rpn Posted January 13, 2019 Posted January 13, 2019 I ran across this article that addresses the hypothesis that every change in nature was part of an evolutionary impulse to prolong the species. (Okay, I'm not a science person, so if you have a different way to describe this, give it to us.) I thought others here might find it interesting, in light of our knowledge that God created the beauty intentionally.) Wondering how other people see the info. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution-animal.html Quote Prum thinks the evidence for the heritable benefits of choosing a beautiful mate is scant because such benefits are themselves rare, whereas arbitrary beauty is “nearly ubiquitous.” Over the years, the more he contemplated runaway selection, the more convinced he became that it was a far more powerful and creative evolutionary force than natural selection, which he regards as overhyped and boring. “Animals are agents in their own evolution,” he told me during one conversation. “Birds are beautiful because they are beautiful to themselves.”
changed Posted January 14, 2019 Posted January 14, 2019 (edited) The bowerbird in the article is even more beautiful than we are able to see - Did you know - birds see more colors than humans do? https://www.futurity.org/birds-see-colors-invisible-to-humans/ If God created nature, or at least helped transform it a bit - then God loves diversity and free will. Every animal after its own wills, choosing and making its own environment, choosing its own family - as it should be. Most view beauty as equivalent to being healthy, strong, smart - everything that is entailed in not just surviving, but for enjoyment of life. It's not about merely surviving (the rocks survive better than we do), its about increasing joy and contentment. Edited January 14, 2019 by changed 2
strappinglad Posted January 14, 2019 Posted January 14, 2019 There needs be opposition in all things. Witness the Blobfish.
3DOP Posted January 14, 2019 Posted January 14, 2019 Beauty cannot be discerned apart from the intelligence which elevates humans above the other animals. Does anybody think that snakes appreciate a sunset, or a Beethoven sonata? That is not to rag on snakes or bears or pigeons. Beauty isn't discerned by the senses alone. Pigeons can see a lot of things that are objectively beautiful. Can they take the same delight in them as can those who are made in God's image?
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2019 Posted January 14, 2019 (edited) Why do men spend a quarter million on a red car that goes faster than they could possibly drive it? Does that make evolutionary sense? The same reason high school boys spend hundreds of hours getting the "coolest" car. ( Define "cool"? Good luck, but you know it when you see it) I won't answer a lest this become a discussion about feminism. Edited January 14, 2019 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2019 Posted January 14, 2019 10 hours ago, 3DOP said: Beauty cannot be discerned apart from the intelligence which elevates humans above the other animals. Does anybody think that snakes appreciate a sunset, or a Beethoven sonata? That is not to rag on snakes or bears or pigeons. Beauty isn't discerned by the senses alone. Pigeons can see a lot of things that are objectively beautiful. Can they take the same delight in them as can those who are made in God's image? On the other hand we are pretty dumb about what makes a pigeon "cute" to another pigeon Good to see you!
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2019 Posted January 14, 2019 16 hours ago, changed said: The bowerbird in the article is even more beautiful than we are able to see - Did you know - birds see more colors than humans do? https://www.futurity.org/birds-see-colors-invisible-to-humans/ If God created nature, or at least helped transform it a bit - then God loves diversity and free will. Every animal after its own wills, choosing and making its own environment, choosing its own family - as it should be. Most view beauty as equivalent to being healthy, strong, smart - everything that is entailed in not just surviving, but for enjoyment of life. It's not about merely surviving (the rocks survive better than we do), its about increasing joy and contentment. It's Alma 32 really. That which is "sweet" is "true." 2
katherine the great Posted January 14, 2019 Posted January 14, 2019 One of my pet peeves: an article that opens with "______ is Making Scientists completely rethink _____ !!!!" or "_________ is rewriting history!" It's usually just hype. Darwin was a genius. He understood that natural selection's explanatory power was powerful but limited. The only real difference between his understanding of the evolution of "beautiful", non functional traits and more contemporary understanding is that some of these traits may signal actual health. However, we all can agree that runaway selection can become maladaptive and lead to extinction. So I suppose that animals are sometimes also agents in their own extinction. In this case, we will almost always have to blame the female. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 4:48 PM, changed said: The bowerbird in the article is even more beautiful than we are able to see - Did you know - birds see more colors than humans do? https://www.futurity.org/birds-see-colors-invisible-to-humans/ If God created nature, or at least helped transform it a bit - then God loves diversity and free will. Every animal after its own wills, choosing and making its own environment, choosing its own family - as it should be. Most view beauty as equivalent to being healthy, strong, smart - everything that is entailed in not just surviving, but for enjoyment of life. It's not about merely surviving (the rocks survive better than we do), its about increasing joy and contentment. I like this post but it is odd of thinking of something that never was alive as "surviving" but I get the point. The rocks remain unchanging AND dead. And again I have to say thanks to Jefferson Airplane- "Crown of Creation". If you don't know this one, you are gonna like it big time! "Life is change How it differs from the Rocks..."
