT PROTECT, what you say you are in love with, that is; your OWN children.

And, if you REALLY did 'protect' what you fall in love with, then you MUST NOT HAVE fallen in the earth NOR in Life and living as well, considering just how much pollution you expel while chasing after what you appear to Truly love, that is; money and monetary wealth.

Here's a TED-talk called "A Darwinian Theory of Beauty" (plus its written transcript):
https://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_ ... y#t-183210
"We find beauty in something done well, in virtuoso displays of art." - Dennis Dutton

[Age]

https://youtu.be/9MTAhQIPMOU

https://youtu.be/1RNWjbRzieY

Take a moment to listen to my links above.

The first, all of you who remember the cold war will remember this. Some people will turn their noses up, but, having been a DJ back in the days, the dance floor was dullish, this was like pumping adrenaline into the crowd. And going back to the OP, a lot is there. The simplicity, the repetitivity. But without the little coloring of chords in the refrain, it would have been so much worse.

The second one, from my home country, has far more complexity. Still, the repetitions are there. But it evolves - do listen to all of it! - much like the Bolero of Ravel. The element of complexity is so important.

And isn’t that part of what have made us humans so succesful?

"So successful" in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

Life aint always that simple.

'Life', Itself, is ALWAYS SIMPLE.

'you', human beings, just perceive 'Life' is complex, and hard, sometimes.

On the savannah, all kind of mean animals interact.

LOL "mean".

The ONLY 'mean' animal is the adult human being.

You have to eat and avoid eating.

Did you mean "avoid being eaten"?

And seeing the complexity in it, finding anomalies, making little stories, adding flavors would have been succesful strategies.

But there is NO 'complexity' AT ALL in Life, Itself.

Human beings just use the EXCUSE, " things are 'complex' ", when they have just NOT YET come to FULLY UNDERSTAND some 'thing'.

But when it is ALL FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then what is CLEARLY SEEN, KNOWN, and WELL UNDERSTOOD is that REALLY it is ALL VERY SIMPLE, and EASY, REALLY.

Still, sun goes up and down, your preys follows habits.

But the sun, actually, stays still, relatively, to the observes on earth, and it is the earth that goes 'around' the sun. There is, by the way, NO actual 'up' NOR 'down'.

There is, however, an APPEARANCE of 'up' AND 'down', but only to those observers with a very NARROWED and SHORT SIGHTED field of view.

An anomaly in a face might indicate genes less favorable to produce succesful offspring. Simplicity and complexity, regularity, but preparedness for the unforseen. All in a mix.

WHY, to you, might a so-called "anomaly" "in a face" indicate genes less favorable to produce "successful" offspring, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say.
It is not a natural construct but a social one.
Nature does not adjust itself to our point of view, we adjust ourselves to nature.

My thinking on this is that over the billions of years of evolution the feeling of joy has been a great advantage, initiating feelings of enthusiam, and positive attitude whilst suffering with hunger and the search for food and a mate that has driven evolution.

Some might here say that evolution does not adjust itself to 'your', human, point of view, and that you 'feel' hungry sometimes and search for food and a mate is because of evolution, itself, and NOT because 'you' "adjust" "yourselves" to nature.

At this moment the sun has decided to break through the clouds. There are real physical changes in the body which have set me to feel a bit better with the urge to get out and walk the dog.

Is that the dog you sent a picture of before in this forum?

I can say that the sky looks beautiful, eventhough I know that my pituitary is being stimulating me to action.

WHY would one even say that the sky looks beautiful only on SOME days and NOT on EVERY day?

After all 'you' would NOT even be HERE to EXPERIENCE and SEE the sky if the sky had NOT been like it was on EVERY day prior to 'this' day.

Were I not in a comfortable house, I would be going out into the world with a positive attiude to seek sustainence. Humans are diurnal creatures so now would be the time to go forth.
Were I not to be responsive to this "beauty" I would not be such a successful organism.

But how is the human being a supposed 'successful organism'?

They have only been around for a couple of millions of years, which is relatively close to nothing at all compared to other organisms. And, the way 'you', human beings, are going you could wipe "yourselves" (and a few hundred other organisms) out COMPLETELY in just a couple of hundred more years.

I do NOT see much 'success' in this at all. In fact, polluting the very water and air that an organism NEEDS in order to keep living and surviving does NOT appear to be very 'successful' AT ALL.

But just maybe there are some human beings who do actually think or believe that if they obtain a certain amount of money, while they are polluting and destroying the actual planet, which they NEED, before they "themselves" die, is 'successful'. Does ANY one here think or believe 'this'?

Maybe 80 million years ago my ancestors we just acquiring this adaptation. Maybe the dinosaurs who thrived on the morning warm up like other reptiles already has the presursors of these feelings.

Does this amount to "Nature Favour Beauty"? I think not. It is more like the ability to conceive Beauty is an adaptive trait which enhances survival.

