Argument from beauty

[Robert Oz]

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?

[Fnord]

It's all about sex.

[paximperium]

I think it seems to be a learned behavior.
Do people from differing cultures consider beauty the same way?
Is there a universal appreciation of beauty?

[ImaginalDisc]

Argument for God from Beauty is so flawed it doesn't really deserve a rebuttal.

You find X beauteous.

?????

Therefore, God exists.


There's no middle term you can posit which makes that argument make sense.

[Locutus]

If we did not find things beautiful, then evolution would not be doing a very good job. Men find women beautiful because it aids reproduction. There are many other evolutionary reasons why we would find things beautiful, some of them useful in themselves and others misfirings of an evolutionary trait that was intended for something else. I would say that's why we find things beautiful, but your analysis of Richard Dawkin's discussion is flawed. His book is about why there probably is no God. You only have to explain 'how' for that, 'why' is just garnish on the side. And for an argument already explained by previous posters to be fallacious and a non sequitur, it's not really worth devoting the time to in a book that has bigger fish to catch.

[uruk]

It could be an hard wired emotional response to stimuli.
Crying and laughing is something we all do as a species but what we laugh and cry at is sometimes subjective and cultural.

It could be that the "beauty response" is neural chemical response to a visual or auditory stimulus. Certain combinations or sequences of sound frequencies or imagery induce the response.

So what's the evolutionary advantage to the beauty response? I don't know. What is the evolutionary advantage to laughing and crying? What is the evolutionary advantage of creating art? I think it may be an evolutionary accident. Something that popped up randomly but was not detrimental to the species as a whole so it was passed on.

[Robert Oz]

I think it seems to be a learned behavior.
Do people from differing cultures consider beauty the same way?
Is there a universal appreciation of beauty?


I'm comfortable with and agree that beauty may not be universal. That's still not precisely what I was getting at.

The reason it's playing on my mind can probably best be illustrated with some examples:

1. Why do some people find the opposite sex beautiful?
Because it promotes sexual reproduction. If we didn't get aroused by the other sex we wouldn't pass on our genes.

2. Why do some people find the same sex beautiful?
Homosexual behaviour has been observed in many species of animal as a social bonding behaviour. Add to that our tendency to perform sexual acts based on our attraction and arousal for the reason given in the first question, it is understandable that these traits melded into sincere attraction and love for members of the same sex.

The above sort of explanations was more along the lines of what I was looking for.

[Robert Oz]

Argument for God from Beauty is so flawed it doesn't really deserve a rebuttal.

You find X beauteous.

?????

Therefore, God exists.


There's no middle term you can posit which makes that argument make sense.

If we did not find things beautiful, then evolution would not be doing a very good job. Men find women beautiful because it aids reproduction. There are many other evolutionary reasons why we would find things beautiful, some of them useful in themselves and others misfirings of an evolutionary trait that was intended for something else. I would say that's why we find things beautiful, but your analysis of Richard Dawkin's discussion is flawed. His book is about why there probably is no God. You only have to explain 'how' for that, 'why' is just garnish on the side. And for an argument already explained by previous posters to be fallacious and a non sequitur, it's not really worth devoting the time to in a book that has bigger fish to catch.


I totally agree the argument of beauty does absolutely nothing to prove a god. I was hoping Dawkins would have gone into possible evolutionary reasons or evolutionary accidents that may have resulted in our appreciation of art and music, rather than merely saying "art and music would be beautiful with or without a god".

But I also understand that wasn't the purpose of the book. I suppose I just would have found it an interesting read.

[Third Eye Open]

Pattern recognition.

Our brain rewards us for finding patterns. The more complex the pattern the bigger the reward.

[UndercoverElephant]

Is there a universal appreciation of beauty?

Yes.

http://zyzstar.kosoru.com/projects/fractals/images/fractal-02.jpeg

Do not hotlink.

[Robert Oz]

Pattern recognition.

Our brain rewards us for finding patterns. The more complex the pattern the bigger the reward.


Fantastic! That is precisely the type of answer I was after.

[I Ratant]

Tigers are beautiful!
Cozying up to a tiger in the wild is contra-productive!