mfbukowski Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 On 1/14/2019 at 10:08 AM, katherine the great said: One of my pet peeves: an article that opens with "______ is Making Scientists completely rethink _____ !!!!" or "_________ is rewriting history!" It's usually just hype. Darwin was a genius. He understood that natural selection's explanatory power was powerful but limited. The only real difference between his understanding of the evolution of "beautiful", non functional traits and more contemporary understanding is that some of these traits may signal actual health. However, we all can agree that runaway selection can become maladaptive and lead to extinction. So I suppose that animals are sometimes also agents in their own extinction. In this case, we will almost always have to blame the female. Well and then we have male proclivities for males as well...
mfbukowski Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 One possibility of course is that we evolved to find beauty "beautiful" but what an exceptionally beautiful magnificent human has in common with a stunningly beautiful landscape or the beauty of a Grecian temple is literally unspeakable. I cannot tell you what they have in common but I know the word applies with certainty! I think it is just that all of these give us joy. And then we say that there is nothing "objective" about beauty and yet when hundreds of people see the same image perhaps of a temple or a good-looking human or a gorgeoous landscape and all pronounce the word "Beautiful!" I would beg to differ that it is not an "objective observation"
Calm Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I cannot tell you what they have in common Possibly symmetry and certain mathematical ratios. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 31 minutes ago, Calm said: Possibly symmetry and certain mathematical ratios. Aha! Of course the "Golden Mean" etc! Perhaps that is the human origin of mathematics now that I think of it. It starts with beauty ? But what ratios fit a sunset or a mountain scene of a valley, or even the colors of a birds wings? I think it is purely what we find "sweet" so again even without commenting on it, Alma connects truth and beauty? I can easily go with that yet I suspect others will not. No one is willing to admit that there is nothing "objective" but passions all the way down. I am. We have not even spoken about music or the beauty of a well crafted argument- and yet we use the word in those contexts. But I could see how math evolved from music, the swaying rhythm and drumbeat of our mother's heart in remembrance of the warm dark sleepy place within. 2
3DOP Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) On 1/14/2019 at 11:16 AM, mfbukowski said: On the other hand we are pretty dumb about what makes a pigeon "cute" to another pigeon Good to see you! Hey Mark. Good to see you. Do you think that a human understanding of what might be beautiful is equal, superior, inferior, or mixed, as compared to a bird? I am not ragging on birds. It seems only accurate to me, as a human, to have a "superiority complex", if you will, in comparison to birds, when it comes to appreciation for beauty. I think many animals, including us humans, have an instinctive desire for mating. I don't know if I could think that birds think one is cute and another not. I tend to think that bird mating depends very little on the difference between eligible candidates. But I am interested in your ideas on the intellectual capacity of birds and whether they discern beauty in another of their kind. Being so biased towards humans as I am, I have the boldness to think I know better than a bird what makes a bird pretty! Am I nuts? There. I have spilled my guts. Your turn. Rory Edited January 16, 2019 by 3DOP
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 1 hour ago, 3DOP said: Hey Mark. Good to see you. Do you think that a human understanding of what might be beautiful is equal, superior, inferior, or mixed, as compared to a bird? I am not ragging on birds. It seems only accurate to me, as a human, to have a "superiority complex", if you will, in comparison to birds, when it comes to appreciation for beauty. I think many animals, including us humans, have an instinctive desire for mating. I don't know if I could think that birds think one is cute and another not. I tend to think that bird mating depends very little on the difference between eligible candidates. But I am interested in your ideas on the intellectual capacity of birds and whether they discern beauty in another of their kind. Being so biased towards humans as I am, I have the boldness to think I know better than a bird what makes a bird pretty! Am I nuts? There. I have spilled my guts. Your turn. Rory Oh no I did not mean we are not "smarter" than birds- just that they see things differently and that if we could for a moment see as a bird sees- like seeing colors we cannot see- can you imagine what that must be like???- we could actually learn something from them. There is a famous philosopher T. Nagel who wrote an important essay about what it might be like to be a bat- with echolocation etc and cited that as an example of an experience humans never will have naturally- though of course we have ultrasounds etc- but not integrated into our experience. His point was that the more experiences available to us the more "objective" our perceptions become. Like a blind person experiencing color for the first time- I cannot imagine what that would be like- but "new" colors not even visible in our spectrum?? WOW! I wanna see radio waves and gamma rays. !!! I guess we will have to wait to see those! I want to watch radio!! 2
changed Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 On 1/14/2019 at 12:47 AM, 3DOP said: Beauty cannot be discerned apart from the intelligence which elevates humans above the other animals. Does anybody think that snakes appreciate a sunset, or a Beethoven sonata? That is not to rag on snakes or bears or pigeons. Beauty isn't discerned by the senses alone. Pigeons can see a lot of things that are objectively beautiful. Can they take the same delight in them as can those who are made in God's image? I disagree - there are many things that humans and animals share, they have eyes, ears, all the same senses that we have to experience and interact with their surroundings.