What 'beauty' does the crocodile conceive which would have made it a far more adaptive and successful organism/species like you claim here.

Thankfully I did not watch your video choices before I answered.
Vid 1. Katrina and the waves might have been Beautiful 30 years ago, but their style is out of date, and the song overplayed.

Is this an IRREFUTABLE statement AND claim? Or, is this just your OWN perspective of things here?

Vid 2. Whenever I hear this sort of music it makes me feel awful. I imaging all those monks whose life was taken by an oppressive regime and stuck in cloisters their whole life never being able to enjoy the feel and taste of a woman, good food or the orsdinary freedoms we so eaily take for granted.

What does a 'woman' feel and taste like, EXACTLY? And,

What is 'good food', and, what does 'good food' feel and taste like?

Also, what 'ordinary freedoms' do you, supposedly, have?

To me, 'your' so-called "freedoms" are NO 'more' than what the woman of religions like islam have. But, because some of 'you' are so STUCK and BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS 'you' WILL have just laughed that statement and CLAIM off, and so NEVER even considered to QUESTION nor CHALLENGE 'it'.

Also, WHY are you "thankful you did not watch those videos before you answered" some of what you have here?

So - no beauty there.

But, is "Beauty in the eye of the beholder as they say", or NOT?

If yes, then if there is beauty 'there' or not is depended upon observer/s and NOT just 'you' alone.

So, there may well be beauty 'there' but just not from your perspective alone.

If you do NOT see beauty 'there', then NO one can refute that. But, just because you do NOT see 'beauty' somewhere, this in itself does NOT mean that beauty is NOT 'there'.

[Age]

I largely agree with you Belinda. Simplicity has a certain natural beauty about it that more complex imagery often fails to capture. I tend to think that we are born with some sort of innate concept of beauty: a beautiful sunset for example, a nature scene, the human form, the sky at night. Various scenes of beauty that could easily be already hard wired into our brains. Therefore, simplistic art is often appealing in this aesthetic sense as it's akin to the simplicity of the natural world. The work of Van Gogh would be a good example as the artist captures the simplicity of beauty.

I often wonder if non-human animals have the same, or similar, concepts of beauty as humans, or is theirs something entirely different? Obviously, they can't appreciate art, as far as we know.

What do you base this claim on exactly?

But do they appreciate the natural world in a way that we do?

Do they even 'consider' ANY 'thing' (the natural world), let alone 'appreciate' ANY 'thing', beauty wise?

[Belinda]

I largely agree with you Belinda. Simplicity has a certain natural beauty about it that more complex imagery often fails to capture. I tend to think that we are born with some sort of innate concept of beauty: a beautiful sunset for example, a nature scene, the human form, the sky at night. Various scenes of beauty that could easily be already hard wired into our brains. Therefore, simplistic art is often appealing in this aesthetic sense as it's akin to the simplicity of the natural world. The work of Van Gogh would be a good example as the artist captures the simplicity of beauty.

I often wonder if non-human animals have the same, or similar, concepts of beauty as humans, or is theirs something entirely different? Obviously, they can't appreciate art, as far as we know.

What do you base this claim on exactly?

But do they appreciate the natural world in a way that we do?

Do they even 'consider' ANY 'thing' (the natural world), let alone 'appreciate' ANY 'thing', beauty wise?

Age, I find your quizzical method quite useful as answering your questions makes me think. However in the interests of yourself and others it would be better if now and again you asserted an idea.

[Age]

I largely agree with you Belinda. Simplicity has a certain natural beauty about it that more complex imagery often fails to capture. I tend to think that we are born with some sort of innate concept of beauty: a beautiful sunset for example, a nature scene, the human form, the sky at night. Various scenes of beauty that could easily be already hard wired into our brains. Therefore, simplistic art is often appealing in this aesthetic sense as it's akin to the simplicity of the natural world. The work of Van Gogh would be a good example as the artist captures the simplicity of beauty.

I often wonder if non-human animals have the same, or similar, concepts of beauty as humans, or is theirs something entirely different? Obviously, they can't appreciate art, as far as we know.

What do you base this claim on exactly?

But do they appreciate the natural world in a way that we do?

Do they even 'consider' ANY 'thing' (the natural world), let alone 'appreciate' ANY 'thing', beauty wise?

Age, I find your quizzical method quite useful as answering your questions makes me think. However in the interests of yourself and others it would be better if now and again you asserted an idea.

Besides the clarifying questions I have posed in this thread I have also asserted such ideas as;

1. 'Nature', Itself, is SIMPLE.

2. 'Nature' does NOT favor ANY 'thing' other than what fits in with Itself, PERFECTLY.

3. Nature is just in continual flux, ALWAYS.

4. The very Wrong and ABUSE that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do is VERY simple, symmetrical, AND VERY repetitive but OBSERVING 'you' continually doing Wrong and ABUSING is NOT 'pleasing' AT ALL to LOOK AT. In fact it is PURE UGLINESS, well to me anyway.