[Elizabeth I]

Yes.

http://zyzstar.kosoru.com/projects/fractals/images/fractal-02.jpeg

That's scary! It looks like big green mouths.

But I do like fractals.

[Malerin]

Pattern recognition.

Our brain rewards us for finding patterns. The more complex the pattern the bigger the reward.

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.

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.

[arthwollipot]

I personally think that it's a side-effect of humanity's development of civilisation.

Once the focus for humanity moved off mere survival, people were free to pursue other activities, including art.

[Lonewulf]

I personally think that it's a side-effect of humanity's development of civilisation.

Once the focus for humanity moved off mere survival, people were free to pursue other activities, including art.

Er...

Why would that cause us to care about art, or find it appealing, though?

[Robert Oz]

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
?

I wonder what's hanging above your mantel?


That reminds me of the scene in "Good Will Hunting" where the Professor who takes Will Hunting under his wing is trying to woo a student by describing a mathematical theorem like a beautiful symphony.


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.


This may go towards explaining appreciation of the beauty in a painting or sculpture, but what about music? I am still baffled how we can enjoy music.

When my wife and I used to take our dog for a drive somewhere, we would always put "Hotel California" on the radio in the car and as soon as the song started playing, our dog would sit up and rest her head on one of the speakers. Very amusing.

[PixyMisa]

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
?

No, but 1,1,2,3,5,8,13... Now there you've got something.

[Third Eye Open]

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

(picture)
?

I wonder what's hanging above your mantel?



2,4,6,8,10,12 is not a very complex pattern now is it?

I find it amazing that even though I only wrote two sentences you still managed to misunderstand them. You sure are a pro, malerin.

[arthwollipot]

Er...

Why would that cause us to care about art, or find it appealing, though?No idea. Probably an offshoot of the way we have evolved to be social. Art and music probably enhance or supplement social bonds in some way or another.

[Aitch]

I have a feeling (YMMV) that appreciation of art/music/whatever is an accidental aspect of abilities developed for survival (in its widest possible meaning). For example, some sounds in music touch off the same neurons that are linked to sounds in the environment that are signs of something good. Aspects of paintings remind us of good things - good environments or curves that are womanly. If you see what I mean.

[arthwollipot]

...curves that are womanly...Oh, I see what you mean. Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more. :D

[Cavemonster]

I think a part of it is the visual equivalent of candy (stick with me for a second)

We have a whole bunch of dispositions to enjoy things that are rare or limited in nature, but beneficial to our survival. We crave sweetness and fat because there is an evolutionary advantage, and at this point in history, we have enough surplus and control over our environment to create pure indulgences of these instincts, hence candy, ice cream etc.

Art tends to bring together a bunch of things that activate our reward centers. Somebody mentioned pattern recognition. Your brain rewards you by making you feel good when you figure something out, even if you have help. This is what happens at the end of a joke.

[HansMustermann]

Er...

Why would that cause us to care about art, or find it appealing, though?

There are several reasons to care about art, without it even being about art itself.

1. What's represented in that picture or sculpture.

As a trivial and silly example, take porn (or the many nude paintings and sculptures which once served as softcore porn and now pass for fine art.) You're not programmed in any way to like porn as such. It's just that your brain can decode the scene in that picture just as well and figure out "mmm, naked woman" or "mmm, people having sex" and that idea triggers your own reproduction pathways.

Same idea for other subjects. There are symbols like food, a tranquil family scene, etc, which remind you of your own needs. Not because it's art, but because your brain decodes the represented scene just as well.

2. As a learned social behaviour. We're social creatures, and we learn to act in whatever ways we think will get us accepted in a certain group.

If that group happens to be audiophiles, we learn to rant about the subtle sound qualities when playing MP3's over an audiophile-grade network cable or off a good hard drive. (Both absurd, but I've actually seen people argue that bass sounds fuller off brand X of hard drive.) If that group happens to be lovers of classic music, we learn to rant and rave about the feelings evoked by a Tschaikowski or Mozart, and if that group happens to be the local high-school hip-hoppers, we do the same about Eminem. Etc.