changed Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 2 hours ago, 3DOP said: Hey Mark. Good to see you. Do you think that a human understanding of what might be beautiful is equal, superior, inferior, or mixed, as compared to a bird? I am not ragging on birds. It seems only accurate to me, as a human, to have a "superiority complex", if you will, in comparison to birds, when it comes to appreciation for beauty. I think many animals, including us humans, have an instinctive desire for mating. I don't know if I could think that birds think one is cute and another not. I tend to think that bird mating depends very little on the difference between eligible candidates. But I am interested in your ideas on the intellectual capacity of birds and whether they discern beauty in another of their kind. Being so biased towards humans as I am, I have the boldness to think I know better than a bird what makes a bird pretty! Am I nuts? There. I have spilled my guts. Your turn. Rory
3DOP Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 20 minutes ago, changed said: I disagree - there are many things that humans and animals share, they have eyes, ears, all the same senses that we have to experience and interact with their surroundings. You disagree with me? In what way? I agree with what you wrote. I am not saying that the other animals receive less information from their senses. I think many of the non-human animals have more acute sensory perception. I hold that human animals do more with less information because of a superior intellect that interprets the information. I am in admiration of the eels, or else the God who made eels, that return to where they spawned. I don't attribute that to eel intellect. I am suggesting that for the non-human animals, instinct replaces intellect. But I ain't no philosopher. I am sure I have been imprecise.Truck driver to factory hand. I never come out ahead when I oppose you guys. But let me try to explain. It seems like we could agree. I know that every eel has sensory perception beyond my own. Does it follow that every eel understands beauty better? I don't think any eel, even the most educated and elite of them, heh, distinguishes the beautiful from the ugly. I think it is beyond their scope. The same for birds, bears...shoot...I am such a humanist. It's late. Sorry to be contentious. Rory 1
3DOP Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Oh no I did not mean we are not "smarter" than birds- just that they see things differently and that if we could for a moment see as a bird sees- like seeing colors we cannot see- can you imagine what that must be like???- we could actually learn something from them. There is a famous philosopher T. Nagel who wrote an important essay about what it might be like to be a bat- with echolocation etc and cited that as an example of an experience humans never will have naturally- though of course we have ultrasounds etc- but not integrated into our experience. His point was that the more experiences available to us the more "objective" our perceptions become. Like a blind person experiencing color for the first time- I cannot imagine what that would be like- but "new" colors not even visible in our spectrum?? WOW! I wanna see radio waves and gamma rays. !!! I guess we will have to wait to see those! I want to watch radio!! Like I try to say with changed...could we agree that humans have the capacity to do more with less?
Calm Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: But I could see how math evolved from music, the swaying rhythm and drumbeat of our mother's heart in remembrance of the warm dark sleepy place within. There is a certain intuitive wisdom for me in Tolkien's The Silmarillion that has creation come about through creatures joining with the Creator in harmonic voice. Music, math, creation....music of the spheres. I only wish music came to me as easily as math. Ah well, something to keep me enjoying progression in the eternities. For those not familiar with it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainulindalë Quote "Ainulindalë" recounts the creation of Arda by the deity Eru Ilúvatar. The story begins with a description of the Ainur as "children of Ilúvatar's thought". They are taught the art of music, which becomes the subject of their immortal lives. The Ainur sing alone or in small groups about themes given to each of them by Ilúvatar, who proposes a "great" plan for them all: a collaborative symphony where they would sing together in harmony. Although the Ainur embody Ilúvatar's thoughts, they are expected to use their freedom to assist the development of the "great" plan Edited January 16, 2019 by Calm
katherine the great Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 20 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Well and then we have male proclivities for males as well... Of course (and females for other females). But those selected genes don't get passed down in those cases.
Recommended Posts