5. There was a GREAT EXAMPLE of how the human brain, back in the "OLD" days when this was being written, would make up just about ANY thing, which the human being would express, but which does NOT ACTUALLY back up and support the CLAIM that they are making.

6. Could 'what was said' explain the reason WHY so many of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, were STILL feeling SO UNCOMFORTABLE.

7. In the days when this was being written ALL of 'you' adult human beings, had NOT YET FOUND and SAW the 'pattern', and SIMPLICITY, of 'Life, Itself.

8. To some, some 'random strains of paint thrown on a canvas' does look 'beautiful' and 'pleasing' to the eye. No matter in what way the paint landed.

And, these assertions were made just in one reply and to just the opening post only. My other ideas, which I have asserted here in this thread, I have not listed here.

[Belinda]

What do you base this claim on exactly?


Do they even 'consider' ANY 'thing' (the natural world), let alone 'appreciate' ANY 'thing', beauty wise?

Age, I find your quizzical method quite useful as answering your questions makes me think. However in the interests of yourself and others it would be better if now and again you asserted an idea.

Besides the clarifying questions I have posed in this thread I have also asserted such ideas as;

1. 'Nature', Itself, is SIMPLE.

2. 'Nature' does NOT favor ANY 'thing' other than what fits in with Itself, PERFECTLY.

3. Nature is just in continual flux, ALWAYS.

4. The very Wrong and ABUSE that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do is VERY simple, symmetrical, AND VERY repetitive but OBSERVING 'you' continually doing Wrong and ABUSING is NOT 'pleasing' AT ALL to LOOK AT. In fact it is PURE UGLINESS, well to me anyway.

5. There was a GREAT EXAMPLE of how the human brain, back in the "OLD" days when this was being written, would make up just about ANY thing, which the human being would express, but which does NOT ACTUALLY back up and support the CLAIM that they are making.

6. Could 'what was said' explain the reason WHY so many of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, were STILL feeling SO UNCOMFORTABLE.

7. In the days when this was being written ALL of 'you' adult human beings, had NOT YET FOUND and SAW the 'pattern', and SIMPLICITY, of 'Life, Itself.

8. To some, some 'random strains of paint thrown on a canvas' does look 'beautiful' and 'pleasing' to the eye. No matter in what way the paint landed.

And, these assertions were made just in one reply and to just the opening post only. My other ideas, which I have asserted here in this thread, I have not listed here.

How are nature, or beauty "simple"? It seems to me nature is enormously and unthinkably complex.
Beauty is a complex notion , as is evidenced by the variety of replies here.

[Age]

Age, I find your quizzical method quite useful as answering your questions makes me think. However in the interests of yourself and others it would be better if now and again you asserted an idea.

Besides the clarifying questions I have posed in this thread I have also asserted such ideas as;

1. 'Nature', Itself, is SIMPLE.

2. 'Nature' does NOT favor ANY 'thing' other than what fits in with Itself, PERFECTLY.

3. Nature is just in continual flux, ALWAYS.

4. The very Wrong and ABUSE that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do is VERY simple, symmetrical, AND VERY repetitive but OBSERVING 'you' continually doing Wrong and ABUSING is NOT 'pleasing' AT ALL to LOOK AT. In fact it is PURE UGLINESS, well to me anyway.

5. There was a GREAT EXAMPLE of how the human brain, back in the "OLD" days when this was being written, would make up just about ANY thing, which the human being would express, but which does NOT ACTUALLY back up and support the CLAIM that they are making.

6. Could 'what was said' explain the reason WHY so many of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, were STILL feeling SO UNCOMFORTABLE.

7. In the days when this was being written ALL of 'you' adult human beings, had NOT YET FOUND and SAW the 'pattern', and SIMPLICITY, of 'Life, Itself.

8. To some, some 'random strains of paint thrown on a canvas' does look 'beautiful' and 'pleasing' to the eye. No matter in what way the paint landed.

And, these assertions were made just in one reply and to just the opening post only. My other ideas, which I have asserted here in this thread, I have not listed here.

How are nature, or beauty "simple"? It seems to me nature is enormously and unthinkably complex.

Most of 'you', adult human beings, 'thought' this, in the days when this was being written.

Did I say anywhere that 'beauty is simple'? If yes, then where, exactly?

What is 'Nature', itself, EXACTLY? Or, what does the word 'Nature' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

When we can SEE 'this', then we can together LOOK INTO and SEE if 'Nature', itself, is 'simple', or 'complex', or somewhere in between.

Beauty is a complex notion , as is evidenced by the variety of replies here.

To me, 'beauty' is just the opposite of 'ugly', and whatever one SEES as being 'beautiful' or 'ugly' is just due to their past experiences. To me, there REALLY is NOTHING complex NOR hard here AT ALL.