But equally it could be about belonging to the local Linux User Group or to Slashdot. And I could swear that some people bleat against MS or repeat some memes like a parrot, not because they've actually got any objective reason for either, but just because they got the idea that that's how you show you belong to a nerd group.

To give an extreme example again: think The Emperor's New Clothes. It's not a fairy tale, it's an insightful observation of group psychology.

In a nutshell, this latter effect isn't even about art or about any particular behaviour, it's about being social and fitting in a group. It's just a group survival strategy. We want to be in a group, and from there we invent our own means of defining the group and of showing we belong there.

[Lonewulf]

There are several reasons to care about art, without it even being about art itself.I'm well aware. I was just criticizing Arthwollipot's explanation, that didn't seem to answer the OP's question. His argument is good for explaining why people are able to focus on Art, but not why they would even spend their time doing so.

While I'm able to accept that different cultures find different forms of art appealing, I do personally think that there are some things that are more or less universal in appeal of certain forms of artwork... and some things that cause almost universal disgust (see modern art). ;)

[I Ratant]

I personally think that it's a side-effect of humanity's development of civilisation.

Once the focus for humanity moved off mere survival, people were free to pursue other activities, including art.
.
And the swifties that invented religion, with all that spare time not being spent on hunting/gathering, fingered out how to make everyone else do it for them!

[arthwollipot]

I'm well aware. I was just criticizing Arthwollipot's explanation, that didn't seem to answer the OP's question. His argument is good for explaining why people are able to focus on Art, but not why they would even spend their time doing so.A completely valid criticism, I might add.

[MattusMaximus]

I take a different view on questions like these... because why should our egocentric notions of what we consider to be beautiful matter at all (in the context of science)?

Why would the universe conform itself to our notions of beauty? Or, for that matter, ugliness?

[Robert Oz]

I take a different view on questions like these... because why should our egocentric notions of what we consider to be beautiful matter at all (in the context of science)?

Why would the universe conform itself to our notions of beauty? Or, for that matter, ugliness?


Again, I'm not overly concerned with the concept of universal beauty and tend to agree that there is no reason to think there is such a thing.

I'm purely concerned with the reason for our ability and tendency to find anything outside of other human beings beautiful (e.g. abstract art, music, poetry, etc).

The posts so far have been great, by the way. :)

[arthwollipot]

I take a different view on questions like these... because why should our egocentric notions of what we consider to be beautiful matter at all (in the context of science)?

Why would the universe conform itself to our notions of beauty? Or, for that matter, ugliness?Because our notions of beauty have evolved with the universe as a reference point. The universe doesn't conform itself to our notions of beauty, our notions of beauty conform themselves to the universe.

[lupus_in_fabula]

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?


While art is not necessarily equivalent to that of appreciating beauty, Ramachandran has proposed 10 universal laws of art:



Peak shift
Grouping
Contrast
Isolation
Perception problem solving
Symmetry
Abhorrence of coincidence/generic viewpoint
Repetition, rhythm and orderliness
Balance
Metaphor


If you're interested, you can listen to his lecture through BBC's site here: Lecture 3: The Artful Brain (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecture3.shtml). The transcript is also available on the same site (including some explanatory pictures).

For video... here's a few worth considering: Ramachandran: Neurology & Art (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4384015941059041392&ei=ocHuSbiTOJej-AaWqMnDCw&q=ramachandran&dur=3) (1:29:29). Here's a slightly shorter lecture focusing on Hindu art: Aesthetic Universals and the Neurology of Hindu Art (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZTvHqM-_jE) (1:07:43).

[Lonewulf]

Because our notions of beauty have evolved with the universe as a reference point. The universe doesn't conform itself to our notions of beauty, our notions of beauty conform themselves to the universe.

Yet, ironically, in the context of at least the U.S. society, modern ideas of the "perfect woman" are either physically improbable to downright unhealthy...

Just look at Barbie (the older version), and the women that want to be like her.

[MattusMaximus]

Because our notions of beauty have evolved with the universe as a reference point. The universe doesn't conform itself to our notions of beauty, our notions of beauty conform themselves to the universe.

Well said, Arth.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's all about sex.

Yup.

I've just done a book club meeting on Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis and I can just imagine a chapter that ends with a sentence something like, "Evolutionary biology shows that our appreciation of beauty is exactly what we would expect it to be if God didn't exist."

[Cavemonster]

And a lot of the most universally "Beautiful" things are clear evolutionary benefits.

A green and lush landscape (likely edible vegetation and the animals it draws) Clear drinkable water. If a primitive human saw this from a distance, it would be smart to go there, seeing it up close, it would be wise to stay there.

A potential mate with all the signs of health and fertility.

These subjects feature pretty widely in art from all over.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I can think of a decent rebuttal to the argument from beauty.

The next time you are confronted with this, respond "Homer's poetry is beautiful. Greek and Roman art is beautiful. The best works of art that have ever been made. Greek and Roman architecture is beautiful. All of it was done in the name of Zeus and in tribute to him and his daddy and mommy and little brothers and sisters and his wife and girlfriends and sons and daughters and the other gods and whatever-the-heck they were that people once believed in. Does this mean that Zeus and his dysfunctional family exist? Were the stars made when Zeus put them up in tribute to fallen warriors? Are seastorms Zeus' brother getting angry? Were all humans created by Zeus' uncle from clay? Is the cause of all of the evil in the world that a woman you never knew opened a box, punishing you and everyone who will ever live with death, poverty and disease? You must think so, since you find the temples the pagan Gods were worshipped in and the art and poetry created for them beautiful."

[HansMustermann]

Yet, ironically, in the context of at least the U.S. society, modern ideas of the "perfect woman" are either physically improbable to downright unhealthy...

Just look at Barbie (the older version), and the women that want to be like her.

That's a different aspect. The short story is that it boils down to the same phenomenon that gave us conspicuous consumption. More to the point:

A) rarity.

A lot of people choose a GF or BF more for bragging rights value than for actually liking that person, or planning to get along with that person or to be happy together. And something that's a biological improbability is sorta like owning a two-headed horse. It may be impractical and useless, but it's rare so it must be worth something.

And a lot of people try to be that prize BF or GF.

B) a peculiar culture which emphasises, basically "look at me! I'm well off enough to not have to work much, if at all!"

We've historically had various fads like being fashionable to be very pale: shows that you don't have to work outside, hence you must be aristocracy. We had corsets which essentially cripple their wearer, but boy do they show she can wear one because she doesn't have to do any physical work. We still have suits which basically just say "look at me, I can wear this because I don't do more than polish a chair with my butt all day." Etc.

And Barbie seems to me born out of the same mentality. It's the image a woman who doesn't have to do more than look fashionable all day, and can have a body shape that doesn't include much muscle or the reserves to get between meals while doing more than carrying a purse around.

[Lonewulf]

I take a different view on questions like these... because why should our egocentric notions of what we consider to be beautiful matter at all (in the context of science)?

Why would the universe conform itself to our notions of beauty? Or, for that matter, ugliness?

I believe that there's a certain philosophical concept that has to do with the "wisdom of disgust". Some things we find disgusting that we have good reason to. For instance, can anyone say that mold on their bread is "pretty"? I don't think of mold as being attractive; even those that like to see things rot, don't do it because they see it as being beautiful or attractive (though I'm sure there are exceptions in this case, I'm pretty sure they're much in the minority).

There's a reason why; mold can harm us.

Of course, mold cannot harm the universe, so that doesn't go against what you're saying. But not all views of beauty vs. ugliness are necessarily arbitrary.

[HansMustermann]

On the other hand mold on or in cheese is good. Of course, it's penicilinum.

[Lonewulf]

On the other hand mold on or in cheese is good. Of course, it's penicilinum.
Good to ingest? Would you eat that mold without any problems?

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

But yes, your argument is good for stating that disgusting things can potentially do us some good in ways that we didn't think of before.

But there's often a reason why they were disgusting in the first place.

[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 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 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hildegard-Von-Bingen-000-Virgins/dp/B0000007FU/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1240836854&sr=1-11), which is extremely beautiful (IMHO :D), 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 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.

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.